A quick copyright question

[rgrebby]

So for example, I set up lights, took some photos for myself, then I set up the other persons camera totally and let them take a bunch. Them using pretty much all the same poses and angles.

Would they have the right to call themselves the photographer and have ownership of the images?

 

[HybridUK]

As far as i'm aware, yes. If it's their camera they take the image with i can't see why not.

I've had a few people like that before and yes it becomes very annoying.

 

[rgrebby]

oh yeah, and I also edited all their pictures too...

 

[Yv]

Context is perhaps important here. Were you officially teaching them, employing them, or just offering friendly help?

 

[rgrebby]

In this example, I offered my help to do photos for their degree and as an extra night they would have used some of my own photos in their show.

 

[kevtd]

what exactly do you mean by 'offered to do photos for their degree'

just asking as it could be taking different ways

 

[rgrebby]

what exactly do you mean by 'offered to do photos for their degree'

just asking as it could be taking different ways

Sorry, they asked if I could help and I said I can give you some pointers, although it turned out to be more pointers than I expected. Since they are a friend of a friend then I wasnt able to say no.

Ant their degree is in fashion so they needed photos to show the outfits.

 

[Col]

You offered the help, they accepted it and used their own camera for some. The edit does not count as you must have offered without quote. Therefore the "copyright" would be who took the photo.
However it does seem a little mean spirited to make a friendly gesture and then worry about copyright - perhaps this was an educational experience?

 

[Musicman]

I .... let them take a bunch.

That's the important bit.

If you, as a photographer, hired a stylist, a lighting designer, a photographer's assistant, someone else to do the post-processing (or developing and then the printing in ye olden days of film) and a horde of other people, unless there were a contract stating otherwise, you would still be the owner of the copyright if you released the shutter.

In law, none of the others would have a look-in on the copyright of the photograph.

 

[rgrebby]

That's the important bit.

If you, as a photographer, hired a stylist, a lighting designer, a photographer's assistant, someone else to do the post-processing (or developing and then the printing in ye olden days of film) and a horde of other people, unless there were a contract stating otherwise, you would still be the owner of the copyright if you released the shutter.

In law, none of the others would have a look-in on the copyright of the photograph.

However you would have to give credit to those that worked on the shot, no?

The other thing is that she is using photos that I took and people mentioned she should apply to magazines. Now if she uses the ones I took to get a job, isnt that wrong?

 

[Musicman]

However you would have to give credit to those that worked on the shot, no?

Not for any reason of copyright (subject to the usual caveats about contracts).

Under the Berne Convention, the author of a work possesses the moral rights (a specific term with a specific meaning in this context) along with the monopoly of rights to copy the work. One of the moral rights which you may assert is the right of attribution - i.e. a credit.

None of the people that worked on the shot is the author of the photograph. Consequently they cannot assert moral rights to the photograph, which is the work in question.

Obviously, if there is a claim that the photograph is itself derivative of another copyright work (e.g. a photograph of a painting) they they may have their own rights to assert over that work, but not of the photograph. However, it is hard to see how it would be possible to claim copyright of a photographic lighting arrangement.

On a side note, the parts of the Berne Convention relating to moral rights have never been ratified by the United States, so they are not enforceable in US law.

In UK law, however, they are set out in Chapter IV of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The other thing is that she is using photos that I took and people mentioned she should apply to magazines. Now if she uses the ones I took to get a job, isnt that wrong?

In the broader meaning of 'moral right' (outside the context of copyright) then it may well be wrong for reasons of mis-representation. However, that is a matter largely between her and her prospective employer, not between her and you.

 

[Musicman]

Though I suppose it does raise the question of whether her photographs are derivative of yours?

Two photographers taking photographs of the same scene under the same lighting conditions - they're likely to turn out very similar.

Was she actually referring to your images to re-create them or watching what you were doing (such as your directions to the model) and taking her own?

I suspect, in a court case (which is what it would have to come down to at the end of the day) this would be the critical element.

 

[awp]

I wasnt able to say no

go practise - it's not that difficult!

 

[HoppyUK]

oh yeah, and I also edited all their pictures too...

In which case, you own copyright of the edits. Since they are integral to the final image, that final image cannot be reproduced without your permission. Multiple copyright ownership is common.

You don't own rights to the original unedited image though.

However you would have to give credit to those that worked on the shot, no?

No.

 

[Coldeh]

However you would have to give credit to those that worked on the shot, no?

No, she doesn't have to give any form of credit to you. You have modified her works and have been given a license to the copyright, it has not been transferred to you, therefore you do not have the rights granted under copyright law.

The other thing is that she is using photos that I took and people mentioned she should apply to magazines. Now if she uses the ones I took to get a job, isnt that wrong?

Yes it is. If she is using the images that you took (doesn't actually matter who's camera was used, if you were the one who took it) without your permission then she is in breach of copyright as this would be considered showing works to the public.

As for the shots she has taken, then she owns the copyright unless you both authored the works together which you might be able to argue although this would involve taking her to court.

You must get an agreement with her over your work (the ones you've actually taken). As the works would be used for her private study and in relation to her education, using them even without your permission would not be considered copyright infringement. However saying that you grant her the right to use the images to that effect and leaving out rights for any other usage would mean she couldn't put them on the internet and claim they were hers (for example).