Ooh what a picture!

I know Fishing Magic has its share of members with a degree of legal understanding and I?d love one of them to clear up a little matter that is perturbing me

Imagine you join a new, so-called ?friendly? club and on your first visit to the water you make a fantastic catch. Let?s say, for instance that you catch numerous carp to 24lb, barbel into double figures and chub topping 5lb. You?re fishing alone so you get one of your new-found ?friends? to take a few photos using your camera. Not his camera mind, it?s YOUR camera he uses.

Who owns the copyright to these photos?

Do you need express permission from the man who pressed the shutter to send them off to, say, the Angling Times? Or send them to friends? Or to stick them on a web site gallery?

If this lovely man then man rings up the Times and insists on payment if the pictures are used, does he have any right to do so?

Maybe he does own the copyright but is it morally defensible to behave in this way towards fellow anglers?

Could he, indeed, photograph your fish, let you return it and then insist you delete the image from the memory card?

Do people like this really exist?

And how would you describe such a person??

I have no legal training whatsoever, but as a layman I would say that you are the owner and copyright holder of all the material stored on your camera of pictures taken by you or anyone on your behalf. Morally and Ethically I think whoever took(stole?) the pictures and tried to sell them is a S&&&thouse of the first order.
I also think that any magazine attempting to buy the pictures and after you explain to the magazine how the pictures originatied should be sued as I would have thought this would be theft of intellectual property. As I say I know nothing of the legalities, but I personally think that your friend is a deadbeat.

If I understand you right Bob, all you need to do is "alter" the pic a little, then it is not the original, it is then a pic of your own creation;-)
I think your friend may be wrong anyway, because if a couple who are on holiday and ask you to take a pic of them (by the seaside) can't use that pic without your sayso??

I come across copyright questions a lot, especially in painting where people are encouraged to 'copy' a practiced painter's work to gain experience. If you do that then as you sign the work you should always write "After Van Gogh" or whatever. Not that everyone does and Van Gogh is now beyond copyright anyway.

On photographs though. What you snap and create, you own the copyright on - UNLESS you are in someone's employment at the time and you were asked to create it, in which case the employer owns the copyright.

Clearly what has happened here, is you have employed someone to take a picture for you, therefore you still retain the copyright even though no money was exchanged for that person's employment. He accepted the terms to work for nothing at the time and has, as such, relinquished all rights to the artwork (photo) created.

Sadly, many of these copyright law case have yet to be defined in a court, but if someone told me that they'd taken a picture of an angler at the angler's request and with the angler's equipment and as a free service and then later wanted the copyright of those photos, I'd tell him to think twice as he'd probably be on very sticky ground.

Does this help?

"Could he, indeed, photograph your fish, let you return it and then insist you delete the image from the memory card?"

The answer - a definite NO!

"If this lovely man then man rings up the Times and insists on payment if the pictures are used, does he have any right to do so?"

The Times should know this if they are aware of the FULL story and tell him to push off and try another scam.

"Do you need express permission from the man who pressed the shutter to send them off to, say, the Angling Times?"

NO again. He accepted the task without payment when you employed him.



BTW it's the same with work parties for a fishing club. You go along volunteering your labour for nothing to help, the club then become your employer and should be covered with Employer's Liability Insurance.

(now that's thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, I'll bet)

Copyright rests with the person who took the picture.

Yup Chris is right.The person who pressed the button "created" the image so owns the copyright.Not the owner of the equipment or in deed the subject themselves.

So Bob, has this actually happened or is it just a hypothetical question/series of questions?

)
You there Jonny?

Would that be Jonny with the finger?.....

Chris is right, of course. This because it is assumed the photographer was the one who created something, and thus it is his/her intellectual property (of a kind).

The snapper owns the copyright. Furthermore, unless the person with the copyright specifically opts out, the copyright is for one use of the photo one time only, which is why emap were always trying to get us to persuade snappers to sign a new contract.

Does it still apply to the person who sets the timer.....seriously?

Sorry, but I think you'll find you are wrong Chris.

"Some works that we create will not belong to us. For example, some works created on the job may belong to our employer under the "work-made-for-hire" doctrine. If the work is a "work-made-for-hire," then all rights in that work belong to the employer."

In the situation Bob outlined he can legally argue that he was the employer.

So come on then Bob answer Eddie C's question.If it did happen I would love to know what the photo was of to warrent all these goings on?

It could be interesting if it ever came to court.

In my view if it's my camera and I ask you to take a pic then it's my photo and copyright - the person who clicked the
shutter was an assistant acting under my instruction or request.

scenario. 2 men man 'A' and man 'B'. man 'A' asks man 'B' to take a picture of him and his fish which he duly does.Man 'B' then tells man 'A' the next day that he wants payment of the said picture of fish if it is published.
Man 'A' anticipated this .So asks man 'B' to PROVE THAT HE(man B) TOOK THE PICTURE.
Problem solved How can man 'b' prove he has taken the picture he can't.Man 'A' simply says i set the camera on a timer.And that man 'B' is just a chancer.or similar.He would have a hell of a job to prove he took the pic, no camera ,no fish.Nothing to say he was involved in it atall.
God we could all do that ring up the times and say I took that pic not him when someone comes up with a photo of a prized fish, and you know that they were on their own fishing.End of story he's got no chance.toss pot.

if this is right about the person capturing the image owns the image, then waht if you get done by a speed camera

can you argue that you "triggered" the camera and therefore you own the image and so it can not be reproduced to be used in evidence against you?

does that mean my missus doesnt have any rights to the pics i took of her?

You could always put em on here and we will help you decide?

The law says (this was taken from the Freelance Photographers guide):

"As the author of a photograph - that is, the person who creates it - a freelance photographer is the first owner of the copyright. (Under UK law, in the case of employees, the first owner of the copyright in photographs made in the course of their employment is the employer.)"

It seems that strictly legally the guy who pressed the shutter owns the copyright, but I would say that any court where this was contested would say the owner of the camera has the moral copyright to any photographs taken with it, unless there was a formal contract of employment between him and the guy who pressed the shutter.

It would be farcical for it to be any other way as it would mean that there are millions of people around the world who are using pictures they have no right to, being as they asked someone else to press the shutter on their camera.

If I set up a camera on a tripod, using my own photographic skills (such as they are) to compose a scene, and then step into the picture and ask someone to press the shutter button, who created the picture?

Artistically I created the picture; mechanically someone else did.

Do we then share copyright?

See what I mean about farce?

Bob should claim that he set the camera to take the picture on 'automatic', that he set the focal length of the zoom, and that he told the guy where to stand. That way he at least had a hand in 'creating' the photograph and therefore at least shares copyright.

Or keep it simple and tell whoever pressed the shutter to go forth and multiply.

However, if there is a verbal understanding between two friends that one of them owns copyright to any pictures taken with any camera, then that's another story.