# who took the picture?



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

so I set up a tripod and push my shutter with the timer.  Did I take the picture?

I shoot a test shot, change the settings, and hand the camera to a friend who will now take the picture instead of me using a tripod and a timer.  Who took the picture?

Am I allowed to post that picture in this forum?


----------



## loki05 (Jan 5, 2010)

last person looking through the viewfinder took the shot (unless on tripod w/remote)


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

The actual wording is:

"You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated."

"Copyright" being the operative word.  In your case, you were given the images so... I think that you were within your rights, but I'm not a Mod so my opinion don't count...


----------



## Sam6644 (Jan 5, 2010)

or, just tell everyone it was on a tripod and not worry about it. This aint Time Magazine.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> or, just tell everyone it was on a tripod and not worry about it. This aint Time Magazine.


No, not Time magazine, but a little personal integrity is still nice.  In Robert's case, integrity isn't the issue in my book.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> so I set up a tripod and push my shutter with the timer.  Did I take the picture?



Yes.



> I shoot a test shot, change the settings, and hand the camera to a friend who will now take the picture instead of me using a tripod and a timer.  Who took the picture?



Your friend.



> Am I allowed to post that picture in this forum?



Is it ok with your friend?  

Really there is a thing where you cross the line and blatantly steal someone else's work and pass it off as your own, or blatantly pull explicitly copyrighted work and post it here.  I just don't think that what you're asking falls into either category here.  I think you'd be fine to post it if your friend does not have an issue with it, and I'm sure he/she doesn't.  After all, it was your camera


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Pugs said:


> The actual wording is:
> 
> "You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated."
> 
> "Copyright" being the operative word.  In your case, you were given the images so... I think that you were within your rights, but I'm not a Mod so my opinion don't count...



interesting.  I do have the exclusive copyright, since I bought her pizza for taking the pictures, did all of the post processing, and host them on my flickr, which says explicitly that I own all rights to the images.

People on this site can be such a-holes sometimes.

Others are great though.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Also, our opinions count more than the mods, since, without us, only the mods would be here, and that would get pretty boring.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> > The actual wording is:
> ...


Robert,

I understand that you're worked up and P.O.'d... but calling someone names, doesn't really serve your cause any.  Taking it up politely over PM with the Mod in question might be a better approach.  

And, what kind of pizza was it.  If it was some Dominoes sh!t, then shame on you for ripping her off!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Pugs said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > Pugs said:
> ...



I'm not calling names, I'm just stating that when you roll around the forum looking for threads to report, it's kind of jerky.

and it was papa johns.  I'm glad you asked.  I don't want to look cheap.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> <snip>
> 
> and it was papa johns.  I'm glad you asked.  I don't want to look cheap.



Papa John's is definitely acceptable payment!  So's Papa Murphy's.  I've gladly accepted both as remuneration.  Currently, I'm waiting for a buddy to fork over the sausage, pesto, and spinach stuffed pizza from Carmen's Pizzeria in Chicago that he owes me.  You know you've hit the big time when Chicago-style stuffed pizza is your salary!  :lmao:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

That just leaves one question.


where
in the 
world 
is 
Carmen's Pizzeria




I hope that reads as I intended it.


----------



## Battou (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> That just leaves one question.
> 
> 
> where
> ...



1014 Church Street, Evanston, IL
(847) 328-0031&#8206;











robertwsimpson said:


> I hope that reads as I intended it.


I read it right but I have to be a smartass.


----------



## Felix0890 (Jan 5, 2010)

In my opinion, you took the picture in both situations.  Why? You said that you were the one that set the camera up with the proper exposure settings.  You (I'm assuming) told him where to stand and when to take the picture if necessary.  He just followed your instructions and pressed a button. If we're talking about you taking a shot that nets you some serious money, start worrying the legalities.  For a forum post though, I don't see how you would get trouble from the mods or your friend.

Edit: He = She and Him = Her. 

Also, I always pay in Papa Johns as well.  I work there so I get a 50% discount.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

There's one on Church and Maple in Evanston (just North of Chicago) and another on Sheridan Rd near the Loyola campus in Rogers Park (in Chicago).  :lmao:


----------



## Pugs (Jan 5, 2010)

Battou said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > That just leaves one question.
> ...


Dangit!  Battou's too quick!


----------



## Battou (Jan 5, 2010)




----------



## AUZambo (Jan 5, 2010)

Who's on first?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Felix0890 said:


> In my opinion, you took the picture in both situations.  Why? You said that you were the one that set the camera up with the proper exposure settings.  You (I'm assuming) told him where to stand and when to take the picture if necessary.  He just followed your instructions and pressed a button. If we're talking about you taking a shot that nets you some serious money, start worrying the legalities.  For a forum post though, I don't see how you would get trouble from the mods or your friend.
> 
> Edit: He = She and Him = Her.
> 
> Also, I always pay in Papa Johns as well.  I work there so I get a 50% discount.



that's the way I see it.


and if you get a 50% discount, I should get twice as much pizza.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Pugs said:


> There's one on Church and Maple in Evanston (just North of Chicago) and another on Sheridan Rd near the Loyola campus in Rogers Park (in Chicago).  :lmao:


----------



## Gaerek (Jan 5, 2010)

Felix0890 said:


> In my opinion, you took the picture in both situations.  Why? You said that you were the one that set the camera up with the proper exposure settings.  You (I'm assuming) told him where to stand and when to take the picture if necessary.  He just followed your instructions and pressed a button. If we're talking about you taking a shot that nets you some serious money, start worrying the legalities.  For a forum post though, I don't see how you would get trouble from the mods or your friend.
> 
> Edit: He = She and Him = Her.



Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here, but isn't there more to taking a picture than setting up the camera with the proper exposure settings? Maybe the camera was set up by the OP, but does that mean the camera is the photographer when it's on Auto mode? (Just following the same logic.)

Last I checked, composition is just as important as camera settings, and it's pretty hard to compose a shot when someone else is at the viewfinder.

Just something to consider...

EDIT: And I want to make it clear that I don't necessarily think the OP was wrong posting the pics in the other thread, but I think this thread illustrates just how fine a line this really is.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jan 5, 2010)

for the record, robert...you had every right to post those.
the person that took them was no more than a tripod, for lack of a better word.

gaerek, i agree with you about composition, but im doubting that robert (being a photo enthusiast) set the settings on the camera, handed it to his "tripod" and said "here, take a cool pick of us" (im not saying this was your take on the issue at hand either. your edit made that very clear). i would be willing to bet, and robert correct me if im wrong, that it went something like this:
robert picked the spot, composed with at least one subject, metered, focused (or auto focus lol), then handed the camera over, and dictated where to stand, and what to include in frame.

i could be wrong though.
it happened once before. 


i was annoyed for you in that other thread robert.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 5, 2010)

> *who took the picture?*



The person that caused the shutter to actuate.


----------



## Inst!nct (Jan 5, 2010)

im so confused


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 5, 2010)

kundalini said:


> > *who took the picture?*
> 
> 
> The person that caused the shutter to actuate.


 
/thread.


----------



## Gaerek (Jan 5, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> for the record, robert...you had every right to post those.
> the person that took them was no more than a tripod, for lack of a better word.
> 
> gaerek, i agree with you about composition, but im doubting that robert (being a photo enthusiast) set the settings on the camera, handed it to his "tripod" and said "here, take a cool pick of us" (im not saying this was your take on the issue at hand either. your edit made that very clear). i would be willing to bet, and robert correct me if im wrong, that it went something like this:
> ...



Yes, that person was a tripod...a tripod with eyes, and a brain, and with their own conception of what would make a good shot. I think we're both speculating on this point now. I honestly don't know how it all went down, but I think it's impossible for someone to take a picture without adding their own flair (for lack of a better word) to the shot. It all boils down to who actually tripped the shutter. If you need a concrete line as to at what point is it one persons picture or another, the most logical is who caused the shutter to trip.

Let me give you an example. I was out hiking with some friends of mine. She had her brand new XSi and asked me to take a shot of her and her husband in front of a mountain. I asked her how she wanted it set up. In her words, "Us, directly in front of the mountain center of the picture." I cringed, but took the shot basically like that (and left auto on). Then, I took a couple steps to the right, recomposed with them on the left the mountain slightly to the right, and turned on Aperture priority to stop down to f/16 to ensure DoF. Took a shot like that too, then turned it back to auto handed her the camera back. I personally believe I was the photographer in both cases. Why? Because I tripped the shutter. Even in the first shot, I didn't compose exactly how she wanted, because I knew how bad that composition would turn out. I'm not going after her for copyright, or anything like that, because she's a friend and I was just doing a favor, so it's not a big deal to me in this case, and I assume it was the same thing with the OPs situation.

The bottom like here is, this is a fine line, like it or not. The mods had to make a decision. They had to decide to let a rule be knowingly broken (and it would be very difficult to argue that it hadn't) and open the floodgates for more people to push the line of what's allowed and what's not. Or, follow the rule to the proverbial 'T'. 

I personally don't care that robertwsimpson posted those pics in the other thread. I also think the person who reported him did so, not because there was a rule being broken, but for some other reason (I won't speculate). If I had been robertwsimpson's friend who had taken those pictures, I probably wouldn't have cared that he posted them.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jan 5, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> I also think the person who reported him did so, not because there was a rule being broken, but for some other reason (I won't speculate). If I had been robertwsimpson's friend who had taken those pictures, I probably wouldn't have cared that he posted them.



I've no idea whether there was any other reason for that thread to be reported either, but it was. On the basis of this comment by Robert



> and get my fiancee's sister to take them for us. That being said, we got some ok pics, but the only thing that I have control over is the post processing...



it seemed a clear case of posting someone else's work and that was why I converted the images into links as required within the TPF rules here:



> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.



It could be argued that in this thread that Robert has represented that he holds copyright or has permission to present the work. Unfortunately that wasn't clear at the time.

The above though had no bearing on my decision to close the thread, which was based purely on the fact that it was degenerating into a name calling session.

If you feel I've got this wrong, then so be it, I'm not perfect. You can though be assured that nothing I do here is based on personality or favour, I act purely in the best interests of The Photo Forum as issues present themselves at the time.


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> interesting.  I do have the exclusive copyright, since I bought her pizza for taking the pictures, did all of the post processing, and host them on my flickr, which says explicitly that I own all rights to the images.
> 
> People on this site can be such a-holes sometimes.
> 
> Others are great though.



First of all, I agree, I think you had the right to post the images.

Actually, she would be considered an independent contractor. Unless she signed something saying she had given you the copyright then the copyright is still hers. 

You doing the PP work, has nothing to do with the copyright changing. 

Similarly hosting the images on Flickr does not give you the copyright. Rather, in order to host images on flickr you say that you have the copyright. Thus, technically unless she had given you copyright you shouldn't have (according to their guidelines) hosted them there. 

The thing I see is that I am assuming she gave you verbal (verbal can work as a contract) agreement to use the images  how you would like. She probably gave you the copyright, verbally, but it would never stand up.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 5, 2010)

That said, the title of the thread is misleading.  It asks who took the picture, and that's not up for debate.  What IS up for debate is whether or not the person who took the picture surrendered the rights to Robert.


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 5, 2010)

^^^agreed^^^


----------



## terri (Jan 5, 2010)

If there is any question as to who "owns" the shots posted here at TPF, we will continue to convert the images into links. There is nothing inappropriate with Chris of Arabia's action. Members can still access the images in question and give him the feedback he is requesting, and TPF is satisfied the guidelines are being adhered to.

Thanks for your support and compliance!


----------



## Dao (Jan 5, 2010)

hum ... then   if I am at the park, and ask a stranger to take a photo of my family, do I own the photo?

Or if I am at Disney world, and the friendly Disney staff use my camera and take a photo of my family  ...  Do they own the photo?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

terri said:


> If there is any question as to who "owns" the shots posted here at TPF, we will continue to convert the images into links. There is nothing inappropriate with Chris of Arabia's action. Members can still access the images in question and give him the feedback he is requesting, and TPF is satisfied the guidelines are being adhered to.
> 
> Thanks for your support and compliance!



and then after the photos are converted to links, is it customary to shut the thread down so that members can not in fact still access the images in question and give me the feedback I am requesting?

Just wondering if that was the norm or if Chris of Arabia was drunk with power at the moment.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Dao said:


> hum ... then   if I am at the park, and ask a stranger to take a photo of my family, do I own the photo?
> 
> Or if I am at Disney world, and the friendly Disney staff use my camera and take a photo of my family  ...  Do they own the photo?



either way, don't post it in here or else your pics will get converted to links and your thread will get shut down.:lmao:


----------



## Dao (Jan 5, 2010)

terri said:


> If there is any question as to who "owns" the shots posted here at TPF, we will continue to convert the images into links. There is nothing inappropriate with Chris of Arabia's action. Members can still access the images in question and give him the feedback he is requesting, and TPF is satisfied the guidelines are being adhered to.
> 
> Thanks for your support and compliance!



But I think it maybe nicer to PM the OP first to make sure if he/she own the photo before jump into conclusion.  After all, you guys just want to make this a better place.


----------



## KmH (Jan 5, 2010)

Dao said:


> hum ... then if I am at the park, and ask a stranger to take a photo of my family, do I own the photo?
> 
> Or if I am at Disney world, and the friendly Disney staff use my camera and take a photo of my family ... Do they own the photo?


Yep, they are the copyright owner.

However, that's really hard to prove if you don't have a copy of the image.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

Also, I was responsible for ALL parts of the composition of the photos in question.  It was my equipment.  I set the ISO, the Fstop, the shutter speed, placed the subjects AND photographer, and then in post, I (massively for some) cropped the photos to exhibit the framing that I desired.  Of course there were some that either my girlfriend or her sister fired off suggestions as to what they thought would make a good shot, and we did those too, but doesn't that always happen?  If someone shouts to a pro at a game "oh my gosh look at that!" and then points at something the photographer takes a picture of, does he get a credit?  These are MY pictures.  I'm not going to post them again, but I am just wondering how the rule got translated from "owns exclusive copyright" to "actually pushed the button."


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 5, 2010)

KmH said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > hum ... then if I am at the park, and ask a stranger to take a photo of my family, do I own the photo?
> ...



can you direct me to some sort of document that backs that up?


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 5, 2010)

Get over it man, get over it.


----------



## Battou (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > If there is any question as to who "owns" the shots posted here at TPF, we will continue to convert the images into links. There is nothing inappropriate with Chris of Arabia's action. Members can still access the images in question and give him the feedback he is requesting, and TPF is satisfied the guidelines are being adhered to.
> ...




I don't think I saw the thread but if you got slammed by people quoting rules then shutting the thread is the best action to be taken. by the third or fourth rule quote post all intrest in the images is lost. Your best bet is to try again.

One thing you can do is what I do. Get permission and state clearly that you have it.

See here


----------



## Craig G (Jan 5, 2010)

It's my understanding that a photograph is composed before the photographer ever reaches for the camera. Pushing the button just takes that creation and puts it to film/disk.


----------



## Dao (Jan 5, 2010)

I think this is a very interesting subject.    As the Disney example I posted, if I ask a Disney staff to take the photo of my family with my camera, and later on, I use that photo on a website, (for commercial purpose) that may create a problem if I do not own the copyright of that photo.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Jan 5, 2010)

And 99% of the time that won't be an issue because the person who took the photo, and the person who the photo was taken of, are both nobodies, and they will never meet in any way again.  Whoevery took the photo will likely never, ever see it.  So yes it's an interesting topic but in your example, nothing would ever come of it.


----------



## Gaerek (Jan 5, 2010)

KmH said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > hum ... then if I am at the park, and ask a stranger to take a photo of my family, do I own the photo?
> ...



QFT

He hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Felix0890 (Jan 5, 2010)

Found this on  Frequently Asked Copyright Q&As by Andrew D. Epstein.  If you, Robert, really did ask your friend to take it for you in exchange for pizza, you are indeed the owner since your friend took the shot while under your employment.  However, if this were to be a real big-money lawsuit and the picture was worth more than $500, your oral agreement would not be enforceable and she would own the copyright (contracts dealing with more than $500 must be in writing).*Q. What if I have an idea and I hire a photographer to execute my idea,       pay for his or her expenses including models, film, processing, assistants     and special equipment, does the copyright belong to me?* ​A. No. Usually, the person who creates the work ñ in this case, the   person who trips the shutter -- owns the copyright. Of course, the parties   can make other arrangements such as assigning the copyright or *agreeing   in writing to create the photograph on a work-for-hire basis.* Also, under some circumstances there could be joint ownership of the copyright. 

So there you have it. Case settled?


----------



## Gaerek (Jan 5, 2010)

Felix0890 said:


> Found this on the website.  If you, Robert, really did ask your friend to take it for you in exchange for pizza, you are indeed the owner since your friend took the shot while under your employment.  However, if this were to be a real big-money lawsuit and the picture was worth more than $500, your oral agreement would not be enforceable and she would own the copyright (contracts dealing with more than $500 must be in writing).*Q. What if I have an idea and I hire a photographer to execute my idea,       pay for his or her expenses including models, film, processing, assistants     and special equipment, does the copyright belong to me?* ​A. No. Usually, the person who creates the work ñ in this case, the   person who trips the shutter -- owns the copyright. Of course, the parties   can make other arrangements such as assigning the copyright or *agreeing   in writing to create the photograph on a work-for-hire basis.* Also, under some circumstances there could be joint ownership of the copyright.
> 
> Taken from Frequently Asked Copyright Q&As by Andrew D. Epstein
> 
> ...



Except that what I've found is that in most cases, the work-for-hire has to be in writing, in the form of a contract, or something like that. It might be a state by state thing so I'm not 100% on this.



> Also, I was responsible for ALL parts of the composition of the photos in question. It was my equipment. I set the ISO, the Fstop, the shutter speed, placed the subjects AND photographer, and then in post, I (massively for some) cropped the photos to exhibit the framing that I desired. Of course there were some that either my girlfriend or her sister fired off suggestions as to what they thought would make a good shot, and we did those too, but doesn't that always happen? If someone shouts to a pro at a game "oh my gosh look at that!" and then points at something the photographer takes a picture of, does he get a credit? These are MY pictures. I'm not going to post them again, but I am just wondering how the rule got translated from "owns exclusive copyright" to "actually pushed the button."


Let me use a similar, but different scenario, and see what you think. I go to your website, and I find a picture you took that I like. I change the color, the brightness, the contrast, the color saturation. As a matter of fact, the only thing I liked was one little part of your photo, that was maybe 50x50 pixels, hardly anything at all! I paste that (with all of the above changes) into a photo I took. I then sell that photo, without giving any credit to you and without notifying you, because, after all, I made almost all of the creative decisions with regards to the finished product. I have a feeling that you...and your lawyer would have a problem with that.

Just because you had almost all creative control over something, doesn't make it yours. As for the law, there needs to be a point where the image becomes owned by someone. We can sit here and start saying that I had 95% control over how the photo turned out, or whatever, but in the end, that's not what determines copyright. It's whoever caused that shutter to trip...period.



			
				robertwsimpson said:
			
		

> can you direct me to some sort of document that backs that up?



Although I can't direct you to a document that backs that up, I can relate to you a conversation I had with a Disney photographer, not 2 weeks ago. I was in Disney World over Christmas break. Although we rarely buy the photos, we almost always get our photos taken by the PhotoPass photographers that are there because it's an easy way to get a shot of everyone in one shot. After the photographer had taken the photograph, she asked if she could take another using my camera. I had my reservations, but I asked her, "Wouldn't that make you the owner of the photograph?" She answered, quite plainly, "Yes, but there's three problems with that. One, I don't care, so it doesn't matter to me that my photo is on your camera. Two, it would be basically impossible for me to prove that it was my photo. And lastly, we are told by management to abide by all reasonable requests by guests who want a photo from their own camera."

A couple days later, I asked another Photopass Photographer who basically told me the exact same thing, just to make sure.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 5, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Just wondering if that was the norm or if .....


 Your thread was shut down due to bad behavior.  Your continued whinning is only digging the hole deeper.  The photos in the other thread are not yours.  All of the ones that I saw _could_ have been done with a "real" tripod, but someone else took them.  

Put you big girl panties on and find something else to photograph.


----------



## AUZambo (Jan 6, 2010)

Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.

Who caught the fish?


----------



## Dao (Jan 6, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> ...... After the photographer had taken the photograph, she asked if she could take another using my camera. I had my reservations, but I asked her, "Wouldn't that make you the owner of the photograph?" She answered, quite plainly, "Yes, but there's three problems with that. One, I don't care, so it doesn't matter to me that my photo is on your camera. Two, it would be basically impossible for me to prove that it was my photo. And lastly, we are told by management to abide by all reasonable requests by guests who want a photo from their own camera."
> 
> A couple days later, I asked another Photopass Photographer who basically told me the exact same thing, just to make sure.



Very interesting.  I never thought of that.  Thanks.


----------



## Aritay (Jan 6, 2010)

What if someone else pushes the shutter, while you: have fully composed the picture,  set and locked the camera in tight on a tripod with that composition, and have done all the camera settings - - the person just merely pushing the button owns the copyright??


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 6, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Felix0890 said:
> 
> 
> > Found this on the website.  If you, Robert, really did ask your friend to take it for you in exchange for pizza, you are indeed the owner since your friend took the shot while under your employment.  However, if this were to be a real big-money lawsuit and the picture was worth more than $500, your oral agreement would not be enforceable and she would own the copyright (contracts dealing with more than $500 must be in writing).*Q. What if I have an idea and I hire a photographer to execute my idea,       pay for his or her expenses including models, film, processing, assistants     and special equipment, does the copyright belong to me?* ​A. No. Usually, the person who creates the work ñ in this case, the   person who trips the shutter -- owns the copyright. Of course, the parties   can make other arrangements such as assigning the copyright or *agreeing   in writing to create the photograph on a work-for-hire basis.* Also, under some circumstances there could be joint ownership of the copyright.
> ...



well I see a few differences:
1. I "paid" the photographer
2. I know the photographer and she knew my intentions for the photos and verbally agreed with me that it was ok
3. I set up the pictures
4. I am not making money off of the pictures, but rather just wanting to post them in a forum for help from helpful people

I might not be the person to pose this question to, as I've already found some of my pictures on an actual commercial site and it really doesn't bother me.

Hope this helps!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 6, 2010)

kundalini said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if that was the norm or if .....
> ...



I see that you've decided to take the "high road."


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 6, 2010)

AUZambo said:


> Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.
> 
> Who caught the fish?



lol that's a toughie


----------



## DScience (Jan 6, 2010)

Sam6644 said:


> or, just tell everyone it was on a tripod and not worry about it. This aint Time Magazine.



:lmao:


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 6, 2010)

BTW, typically people who take images for companies, such as a newspaper (for sure) or probably Disney have signed a contract saying that their images are property of the Newspaper. 

The only way that wedding photographers etc. get out of it is that they don't sign a contract saying that they are a work-for-hire, rather they are independent contractors, and they (the photographer) therefore retains copyright. In the instance of the disney photographer they probably didn't realize or forgot about signing the copyright away, but I'm sure they did. 

It's the same if you are a photographer at Olan Mills or some place of the like. When you are hired there and are taking pictures on their behalf the images are then theirs (the companies).

edit: I find it slightly amusing that in the other thread you said to only critique the PP, because you  had no control over anything else, and now you're saying you set up all of the images.


----------



## KmH (Jan 6, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...


Sure can!

The document is: United States Code, Title 17, US Copyright Law of 1976. The entire document, including amendments since 1976, can be found at www.copyright.gov.


----------



## Gaerek (Jan 6, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> well I see a few differences:
> 1. I "paid" the photographer
> 2. I know the photographer and she knew my intentions for the photos and verbally agreed with me that it was ok
> 3. I set up the pictures
> ...



I think you might be missing the point. First of all, I've never thought your friend would go after you for copyright infringement, or whatever. The point of this thread was you complaining that the mods linked to your photos (instead of having them embedded) and locked the original thread. I think we have established why the original thread was locked (name calling, inappropriate behavior, etc), but we were trying to figure out why the mods changed the photos into links.

Originally, you stated that someone else took the photos. You have never denied that. You also originally stated that you only had control over the PP (which you've gone back on, stating that you had near complete control over the entire process). If I were a mod, and I saw that, I would believe that broke the rule of posting pictures you don't own. You come back here claiming you own the photographs, (and maybe you do, but you haven't offered anything in the way of proof, except saying that you bought pizza for the photographer). There may have been a verbal agreement, but you certainly didn't mention that in your original thread, and without a written agreement (which you clearly state was only verbal) there is no proof of transfer of ownership.

Based on what you have posted so far, the fact that you went from only having control of PP to having almost complete control over everything, the fact that someone else took the shots, and the fact that you only had a verbal agreement (which they didn't even know about at the time anyway) I don't think the mods had any choice, but to do what they did.



			
				AUZambo said:
			
		

> Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.
> 
> Who caught the fish?



Nice try, but these two situations, although they seem similar, are very different. In the case of fishing, once the gear is set, and sent into the water, the only way to change it is by pulling the gear out of the water and changing it. On a camera, it's a matter of a couple button presses to change modes, or adjust aperture/shutter/iso. You also have complete control over the composition, which is a huge part of the overall photo. The photographer in the robertwsimpson's case was actually the person who had complete control over every aspect of the shot. And if you want an answer to your question, you clearly caught the fish, not your friend. Unfortuantely, the difference is, your friend didn't have hardly any control at all over catching the fish, whereas the photographer in the OPs case had complete control, since she was operating the camera.

Here's a question for you. Did the photographer set up the shot the way she did because robertwsimpson told her to do it that way? Or because she thought it made for the best shot? I'll help you out, it doesn't matter. The person holding, composing, and shooting the camera has complete control over ALL aspects of the shot, whether someone is telling them what to do, and whether they follow that advice or not.


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 6, 2010)

I was taught in art school that copyright was at the moment of creation so I did some reasearch. This is what I found.

From APOGEE PHOTO MAGAZINE: Copyright Law in the Digital Age:

_Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter. It continues throughout the life of the artist and 50 years after his or her death. In order to insure you have all the rights the law provides, as well as access to all the legal remedies available, you should have a copyright notice put on all of your published works. "Publication" means not only published in the sense of inclusion in a printed book or magazine, but also distribution via public sale, display with intent to sell (as in a gallery), and the rental, lease or loan of the work. And now, with the Internet, publication includes use on a page._ 

From Frequently Asked Copyright Q&As by Andrew D. Epstein:

_Generally, the person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright. Thus, independent artists, photographers and writers own the copyrights to their works. The only exceptions to this rule occur when a work is created by an employee as part of his or her job duties or when a work is created under a written 'work-for-hire' agreement._ 

It also goes into more detail about different cases.

So, it looks like what I was taught a million years ago and have thought all these years is that the copyright owner is the person that clicks the shutter unless they work for you. Which if you think about it is the way it should be.


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 6, 2010)

yep, 

though the whole "the person working for you" is more them "being your employee" rather than what is typically in photography studios like being hired to do a photo shoot. 

If they do a photo shoot they are typically considered an independent contractor, and thus the copyright resides with them. But with the Disney example, the copyright would reside with Disney.


----------



## Bad Andy (Jan 6, 2010)

AUZambo said:


> Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.
> 
> Who caught the fish?



Well this one is interesting.  If it is just two buddies fishing, then you caught the fish.  You had control over the drag, pressure, line tension, etc.  If this was a world record fish, it would be disqualified, as someone other than the angler touched the rod.  These rules are made very clear by the International Game Fish Association, who keeps state and international records for all catches and actually goes through quite a process to certify each record submission.  However, if the buddy used a legal (as defined by the IGFA) net or gaff to help bring the fish aboard, and didn't touch the rod or main line (touching the leader is ok), then it could be a legal catch.  

The above situation points out that there are rules in place for everything. It is up to the people that make the rules to determine if they are being broken.

I don't think you broke any posting rules, but shouldn't have had problems with the photos being linked to when the moderators had questions.

Happy shooting and Happy New Year,

-Andy


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> BTW, typically people who take images for companies, such as a newspaper (for sure) or probably Disney have signed a contract saying that their images are property of the Newspaper.
> 
> The only way that wedding photographers etc. get out of it is that they don't sign a contract saying that they are a work-for-hire, rather they are independent contractors, and they (the photographer) therefore retains copyright. In the instance of the disney photographer they probably didn't realize or forgot about signing the copyright away, but I'm sure they did.
> 
> ...



I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control.  Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good.  But thanks for bringing it up!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

KmH said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



please cite more specifically the section that backs up your particular claim.  Thanks.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > well I see a few differences:
> ...



first of all, let me clear up the whole "name calling" thing.  The guy who reported the thread was the only person to "name call."  I'm not sure how that makes the whole thread a "name calling thread."  

Second, if you think that "framing" is the only part of "composition," you have a lot to learn my friend.  it's about depth of field and implied motion also.  That being said, I cropped every photo that was taken to reframe.  So, yes, I did have complete control, since I set up the camera for the depth of field and shutter speed that I wanted and then cropped to frame the way that I wanted.  I never went back on anything I said.

TO EVERYONE:

at first, I posted this thread because I was pissed, but now I think it is a very interesting topic for debate, with the practical application of knowing what is and isn't ok to post on this forum.  There is a gray area (you can't deny that, given the 4 pages of responses to this thread) and it wouldn't kill us to get a little info out there for forum members.


----------



## Craig G (Jan 7, 2010)

AUZambo said:


> Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.
> 
> Who caught the fish?


Since you were dead sticking the rods, 
1. the fish *hooked* it self
2. you *fought* the fish
3. your buddy *landed* the fish
Your buddy caught it, and you as the captain "put him on the fish". All credit always goes to the captain.


----------



## KmH (Jan 7, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > robertwsimpson said:
> ...


You seem to be more familiar with urban legend than actual copyright law, and your concept of work-for-hire is also seems to be based on urban legend.

You'll get a lot more out of it if you read the entire thing or at least look throught the FAQ's section.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

KmH said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



I never made a claim that I could back my position with copyright law.  I am just voicing what seems like the right thing to me.  Also, my beef is with the site and it's rules, not international copyright legislation.  

Here is a link that might help you with citing your work.

MLA works cited formatting rules


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 7, 2010)

oh please, rules for citing work is not necessary when citing copyright law. 

MLA works cited formatting rules, or APA or Chicago etc. are all merely used to avoid plagiarism which is definitely not something to worry about when trying to refer to copyright code. 

it seems to me silly that you have already made the statement that you can't back up that it is legally your copyright, and yet you're still trying to have KMH specifically cite the proof, and with MLA citing rules no less... lol seems quite silly to me.


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 7, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control.  Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good.  But thanks for bringing it up!



Ok, so for future reference, does this mean that in the future when we see your images we should avoid reference to anything that has already happened (such as posing etc, because you can't change it now) and just refer to the PP?

I mean what good is critique if you can't change the work? who cares about being able to learn from their past work to improve future images.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> oh please, rules for citing work is not necessary when citing copyright law.
> 
> MLA works cited formatting rules, or APA or Chicago etc. are all merely used to avoid plagiarism which is definitely not something to worry about when trying to refer to copyright code.
> 
> it seems to me silly that you have already made the statement that you can't back up that it is legally your copyright, and yet you're still trying to have KMH specifically cite the proof, and with MLA citing rules no less... lol seems quite silly to me.



This whole thread has taken a turn for the silly.



NateWagner said:


> robertwsimpson said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say that I "had" no control, I said that I "have" no control.  Meaning that I'm not going to go do the shoot again, so please just tell me what I can do better while sitting at the computer, not what I could have done better while we were out there, as that really doesn't do me any good.  But thanks for bringing it up!
> ...



No, for future reference, if I ask only for PP critique in the opening post, then that is all I am looking for.  If I don't specify, please feel free to rip my images apart in any fashion you see fit.  If someone asked you how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, would you tell them how to grill a T-bone?


----------



## NateWagner (Jan 7, 2010)

well, obviously going from a PB&J to a T-Bone is a bit of a stretch.

It's more of a you wanted a PB&J but only wanted them to tell you how to put the peanut butter on. And they included the Jelly as it was a part of the complete sandwich.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> well, obviously going from a PB&J to a T-Bone is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> It's more of a you wanted a PB&J but only wanted them to tell you how to put the peanut butter on. And they included the Jelly as it was a part of the complete sandwich.



I had already put the jelly on the bread.  That's why I only needed peanut butter advice.


----------



## raptorman (Jan 7, 2010)

What many people in this thread seem to forget is that you still have an originality requirement in copyright law. The definition of originality varies  from country to country, but stating that the person who hits the shutter will always be the copyright holder is an oversimplification. The creation should exhibit a more the neglible skill and if the only thing a person does is hitting the shutter, it's very unlikely that a court will consider him the copyright holder. 

If I dictate an article and my secretary writes it down exactly as I say it, I'm the copyrightholder of that article, not she.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jan 7, 2010)

suddenly i want a PB&J.


----------



## Dao (Jan 7, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> suddenly i want a PB&J.



nah .....  I think T-bone is better.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 7, 2010)

T-bone gets my vote!  Rare... with garlic sautéed mushrooms... mm...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

I originally wrote prime rib, but then I was like, wait a minute, you don't grill a prime rib.  But that's what I really want.  People will notice.  Ok, fine, T-bone it is.


----------



## Pugs (Jan 7, 2010)

Mm... Prime rib...  When I was on my honeymoon in Ireland, apparently prime rib is considered a less desireable cut because it's fatty and so it's pretty cheap.  I was eating prime rib every night for like six American dollars!  Granted, that was over a decade ago and the exchange rate isn't as favorable.  Heaven... rare... prime... rib...


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jan 7, 2010)

Dao said:


> SrBiscuit said:
> 
> 
> > suddenly i want a PB&J.
> ...


 
good call....wtf was i thinkin' :thumbup:


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

Pugs said:


> Mm... Prime rib...  When I was on my honeymoon in Ireland, apparently prime rib is considered a less desireable cut because it's fatty and so it's pretty cheap.  I was eating prime rib every night for like six American dollars!  Granted, that was over a decade ago and the exchange rate isn't as favorable.  Heaven... rare... prime... rib...



:hug::


----------



## KmH (Jan 7, 2010)

raptorman said:


> ....If I dictate an article and my secretary writes it down exactly as I say it, I'm the copyrightholder of that article, not she.


I don't think you own the copyright in that circumstance. Not in the US or the countries of most of the other signators of the Berne Convention of 1986, *because you didn't commit your comments to a tangible medium*.



> Copyright protects original works of authorship that are​fixed in a tangible form of expression.


 http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

If you dictate to a recording and your secretary subsequently transposes it, you own the copyright because you put your words on a tangible medium, the recording.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

KmH said:


> raptorman said:
> 
> 
> > ....If I dictate an article and my secretary writes it down exactly as I say it, I'm the copyrightholder of that article, not she.
> ...



see? THAT is a specific citation


----------



## CSR Studio (Jan 7, 2010)

raptorman said:


> What many people in this thread seem to forget is that you still have an originality requirement in copyright law. The definition of originality varies from country to country, but stating that the person who hits the shutter will always be the copyright holder is an oversimplification. The creation should exhibit a more the neglible skill and if the only thing a person does is hitting the shutter, it's very unlikely that a court will consider him the copyright holder.
> 
> If I dictate an article and my secretary writes it down exactly as I say it, I'm the copyrightholder of that article, not she.


 
It is not originality, it is creation and it is indeed that simple. Whoever hits the shutter creates the image. Period. The only time that would change is if you have an employee or a piece of work ordered or commissioned.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 7, 2010)

so is this...


yay I linked to a photo that I didn't have copyrights for! Now we can all be happy!


----------



## raptorman (Jan 8, 2010)

KmH said:


> I don't think you own the copyright in that circumstance. Not in the US or the countries of most of the other signators of the Berne Convention of 1986, *because you didn't commit your comments to a tangible medium*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all respect, but you think wrong. You clearly lack understanding of copyright law, just like anyone else I've seen posting here. Tangible form does not mean material form, which you can by the way find in the Berne convention:

_art. 2 (2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form._

The principle is that you get protection for fixed form and non-fixed from creations, the *exception* is that countries can decide to not protect work that hasn't some material form. (deja-vu, copy-paste from another discussion with a wannabe lawyer overhere) In Belgium I'll own the copyright of an article dictated to my secretary (and if you'd understand Dutch I could give references to case law). In the US it'll depend on how you have the Berne convention implemented but if I'm not mistaken your Copyright Act requires a material form. But that's not the rule of the Berne convention, it's the exception.

Copyright is so much more then just reading a copyright act. Just like reading a book about photography doesn't make you a decent wedding photographer, reading an act or law about copyright doesn't make you an IP lawyer.

KmH, you're in my opinion a great photographer and your knowledge on the subject is amazing, but please stick to your business.


----------



## Jon0807 (Jan 8, 2010)

Make mine a rib eye medium rare!


----------



## robertwsimpson (Jan 8, 2010)

raptorman said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you own the copyright in that circumstance. Not in the US or the countries of most of the other signators of the Berne Convention of 1986, *because you didn't commit your comments to a tangible medium*.
> ...



:hugs::hugs::hugs::hugs::hugs::hugs:


----------



## Dao (Jan 8, 2010)

Jon0807 said:


> Make mine a rib eye medium rare!



You want the 50mm (even thickness) PRIME ribs or 18-55mm ZOOM ribs?


----------



## Rockford (Jan 8, 2010)

Craig G said:


> AUZambo said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose I go fishing with a buddy, I pick the lure, the fishing location, and the time, and I sit there for a while waiting for a bite while my buddy reads a magazine. After a while I finally hook a fish, reel it up to the boat where I can see it, but then hand the rod & reel to my buddy do performs the mundane task of actually lifting the fish out of the water and into the boat.
> ...


 
I ate the fish and thanked all involved.


----------

