# Who's the photographer?



## DrumsOfGrohl (Jan 21, 2016)

This might be a trivial question of semantics, but I was thinking about setting up a photo with myself as the subject.  I know I could use a timer or a cable release, but I think I might have a friend help me out and take the photo. 

If I set the picture up, frame it the way I want, and adjust the exposure, but my friend is the one who actually puts the camera up to her face and takes the photo, can I still claim credit for it? I don't mean legally, as I'm just doing this for fun, social media, etc. 

Can I still say something like "I took this photo yesterday?"

Is it even my photo? 

I guess now that I'm thinking about it, would it legally be my photo? If I were to sell it, would I have to give some or all of the money to her?  Do I have to ask her to allow me to take credit for the photo?

Isn't a photographer "a person who takes photos?"


----------



## sscarmack (Jan 21, 2016)

Yes its your photo with assistance from so and so.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 21, 2016)

Of course rules vary by country, but I thought at least in the US that there was precedent which stated "He (or she) who pushes the button, irrespective of who owns the equipment, owns the copyright"?


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 21, 2016)

Is this just a hypothetical question or are you actually planning to do this?

Are you a world famous celebrity whose photo will likely sell for enormous amounts of money in an art gallery?  If not, then you might be over-thinking things.

If you really are that worried, use a remote release and remove all doubt.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl (Jan 21, 2016)

TCampbell said:


> Is this just a hypothetical question or are you actually planning to do this?
> 
> Are you a world famous celebrity whose photo will likely sell for enormous amounts of money in an art gallery?  If not, then you might be over-thinking things.
> 
> If you really are that worried, use a remote release and remove all doubt.


Just hypothetical.  I AM planning a taking a photo this way, but I'm new to photography and have never sold a photo.  I don't plan on selling this one either. 
I was just curious.


----------



## Designer (Jan 21, 2016)

As I see it, if your friend wants to claim authorship of the photos that she takes, then you either have to fight with her for ownership, or you can just allow her to claim them for herself.  So in my world, it would depend on the mindset of your friend.

Here's an example: Last summer, we took family photos.  I own the camera, the lights and the backdrop.  I set everything up before the family assembled, and made some test shots.  During most of the family groups, I was not included, so I was the one who clicked the shutter.  When it was my turn to be included in the shot, my grandson's GF clicked the shutter.  She merely waited until we were ready, and clicked the shutter.  Later, I processed the entire shoot by myself.  I consider all the shots as my creative property.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl (Jan 21, 2016)

Designer said:


> As I see it, if your friend wants to claim authorship of the photos that she takes, then you either have to fight with her for ownership, or you can just allow her to claim them for herself.  So in my world, it would depend on the mindset of your friend.
> 
> Here's an example: Last summer, we took family photos.  I own the camera, the lights and the backdrop.  I set everything up before the family assembled, and made some test shots.  During most of the family groups, I was not included, so I was the one who clicked the shutter.  When it was my turn to be included in the shot, my grandson's GF clicked the shutter.  She merely waited until we were ready, and clicked the shutter.  Later, I processed the entire shoot by myself.  I consider all the shots as my creative property.


This seems to make the most sense to me.  You don't feel you have any responsibility to even mention the fact that you didn't take the photo? What if you weren't using a tripod, and she had put the camera up to her face to take the photo, but everything else was done by you. Would you have done anything different?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 21, 2016)

Designer said:


> As I see it, if your friend wants to claim authorship of the photos that she takes, then you either have to fight with her for ownership, or you can just allow her to claim them for herself.  So in my world, it would depend on the mindset of your friend.
> 
> Here's an example: Last summer, we took family photos.  I own the camera, the lights and the backdrop.  I set everything up before the family assembled, and made some test shots.  During most of the family groups, I was not included, so I was the one who clicked the shutter.  When it was my turn to be included in the shot, my grandson's GF clicked the shutter.  She merely waited until we were ready, and clicked the shutter.  Later, I processed the entire shoot by myself.  I consider all the shots as my creative property.


 Yes, but does the law agree with you?  I consider that every lottery jackpot should be won by me, but...


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2016)

the person (or monkey) who physically pressed the button shouldn't matter.

what if I spent hundreds of dollars, and lots of man hours setting up a studio shot to capture a ballon popping. Part of the setup invovled an audio trigger, that will engage the shutter when it hears dB levels above a certain threshold.

if we go by "whomever presses the button", who owns the resulting image captured on the sensor?

or what if I travel thousands of miles to photograph monkeys in the wild and a monkey grabs hold of your camera (that would have never existed in this space without you) and happened to trigger the shutter and the resulting image was save worthy.  Does the monkey get to own the copyright to your image because he pressed a button.  Sorry, but no.

I'm sure there's a public toliet bowl metaphor here somewhere.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 21, 2016)

Braineack said:


> the person (or monkey) who physically pressed the button shouldn't matter.
> 
> what if I spent hundreds of dollars, and lots of man hours setting up a studio shot to capture a ballon popping.
> part of the setup invovled an audio trigger, that will engage the shutter when it hears dB levels above a certain threshold.
> ...


 Not arguing, nor disagreeing; rather, I thought that there was a precedent under US law which made the presser of the button the copyright holder irrespective of all else.  I may be wrong...


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2016)

just because something is law, doesnt mean it's right.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 21, 2016)

Braineack said:


> just because something is law, doesnt mean it's right.


 10,000 lawyers might not agree with you!


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2016)

im sure most would  -- it's about winning/losing to them, not if it's right or wrong; but that's besides the point 

If I faclitate the image being created, im the owner.  everything else is just a tool in the process.

giving hading your camera to someone and asking them to take a shot, is no different than using a tripod and remote trigger.

hell we could argue that the camera manufcaturer holds all rights if you use their any priority modes, auto-focus, or metering...


----------



## Designer (Jan 21, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > just because something is law, doesnt mean it's right.
> ...


If one considers how lawyers are "educated", you might not consider their opinion to be worth much.

For the past hundred years or so, students in law school have been drilled and re-drilled on case law, but are almost completely ignorant regarding Natural Law, Common Law, or ordinary history.  And law school graduates are where our judges come from.  Sad but true.  It's no wonder that our judicial system is in utter shambles.


----------



## DrumsOfGrohl (Jan 21, 2016)

Designer said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


I feel like we've taken this off topic.  So now there are 2 questions.  Who is the legal owner of the photo, and who SHOULD get the credit.  

The @Braineack 's  monkey comment is I think more inflammatory than it is relevant.  A monkey doesn't have the same rights as a human.  Even if the monkey put in all the effort and set up the shot and took the picture, it would still not legally belong to the monkey.  

So at what point does the photograph belong to the person who pushed the button? 

What if you set up everything, and then they changed the aperture one stop and then pressed the shutter? What if the camera belongs to them? 

Again, there are 2 questions here: legally, and "morally."


----------



## limr (Jan 21, 2016)

DrumsOfGrohl said:


> I feel like we've taken this off topic.  So now there are 2 questions.  Who is the legal owner of the photo, and who SHOULD get the credit.
> 
> The @Braineack 's  monkey comment is I think more inflammatory than it is relevant.  A monkey doesn't have the same rights as a human.  Even if the monkey put in all the effort and set up the shot and took the picture, it would still not legally belong to the monkey.
> 
> ...



The monkey comment was not inflammatory but just a reference to this story: Monkey Selfie Can't Be Copyrighted, U.S. Regulators Confirm - NBC News

"Slater requested that Wikimedia remove the photo from Wikimedia Commons, a repository of images that are free for the public to use, insisting that he owns the rights to the monkey selfie. Wikimedia refused, saying that the copyright should belong to the person taking the photo, and in this case a person didn’t take the photo."

The human was the one who had the camera set up and the monkey pressed the shutter. Legally, the one who presses the shutter is the one who "took the photo" and thus, owns the copyright. By this reasoning, the monkey owns the copyright, but because only a human can own a copyright, it was ruled that the picture is in the public domain and the human photographer has no rights.

That's the legal perspective. So in your case, your friend would technically own the copyright, unless there were a previous agreement in place (a contract) that transferred the copyright to you automatically, regardless of who pressed the shutter.

Braineack's point addresses the moral, not the legal question.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 21, 2016)

Your friend took the picture, you assisted in setting things up. 

I hand my camera to people, some do pretty good, others are terrible; my wife is better than me so I have her set up the shot and I just push the button to get credit.


----------



## Dao (Jan 21, 2016)

Last time when there was a similar question was asked, someone also point out that the person who press the button has the right.  To a point it even reference to a tourist ask a stranger to take a photo of him/her with his/her own camera and owner (tourist) of the camera is not the person who own that photo right.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 21, 2016)

Food for thought.

If my camera is stolen with my memory card in it, and the thief takes beautiful landscape pictures with it; who owns.....DAMN, never mind.  I have a Canon croppy camera.  It's not capable of beautiful pictures.

Carry on.  As you were.


----------



## weepete (Jan 21, 2016)

draft a contract stating you own the copyright. both you and your assistant sign, problem solved. otherwise yeah, they would own the copyright. 

or think of this example: 

A privatley owned building is lit up at night, you rock up and take a photo using the auto setting on your friends camera. 

Now one could argue that the lighting and building was set up by the property owners, the cameras manufacturer chose the settings and your friend owns the gear but you still retain the copyright


----------



## KmH (Jan 21, 2016)

According to US Copyright Law the person who raised the camera up to their eye, framed the shot, and released the shutter owns the copyright.

As weepete states - a simple document signed by you and whoever tripped the shutter can then transfer the copyright to you. (Copyright Transfer Agreement)
However, it would be unethical for you to claim that you made the photograph.


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 21, 2016)

Makes sense Keith - how about if they just hold the camera and I trigger it with the remote?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 22, 2016)

limr said:


> Braineack's point addresses the moral, not the legal question.



It's addressing both. It reduces not only the "art" of photography, but the legal ownership rights of your own work, to simply the person who pushes a button -- I'm sure the majority here would argue theres more to photography than pressing a button.

I reject the idea that ownership rights carry to the person who happened to click a button and argue that it's unethical to claim a photographer's work is now public domain if no "one" pushed a button.  Siding with or against the current law, and/or interpitation of it, has nothing to do with ethics.


----------



## spiralout462 (Jan 22, 2016)

My wife and I were in the mountains of  Pennsylvania this spring.  I stopped at a scenic overlooked, set the focal length, set the exposure and handed her the camera to shoot out of her window.  *Every* time that picture comes up I give her complete credit and am happy to do so.


----------



## limr (Jan 22, 2016)

Braineack said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack's point addresses the moral, not the legal question.
> ...



The OP asked what the law is, not what the law _should _be, so no, you weren't answering the question but rather arguing the ethics. You can reject it all until the cows come up, but it doesn't change the law that is still on the books.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 22, 2016)

fine!


----------



## beachrat (Jan 22, 2016)

Stop putting monkeys on a pedestal.
They might be able to fly spaceships,but they're lousy photographers.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 22, 2016)

I've had this discussion/argument with photographers for years. I have discussed this with sports photographers that have setup several cameras on  tripods(this was back in the film days) while the photographer that set everything up was off somewhere else shooting he had a grunt pushing the button. The grunt was responsible for the cameras, he had to have his timing correct or he misses the shot, the photos are his, not the guy that set everything up.  If the grunt is too early or too late do you think the photographer is gong to take the blame for a missed shot, without any doubt in my mind, no, it would all be on the shoulders of the grunt.  You can't have both ways and take credit for a remote shot that works and blame someone else for a remote shot that misses.   Personally I find it arrogant to take credit for a remote image when the photographer isn't firing the remotes himself.  

On one occasion the photographer forgot to load one of the remotes, after he left I told the grunt, he was quite happy that I pointed it out, as he would have been the one blamed for it, not the photographer that missed loading one of his cameras.  I never used a remote without me triggering it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 22, 2016)

Braineack said:


> the person (or monkey) who physically pressed the button shouldn't matter.
> 
> what if I spent hundreds of dollars, and lots of man hours setting up a studio shot to capture a ballon popping. Part of the setup invovled an audio trigger, that will engage the shutter when it hears dB levels above a certain threshold.
> 
> ...



Yes the monkey owns the image and should get credit for it.


----------



## mcap1972 (Jan 25, 2016)

I think it is your photo. Taking and miking a photo two different things.


----------



## KmH (Jan 25, 2016)

dennybeall said:


> Makes sense Keith - how about if they just hold the camera and I trigger it with the remote?


Look here - US Copyright Law


----------



## photogeeks1234 (Jan 26, 2016)

DrumsOfGrohl said:


> This might be a trivial question of semantics, but I was thinking about setting up a photo with myself as the subject.  I know I could use a timer or a cable release, but I think I might have a friend help me out and take the photo.
> 
> If I set the picture up, frame it the way I want, and adjust the exposure, but my friend is the one who actually puts the camera up to her face and takes the photo, can I still claim credit for it? I don't mean legally, as I'm just doing this for fun, social media, etc.
> 
> ...


yes you can claim the rights and try to contact him gently ......):


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 27, 2016)

Your equipment, your idea, the other persons participation was serendipitous, and by their volition to accept the task sans any credits or remuneration present or future.  No contract implied.  You win!   Take that to the bank.  They can make the claim, (you can sue on almost any grounds), but they will never win this one.


----------



## footballfan993 (Jan 29, 2016)

Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

footballfan993 said:


> Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.




I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy!   That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore.    Good example of the worst kind of net advice.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> footballfan993 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.
> ...



And what are the holes?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 30, 2016)

I'll go back what I said. If the guy pushing the button misses the picture, he will be held to blame, if he pushed the button at the peak moment and produces a great image, the other guy takes the credit?  Who is responsible for the image?  The guy pushing the button.  You can all go back to "but the camera and remote belong to someone else, so it would be their image" What if the gear is borrowed or rented, does that mean the image belongs to the company that the gear came from?  Using the copyright reason is going to be a grey area at the best of times.  The best way around it all, push the button yourself.


----------



## footballfan993 (Jan 30, 2016)

limr said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > footballfan993 said:
> ...


Yes please, what are the holes? Instead of blatantly stating that I'm completely "wrong". Which as I was taught from a fellow former 20+ year professional photographer, who is now a university professor (who's not a lawyer) is that the person who clicks the shutter, and physically produces the photo on film/memory, owns the copyright to the image. 

But if I'm so wrong, please prove to me where I am wrong.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

footballfan993 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Didereaux said:
> ...




Do  your own LEGAL research.  A professor, or a professional has no standing in a court of law.   There is literally a ton of case law associated with this.   What I stated in my first comment stands.  It is a distillation of case law by a copyright lawyer I respect.   As I/he states  NOTHING exists that cannot be sued.  But most of it would fail.  Just depends upon how much money is willingly risked to pursue the outcome.


----------



## Dao (Jan 30, 2016)

Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 30, 2016)

In his later years as his eye site started to fail Portrait photographer Karsh would have everything set up for him by his assistants, he would then simply push the button.  He was the photographer in that case even though everything was set up for him.  A photographer sets everything up walks away and then someones else pushes the button, why would the guy that set everything up be the owner of the image?


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Dao said:


> Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.



Indeed. I would like citations.


----------



## Dao (Jan 30, 2016)

If I read it correctly regarding the monkey selfie case, the court seems to be already agree on the person who press the button is the copyright owner.  However, in that case, just happened the person who press that button is not a human.  So they argued about if a monkey has the right to own a copyright.

So if my dog accidentally knocks down some paint cans in my house and make a mess.  And just happened one of the floormat has her colorful paw prints all over  which looks spectacular.  In that case who own that art work copyright?


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Dao said:


> If I read it correctly regarding the monkey selfie case, the court seems to be already agree on the person who press the button is the copyright owner.  However, in that case, just happened the person who press that button is not a human.  So they argued about if a monkey has the right to own a copyright.
> 
> So if my dog accidentally knocks down some paint cans in my house and make a mess.  And just happened one of the floormat has her colorful paw prints all over  which looks spectacular.  In that case who own that art work copyright?



Correct. The monkey pressed the shutter and therefore, would own the copyright. The only reason she doesn't is because a non-human cannot own a copyright. Thus, if no one owns it, it's in the public domain. That was Wikipedia's position and the U.S. Copyright Office agreed.

As for your dog's masterpiece  ...
"Last year the US Copyright Office issued an updated compendium of its policies, including a section stipulating that it would register copyrights only for works produced by human beings. It specified that works produced by animals, whether a photo taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant, would not qualify."
Monkey selfie case: judge rules animal cannot own his photo copyright


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

Dao said:


> Would you please give me few examples regarding the case law you mentioned? I am really interested to learn more about them.




Do your own damn research!   How would you tell if I or anyone else told you pure crap.  That is what is wrong with people today.  They are to dammed lazy to do anything.!!!
Do the work, then if you find what I have posted is wrong you can post the proof.  I stated that what I wrote is a compilation of an acquaintances work.  That is second hand, from authority but second hand.  If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> Do your own damn research!   How would you tell if I or anyone else told you pure crap.  That is what is wrong with people today.  They are to dammed lazy to do anything.!!!
> Do the work, then if you find what I have posted is wrong you can post the proof.  I stated that what I wrote is a compilation of an acquaintances work.  That is second hand, from authority but second hand.  *If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.*



You disagreed with this post:



footballfan993 said:


> Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.





Didereaux said:


> I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy!   That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore.    Good example of the worst kind of net advice.



Do you, then, have no responsibility to follow your own advice and "dig up proof of your stance"? Other, of course, than saying that you are just repeating what someone else said?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 30, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> ...If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.


Not if I don't care.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 30, 2016)

IBL


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > ...If you disagree with me or anyone it is YOUR responsibility to dig up any proof of your stance.
> ...


lol  That's a 3 pointer!


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

limr said:


> Didereaux said:
> 
> 
> > Do your own damn research!   How would you tell if I or anyone else told you pure crap.  That is what is wrong with people today.  They are to dammed lazy to do anything.!!!
> ...




No, what I didn't specify is that someone making an ASSERTION is not bound to providing supporting evidence.  Not a good move in debating if you expect to win, but the point is that the one making the assertion doesn't have the onus of providing proof.  However, it is long standing that the antagonist must do so if they challenge the assertion.  There is good foundation for that too.  If an assertion goes unchallenged it must be accepted.  If it is challenged with proof the assertion is tossed.  So really nothing more than a pragmatic approach to argument.  all of that more or less depending on circumstance etc.  I guess where this veered of track was that the only legitimately true statement concerning copyright law is that no matter what todays' ruling is it can, and probably will be, challenged tomorrow and probably overturned.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

imagemaker46 said:


> I'll go back what I said. If the guy pushing the button misses the picture, he will be held to blame, if he pushed the button at the peak moment and produces a great image, the other guy takes the credit?  Who is responsible for the image?  The guy pushing the button.  You can all go back to "but the camera and remote belong to someone else, so it would be their image" What if the gear is borrowed or rented, does that mean the image belongs to the company that the gear came from?  Using the copyright reason is going to be a grey area at the best of times.  The best way around it all, push the button yourself.


"What if the gear is borrowed or rented, does that mean the image belongs to the company that the gear came from?"
Bad example.  Borrowed or rented, legal possession/responsibility is transferred.  Think rental car.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Assertion:


footballfan993 said:


> Here's the thing, The person who physically pushed the shutter button, that takes the photo is the one that owns the copyright. So in this case, your friend would own the copyright. which if you use the photo, he could press charges against you for copyright violation. (Although this is unlikely because he is your friend). If you want to own the all the copyright to the photo, you can note so with a contract in which they forfeit copyright ownership to you.



You challenged that assertion:


Didereaux said:


> I urge any concerned or interested parties concerning photo copyrights to PLEASE do yourself a favor and DO NOT listen to this guy!   That statement is so full of holes and so torn to shreds in the courts as not even usable as a joke anymore.    Good example of the worst kind of net advice.





Didereaux said:


> No, what I didn't specify is that someone making an ASSERTION is not bound to providing supporting evidence.  Not a good move in debating if you expect to win, but the point is that the one making the assertion doesn't have the onus of providing proof.  *However, it is long standing that the antagonist must do so if they challenge the assertion. * There is good foundation for that too.  If an assertion goes unchallenged it must be accepted.  *If it is challenged with proof the assertion is tossed. * So really nothing more than a pragmatic approach to argument.  all of that more or less depending on circumstance etc.  I guess where this veered of track was that the only legitimately true statement concerning copyright law is that no matter what todays' ruling is it can, and probably will be, challenged tomorrow and probably overturned.



You were asked to elaborate, but never did beyond saying that you know an authority.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 30, 2016)

Folks, it doesn't matter a whit whether I or anyone else that reads this thread can post a truckload of 'evidence' or proof.  The fact remains, and it has always been clear, that this is a LEGAL issue, and no one has come forward as an attorney and commented.  No smart one would.  The courts decide, and no decision of any court can be chiseled into some granite block and presented on some mountaintop is the desert to last for all time.     This thread has become meaningless.   Many who are in this I have seen often enough point out that some photo or other is bad or good, and someone els argue the opposite....until someone in control of their faculties points out that it is ALL opinion!  Subject to the beholder.    For art and such that is all well and good and you can actually learn things from such debates, but to do so on legal issues and to argue them is dangerous and deep waters.   Lawyers bite, and courts swallow.


----------



## footballfan993 (Jan 30, 2016)

You all want proof? 

Here are several articles relating to copyright, that I have gotten from credible sources such as the PPA.

Understanding Photographic Copyright | PPA

And an attorney See quote below: Photography and Copyright Law



> Q: Who owns the copyright in a photograph once it is taken?
> 
> In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category. A work-made-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to take photographs for the employer—an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper but not a wedding or portrait photographer who is hired for one event; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.



And from the government office on copyright:

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 2


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

Didereaux said:


> Folks, it doesn't matter a whit whether I or anyone else that reads this thread can post a truckload of 'evidence' or proof.  The fact remains, and it has always been clear, that this is a LEGAL issue, and no one has come forward as an attorney and commented.  No smart one would.  The courts decide, and no decision of any court can be chiseled into some granite block and presented on some mountaintop is the desert to last for all time.     This thread has become meaningless.   Many who are in this I have seen often enough point out that some photo or other is bad or good, and someone els argue the opposite....until someone in control of their faculties points out that it is ALL opinion!  Subject to the beholder.    For art and such that is all well and good and you can actually learn things from such debates, but to do so on legal issues and to argue them is dangerous and deep waters.   Lawyers bite, and courts swallow.



Um...what? So federal copyright law is meaningless?

No one has commented on the legal issue?

The part you were right about was that we are not attorneys. If anyone has ever paid attention to KmH's posts, however, it's clear he knows a shi$t ton about copyright law. And in the interest of full disclosure, though my practical experience was not in IP, it _was_ a subject that was included in my paralegal training.



limr said:


> DrumsOfGrohl said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like we've taken this off topic.  So now there are 2 questions.  Who is the legal owner of the photo, and who SHOULD get the credit.
> ...





KmH said:


> According to US Copyright Law the person who raised the camera up to their eye, framed the shot, and released the shutter owns the copyright.
> 
> As weepete states - a simple document signed by you and whoever tripped the shutter can then transfer the copyright to you. (Copyright Transfer Agreement)
> However, it would be unethical for you to claim that you made the photograph.





KmH said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > Makes sense Keith - how about if they just hold the camera and I trigger it with the remote?
> ...


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

footballfan993 said:


> You all want proof?
> 
> Here are several articles relating to copyright, that I have gotten from credible sources such as the PPA.
> 
> ...



Another one (from a website of an IP attorney who specializes in photography cases):

Q&A – Who Owns the Copyright? – Updated | Photo Attorney
_*"Q. *If I hand my camera to another person to shoot a few frames, who owns the copyright for the images?
*A. *Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form.  The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Unless the photo is awork made for hire, then the other person – not you – owns the copyright.  However, depending on the circumstances, you likely have an implied license to use the photograph for personal uses.  For example, if you ask someone to take a shot of your family on vacation, you could do things such as print the photo for display in your home, post the photo on your personal Facebook page, or share the photo via email with friends or family.  But you probably wouldn’t have the right to enter the photo into a contest or license it for commercial  purposes."_


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 30, 2016)

All legal bull aside, I have run this past several professional sports photographers that have covered more events than all the posters on this thread combined. The image is a shared image between the photographer that set it up and the person that pushed the button.

So many subjects posted on this forum are answered by people that have never been, or never will be in these situations.  They can toss out all the read knowledge they know, and that is their opinion, I respect the opinions of other people.


----------



## limr (Jan 30, 2016)

imagemaker46 said:


> All legal bull aside, I have run this past several professional sports photographers that have covered more events than all the posters on this thread combined. *The image is a shared image between the photographer that set it up and the person that pushed the button.*
> 
> So many subjects posted on this forum are answered by people that have never been, or never will be in these situations.  They can toss out all the read knowledge they know, and that is their opinion, I respect the opinions of other people.



This doesn't contradict anything that's been said about the legality of it. I think it was weepete who mentioned an agreement before any work is created, and it sounds like in the situations you've mentioned, there's already an implied (or even explicit) agreement.

Q&A – Who Owns the Copyright? – Updated | Photo Attorney
_"In general, when the shutter on a camera is tripped to make a photo, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. In the situation here, did you and the person who fired the shutter have the knowledge and intention that each of your contributions would be merged as an inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole (i.e., the photo)?  Did you collaborate with the other to make the shot?  Did the person who tripped the shutter contribute copyrightable expression?  Maybe not here.  But do you want to have to litigate this?  Read more about this in my June 17, 2005 blog."_

And from the June 17, 2005 blog:
Photo Attorney: Joint Copyright Issues - When You Work With Someone Else
_"Instead, for a photograph's copyright to be jointly held with someone other than the photographer, both the photographer and the contributors must have intended at the time the photograph was made to be joint authors. Specifically, the Copyright Act of 1976 states that a joint work is "a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or inter-dependent parts of a unitary whole." This question is important because when you share the copyright of a photograph with others, you have to agree on how it is to be exploited or licensed, and you must share the profits.

Regardless of the law, though, a contributor to your photograph still may make a claim for joint copyright ownership of it. While you should be able to thwart those efforts, it can cost you time and money and create ill will. So be sure that any documentation that you are required to sign for a job clearly gives you sole ownership of the copyright. And when you hire assistants for your shoot or for Photoshop editing, put it in writing with your assistant that you retain sole ownership of the copyrights regardless of the work performed."_


----------

