Image ownership & credit

[Cacia]

we don’t push issues like that. I suggest that’s likely the best way to deal with it.

sounds good to me.

 

[Warren_L]

I'm the same way. Fortunately my dive buddies are all close friends so it's not an issue. And when I hand off my camera it's only so they can get a pic or two of me, which is hardly worth anything to anyone other than me. But if they were to shoot a great photo they wanted to enter in a contest or sell then I'd give them the file and say good for you.

That's typically the same way for me. I generally don't hand off my camera to someone unless it's someone I know and can trust with their dive skills and camera abilities to be able to handle my rig. On occasion when I've dove with buddies I'm not familiar with, they're not going to ask me to use my camera anyway.

I've been thinking about this issue for quite some time, though. The specific situation that got me thinking about this was a series of photos I took last September on a wreck dive here at home. The lens, strobe and camera settings I chose were perfect for the conditions, and I took some pretty decent, clean shots. I had an article published recently in the last issue of Advanced Diver Mag in the fall of 2006 and I submitted a bunch of photos to use from that day, but decided to remove those few I had my buddy take of me because of this issue.

During the dive, I shot a series of pictures of my buddy against the backdrop of the wreck. We then switched places and he took some of me. Same framing, same settings, and not surprisingly, the pictures came out very similarly. As it turns out, the one I took of this series was selected for the front page of the article. I showed my buddy the article and he commented that the picture could just have easily had been the one he took of me.

We didn't get into the details of who would have had rights and credits if I had used the one he took. But I did consciously leave those ones out.

 

[OHGoDive]

Here's another scenario: creating an image for possible future uses -whether prearranged or on the spot on the dive decided, I hand off my camera to have someone pull the shutter for me. I have set up everything for the shot...I'm using a human as my remote control shutter release only. Who then?

Again, I think copyright protection is pretty clear, at least if photos are the same as any other published work. If multiple parties create (and I am fairly certain that pushing the shutter would be considered part of the creation process, as opposed to say, copying the image off of the media to a computer for you) the final product, regardless of how much each contributed to the final product, they all have full copyright protection of the final product. In lieu of any other agreement. Not only that, but I believe that they each can make and profit from any derivative works based on the original piece.

It's probably rarely an issue, but, if you think it could ever be, it's probably best to agree on it before you hand your camera to someone else.

If it ever came to a battle, it would probably hinge on whether or not a court perceived looking through the viewfinder and pushing the shutter was part of the creation of the image. I think you'd have a hard time convincing someone it wasn't, but you never know.

 

[hvulin]

Some more questions...

If the fish is in the frame then she should have a right to say something! You may be the artist but there wouldn't be any art if the fish swims away...

Why does the "artist" have any more rights than the unknowing model?

If I own a memory card, do I own bits and bytes that make the picture on the card? Current european law is vague but implies that I own the card but not the content... (we have to pay a tax for "potential pirating" every time we buy any media - so, I buy media but not what may be on it...)

I just do as I like....

 

[bladephotog]

"Why does the "artist" have any more rights than the unknowing model?"

In the US it depends on the situation and on the model. For editorial purposes if someone is photographed in public then they have fewer rights than if it's used for commercial purposes. And good luck trying to sell a photo of someone who makes their living off of their image - a famous actor, model, sports figure, etc.

In my line of work it's getting much tougher to cover certain events. Some organizations try to make you sign away your rights just to cover them - American Idol singers come to mind. Pro sports organizations are very aggressive in making sure anything you shoot at their games isn't being resold.

I don't know about Croatia, but here you own the memory card and what's on it, assuming you created the content on the card.

 

[hvulin]

if I copy a picture on your card from .jpg to .dat, will it be the same content and who will be the author?

visual representation will be different enough (esp. on windows) to say it's something complletly different... if you ask windows who is the author of the file you'll see my name...

I know that law interprets it differently but laws do change...

 

[Thalassamania]

if I copy a picture on your card from .jpg to .dat, will it be the same content and who will be the author?

Whomever was the artist.

visual representation will be different enough (esp. on windows) to say it's something complletly different... if you ask windows who is the author of the file you'll see my name...

The law is there to protect the artist's right to his or her property.

 

[H2Andy]

a quick spin through intellectual property:

intellectual property belongs to the AUTHOR of a work (i.e. an image) and is protected by copyright (i.e. the right to prevent others from copying that work).

when someone takes a picture, he or she is the author despite whose camera they are using. the owner of the camera has no right to copy the author's work without the author's permission.

however, these rights can be modified by contract. for example, newspapers or t.v. stations may share the copyright of the image by contract, or they may outright take over the copyright. it just depends on what the author agreed to when he/she took the job.

generally speaking, and absent a contract to the contrary, the owner of the copyright over the work belongs to the author of the work, i.e. the person who created the work.

please contact an attorney qualified to practice in your area and familiar with intellectual property issues

 

[OHGoDive]

when someone takes a picture, he or she is the author despite whose camera they are using.

But the OP muddied this up a bit. If someone configures the camera and then hands it off to another someone to actually snap the shutter (or frame and then snap), then what?

If you simply lend me your camera and I take a bunch of images with it, then I am the author. Clearly.

But, in the OP's case, it seems as if both have contributed to creating the image. So, they both have rights. I think. Don't they?

 

[H2Andy]

But the OP muddied this up a bit. If someone configures the camera and then hands it off to another someone to actually snap the shutter (or frame and then snap), then what?

this is the kind of stuff that only happens in law school finals



without any legal precedent of any kind that i am aware of, i would argue that whoever looks through the viewfinder and snaps the picture is the author

unless, of course, they agree to split authorship rights ahead of time

if you don't want someone else to own a picture, don't hand them the camera to snap the picture