multiple images, one with restrictions

Ltdave wrote in post #14959918
No Dan you have it right...

I go to take a portrait. I set the rebel ti the "portrait" setting (wont/don't, have 7d)...

Press shutter release and the camera fires three images. two of the images catch subject mid-blink ...

As with many such judgements it would depend on the exact situation of each case.

1. In the exact above example they would probably be deemed different images. Look at the camera/look away from the camera - you have a totally different interaction/emotion. Change the smile on the Mona Lisa's face and most art critics would say you have a totally different image. Of course in your specific example would you really have any use for an image of someone blinking - wouldn't that go straight in the trash?
2. If you shot three images and all were the same (no blinking) then, as per my first post, the law would deem them to be the same image for copyright purposes. Plus, regardless of the law, someone with an exclusive right to the image would almost certainly deem an attempt to sell the other copies as an act of bad faith and want to take appropriate action.
3. You get one great shot and two funny out-take shots because the subject sneezes or something. The out-takes would be considered different and thus separate for the purpose of copyright.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #14959445
Maybe I am misinterpreting the OP but that is certainly how I read the OP. "firing off 3 or 4 shots" (and in fact th e whole question) implies that these are basically the same image captured multiple times rather than multiple different images.

If you made 3 photos in sequence photo is really ALMOST same, yet it's still different photo. If things are moving you will see this difference even more. So photo taken 1/1000s later is different then previous one, and it hold its own (copy)rights, which are not influenced by rights of prevoius photo.

I think if the entity wanted exclusive use of what you shot (say you were the only person who got pics of a noteworthy event) the contract would be a bit longer than what was quoted in the original post. The way I read the sample wording provided, they would want the use of that image without having to worry about anything.

It's not actual wording from a specific contract, so this is all somewhat speculative.