snubbr.com

Photography rights question
Alright,.

So I asked a friend of mine to take my photo while I am bowling. I had set the aperture/shutter speed on my camera, gave my friend a general idea when to shoot (right as I'm pulling back with the bowling ball) and to use the "drive" function of my Canon A620 to take multiple shots..

So my question though, if I wanted to publish a photo except I didn't personally push the shutter button but I had the photo taken by someone else, then who would the photo belong to?..

Comments (32)

In the US, your friend owns the copyright unless you had a prior arrangement to the contrary. He's your friend, so buy him a couple of beers, commend his shooting skills and get him to agree to assign the rights to you..

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Comment #1

Doug J wrote:.

In the US, your friend owns the copyright.

Same in the UK. You may have coached him, but he is still the creator of the work and that makes him the copyright holder. The major exceptions are if he took the picture in the course of his employment by you, or if there was a contractual agreement which gave you the copyright...

Comment #2

It is not quite as clear as the previous twp posts would imply..

Consider a case where I place a camera on a tripod, aim it, set the shutter speed and aperture, and ask somebody else to press the shutter button. By an extension of your reasoning, he would own the copyright..

Now, suppose that I tell him precisely when to press the button. How does that differ from connecting the camera to a computer and having it snap the shot. Surely, nobody would suggest that the computer would own the copyright..

The concept is that the copyright owner is the "creator" of the work. In a case where there were more than onr individual involved in the creation, the law can become very fuzzy.Joel Orlinsky.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #3

Joel Orlinsky wrote:.

Now, suppose that I tell him precisely when to press the button. Howdoes that differ from connecting the camera to a computer and havingit snap the shot. Surely, nobody would suggest that the computerwould own the copyright..

This is not the paradox you are trying to make it out to be. The computer is a machine, and where a machine is used to create something, the person who controls the machine is simply using it as a tool. Computers (and other sophisticated tools) are used for all manner of creative processes and the dilemma you are suggesting simply doesn't exist..

However much guided, instructed and coached, if you hand over your camera to someone they have taken creative control..

The concept is that the copyright owner is the "creator" of the work.In a case where there were more than onr individual involved in thecreation, the law can become very fuzzy..

It is always possible to contrive a situation which makes it difficult to apply either the letter of the law or simple common sense..

Just how the lawyers like it ;-~..

Comment #4

How is it creative control when all they're doing is pushing a button? To me the person making the settings to the camera is the one who has the rights to that given picture..

I look at it this way, if a person asks another person to duplicate the shot by just giving him/her the camera and not adjusting the settings, odds are the shot wouldn't be even close to the original picture. Now if something should happen in the picture that was out of the ordinary that would be a different story, but bowling isn't out of the ordinary for millions of people bowl every year...

Comment #5

The law is clear in the US in this situation. It may provide for an awkward result, but the law is clear..

Keep in mind that what is copyrighted is "the work in tangible form" and not the "idea" or the thinking behind it..

So while I suppose you could pay a lawyer a lot of money to try to kind of construct this "employed" status (and I doubt you'd succeed) or you spend the rest of your life campaigning for a political change to the law a "bystander exception" where a casual hand-off of the device used to fix the work in tangible form doesn't result in ownership..

Or you could pick friends who aren't also going to be mercenary jerks in the situation...

Comment #6

I wasn't debating how it should be, I was explaining how it is...

Comment #7

This isn't a question of hypothetical computer controlled photography. The person who trips the shutter owns the copyright, this is what the OP asked. In your other example, regardless if the camera was set up on a tripod, the person who trips the shutter still is the copyright owner..

Joel Orlinsky wrote:.

It is not quite as clear as the previous twp posts would imply..

Consider a case where I place a camera on a tripod, aim it, set theshutter speed and aperture, and ask somebody else to press theshutter button. By an extension of your reasoning, he would own thecopyright..

Now, suppose that I tell him precisely when to press the button. Howdoes that differ from connecting the camera to a computer and havingit snap the shot. Surely, nobody would suggest that the computerwould own the copyright..

The concept is that the copyright owner is the "creator" of the work.In a case where there were more than onr individual involved in thecreation, the law can become very fuzzy.Joel Orlinsky.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Comment #8

What if someone else trips the shutter on your camera, you download it to your computer and then edit the photo in photoshop? Do you own the photo then? It's your work and idea. Or does this get into the copyright area?..

Comment #9

The person who trips the shutter owns the copyright. We may not like this aspect of US copyright law, but it is what it is. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand modifying the copyrighted work of another does not give you copyright protection of this derivitive work. There are some exceptions, but one needs to careful how it is used..

A few links on copyright:.

Http://www.photoattorney.com/ (the PACA powerpoint presentation by Nancy Wolff is informative)http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htmhttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html.

Txww wrote:.

What if someone else trips the shutter on your camera, you downloadit to your computer and then edit the photo in photoshop? Do you ownthe photo then? It's your work and idea. Or does this get into thecopyright area?.

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Comment #10

You can trust the musings and idle speculations of the internet mob or you can read the materials at the Library of Congress. Barnum made his fortune from the folks that trust strangers too much and themselves too little...

Comment #11

I'm not a lawyer but I did have a look at a web site or two recently on the subject - so this is from vague recollection:.

Apart from who owns the copyright there are also different requirements depending on the purpose of the publishing..

Commercial use (which I can't remember the exact definition of, but I believe it's selling the photo itself or using it to sell something else) would require a release from the bowling alley (which is not a "public space")..

For personal use (eg your own physical prints and sharing for non-commercial purposes) you should be fine as long as the copyright holder consents (or releases copyright to you) and the photos don't include people doing something "private" in the background..

As a couple of the previous posters said there are some good web sites on it. I slapped Photography and the law into Google and came up with some reasonable pages by people who pretend to know what they're talking about .

RobFuji S6500fd newbie..

Comment #12

LOL.... Yeah, I have checked the law, and do so periodically. What part of my post do you disagree with?.

I suggest you post something that contributes, other than the flaming subject line and to go read the LOC..

Craig Gillette wrote:.

You can trust the musings and idle speculations of the internet mobor you can read the materials at the Library of Congress. Barnummade his fortune from the folks that trust strangers too much andthemselves too little..

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Comment #13

My apologies, I thought you were replying to my post..

Best regards,Doughttp://pbase.com/dougj.

Http://thescambaiter.comFighting scammers WW for fun & justice..

Comment #14

FernySnapper wrote:.

I'm not a lawyer but I did have a look at a web site or two recentlyon the subject - so this is from vague recollection:...For personal use (eg your own physical prints and sharing fornon-commercial purposes) you should be fine as long as the copyrightholder consents (or releases copyright to you) and the photos don'tinclude people doing something "private" in the background..

The fact that your friend consents to take the photo should be fine for personal use - that goes with consenting to take the photo i.e it is implicit it will be for personal use. The difficult comes with commercial use..

Let us suppose that the shot accidentlly captures someone famous doing something infamous in the background to your shot and it sells for a lot of money! Hmnn!.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #15

The copy right belongs to the person who took the photo, full stop.It does not matter what he took the photo with.He can sign the copy right over to you, and this gives you the right to publish.I know, the law is an ass, but hey, as Esther Ranson said, " thats life ".

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Comment #16

My Brother is the chief examiner at the government Patent Office, and he told me.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Comment #17

Your brother needs to go and read his own website:-.

Http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo/c-photo-ownpost89.htm.

"If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in the case of any photographs you take you are the first owner. However, an example where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressed the camera button and someone else who decided things like the camera angle, exposure and so on.".......

"This general rule about first ownership of copyright resting with the 'author' is, however, overridden in the case of photographs which are made by an employee in the course of employment; in this case, the employer is the first owner of copyright subject to any agreement to the contrary.".

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #18

Ha yes,,, but was the chap who pressed the shutter, getting paid as an employee, in this case I suspect not, there we have a Q.

I suppose the best way is to take the photo yourself with timer delay or remote control, then all arguments are solved.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Mike Rudge..

Comment #19

This is why lawyers are, more often than not, richer than photographers..

BAK..

Comment #20

Ha yes,,, but was the chap who pressed the shutter, getting paid as an employee, in this case I suspect not, there we have a Q.

The first part of the quote from the website largely answers that question..

I would say that in the UK on the facts premised by the OP he would own the copyright (But he might face a fight for it). In reality the issue is unlikely to be problematic in the circumstances posed. Of course if the OP was famous and his toupee fell off as he was bowling the situation might be different!.

To be serious in my reply you will bolster your chances of claiming copyright in such circumstances if you have something in writing. So if you email something to your friend that would help:.

"Thanks for taking my photo the other day. I put the photos on my computer and worked on the best one. It has come out quite well so I am going to post it on my webspace so all my friends and relations can see it. Thanks again for your help. Even though I set the camera up I could not have done it without help from someone...".

The fact that he does not object would readilly imply at least consent and more likely acknowledgement that you own the copyright..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #21

Chris Elliott wrote:.

Your brother needs to go and read his own website:-.

Http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo/c-photo-ownpost89.htm.

"If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in thecase of any photographs you take you are the first owner. However, anexample where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressedthe camera button and someone else who decided things like the cameraangle, exposure and so on.".

That is *very* interesting. It's the first time I've seen that interpretation of UK copyright law - and I have read many, over the years. Pity that web site doesn't give citations..

Here's a source which gives the usual interpretation:.

Http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright.

And another:.

Http://www.dacs.org.uk/pdfframe.php?pdf=factsheet_14.pdf..

Comment #22

If I dictate a story, and somebody else types it, I am still the author. Having sombody press the shutter button for me is not significantly different. The act of pressing a button or hitting some keys does not make somebody the author of a work..

It may be unfortunate, but the copyright laws do not go into specific detail about cameras. The laws are open to significant interpretation. If you really want to know, it is necessary to research case precedent.Joel Orlinsky.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #23

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

That is *very* interesting. It's the first time I've seen thatinterpretation of UK copyright law - and I have read many, over theyears. Pity that web site doesn't give citations..

Steve,.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

9 Authorship of work.

(1) In this Part author, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it.(2) That person shall be taken to be.

(a) in the case of a sound recording or film, the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the recording or film are undertaken;(b) ... (c) ... (d) ....

(3) In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.........

Section 4 says ..."artistic work means.

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality".

The definition of film would likely exclude it from 2(a) above.

"film means a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced.".

So, after that very long preamble, it is 9(1) that applies but one can use the anology of 9(2)(a) and 9(3) to follow the intention of the Act..

Thus I create the shot if:a) it is my camera & my lens combination that I choseb) I set up the shot positioning the tripod and chosing the angle of view etcc) I chose aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

D) I own the memory card being the sole device on which it was recorded (I see no difference here from film).

E) it is always intended, expressly or by implication, that I PP the photo (the case gets stronger with RAW which, in my case, would require a Nikon dedicated program to render the image).

F) it is always intended, expressly or by implication that the finished image should be stored on my PC..

Your sources do not envisage the scenario we are posing and thus do not answer the question. However I often shoot opera where I am both the photographer and singing a solo role or part of the chorus. I do all of the above a) - f) and shoot when I am not on stage but a friend does it whilst I am so occupied. I have no doubt that I have copyright in the photos (Though in my case there is usually joint copyright with the opera company in question. Not that that has ever been an issue or discussed. The photos are often used as promotional material for the opera company with my blessing and encouragement).

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #24

You are now entering a very poorly understood area with very conflicting interpretations. The subject is called "work for hire" in the copyright act, under which you could still own the copyright, under certain conditions..

There are some clear requirements for claiming ownership under the work for hire exception..

Consider a staff studio photographer making schools head shots all day:.

1) Prior agreement is essential, usually in writing. If he says you (the studio) own it in writing before he pushses the shutter releas, then you DO own it. No work for hire agreement can be made post creation. So, if I hire a photographer to create work for me, (under and employment contract) and we agree in advance that this is a 'work for hire situation" I own the image..

2) Who provides to tools is another influencing factor. I cannot claim the work under some conditions if MY gear was not used. An example, if a songwiter works at home and roughs out a song, then brings it to me, it CANNOT be a work for hire..

3) Is the operative acting under the specific direction of the studio? If I, even as a studio, have NO operative input and the work is Not incumpassed in the 'work for hire' agreement, then I cannot own it, the creator does. If a car crashes in front of the studio and you shoot it. (In this case, it is outside the work for hire description of what I am hiring you to do.).

So, if you walk into my studio, use my lights and camera and make a photo, it is YOURS. If you agree that you will create for me, under my direction, and I own the work product, I own the image..

Of course, if you create and author a NON work for hire creation, the ownership can be transferred under a seperate contract to me wihthout changing the autorship of the image (it's called a 'buy out' and sometimes called 'publishing').Van..

Comment #25

Ha! That makes it even more complex!.

Let's say you set the timer and hand it to your friend, and ask him to point at you and tell you what the count is. He doesn't push any button in that case! Do you own the copyright then?..

Comment #26

None of this connects, Chris..

Chris Elliott wrote:.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

9 Authorship of work(1) In this Part author, in relation to a work, means the personwho creates it..

That's the uncontroversial bit!.

(2) That person shall be taken to be(a) in the case of a sound recording or film, the person by whom thearrangements necessary for the making of the recording or film areundertaken;.

I was going to say that "sound recording or film" doesn't mean photography, but then I saw that you say the same yourself a few lines later. So I'm not sure why you quoted that bit..

(b) ... (c) ... (d) ....

(3) In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic workwhich is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be theperson by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of thework are undertaken..

Yep, that addresses issues like whether the writer of the demosaicing software has any claim to copyright, because he made a contribution to 'creating' the photograph..

........

Section 4 says ..."artistic work means(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective ofartistic quality".

The definition of film would likely exclude it from 2(a) above"film means a recording on any medium from which a moving image mayby any means be produced.".

No disrespect, Chris, but all you have done up to this point is to show that the first paragraph you quoted: "author, in relation to a work, means the person who creates it", applies to photography. Which is not contested..

So, after that very long preamble, it is 9(1) that applies but onecan use the anology of 9(2)(a) and 9(3) to follow the intention ofthe Act..

No, emphatically you cannot. Those paragraphs are quite specific about what they apply to..

Thus I create the shot if:a) it is my camera & my lens combination that I choseb) I set up the shot positioning the tripod and chosing the angle ofview etcc) I chose aperture, shutter speed and ISOd) I own the memory card being the sole device on which it wasrecorded (I see no difference here from film)e) it is always intended, expressly or by implication, that I PP thephoto (the case gets stronger with RAW which, in my case, wouldrequire a Nikon dedicated program to render the image)f) it is always intended, expressly or by implication that thefinished image should be stored on my PC..

Hardly any of that follows from the parts of the Act you quoted.

A), d), e) and f) don't follow at all..

B) and c) are no more than the same assertion that we have been discussing, restated..

Your sources do not envisage the scenario we are posing and thus donot answer the question..

They say what they say. There is no obligation to also say what they don't say..

However I often shoot opera where I am boththe photographer and singing a solo role or part of the chorus. I doall of the above a) - f) and shoot when I am not on stage but afriend does it whilst I am so occupied. I have no doubt that I havecopyright in the photos (Though in my case there is usually jointcopyright with the opera company in question. Not that that has everbeen an issue or discussed. The photos are often used as promotionalmaterial for the opera company with my blessing and encouragement).

This gets to the very heart of this discussion. You feel that you *should* own the copyright, but if someone else took the pictures, there is every chance that that you don't...

Comment #27

It is the Creator - i.e. the person the person who takes the shot - who owns the copyright. Why is this so hard to understand?.

I can coach and set all the car settings for a race car driver, but it is the car driver who drives the car and owns the title if he or she wins..

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me..

And... editing a photograph taking by someone else (like... the person who pressed the shutter release button), doesn't make it my copyright ..

Albert-O.

Http://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Http://berto.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p551016807-10.jpgU.S...

Comment #28

Testing my "spam?" picture.... what the $%!!Albert-O.

Http://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #29

Herre is the US Copyright Office Circular Quotation , in part on "Work for Hire"..

It is Headlined "Circular #9" but attributed in the footnotes as "circular 11" print rev: 11 ? 2004 web rev: 11.

"Determining Whether a Work Is Made for HireWhether or not a particular work is made for hire is deter-mined by the relationship between the parties. This determina-tion may be difficult, because the statutory definition of a workmade for hire is complex and not always easily applied. Thatdefinition was the focus of a 1989 Supreme Court decision(Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730[1989]). The court held that to determine whether a work ismade for hire, one must first ascertain whether the work wasprepared by (1) an employee or (2) an independent contractor.If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutorydefinition applies, and generally the work would be consid-ered a work made for hire.

This is explainedin further detail below. Please read about this at Employer-Employee Relationship Under Agency Law.If a work is created by an independent contractor (thatis, someone who is not an employee under the generalcommon law of agency), then the work is a specially orderedor commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definitionapplies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if bothof the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within oneof the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the defini-tion and (2) there is a written agreement between the partiesspecifying that the work is a work made for hire..

EmployerEmployee Relationship Under Agency LawIf a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the copy-right codes definition of a work made for hire applies. Tohelp determine who is an employee, the Supreme Court inCCNV v. Reid identified certain factors that characterize anemployer-employee relationship as defined by agency law:1 Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employermay determine how the work is done, has the work doneat the employers location, and provides equipment orother means to create work)2 Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employercontrols the employees schedule in creating work, has theright to have the employee perform other assignments,determines the method of payment, and/or has the rightto hire the employees assistants)3 Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is inbusiness to produce such works, provides the employeewith benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employeespayment).

These factors are not exhaustive. The court left unclearwhich of these factors must be present to establish theemployment relationship under the work for hire definition,but held that supervision or control over creation of thework alone is not controlling.All or most of these factors characterize a regular, salariedemployment relationship, and it is clear that a work createdwithin the scope of such employment is a work made forhire (unless the parties involved agree otherwise).Examples of works for hire created in an employmentrelationship are:" A software program created within the scope of his or herduties by a staff programmer for Creative Computer Cor-poration" A newspaper article written by a staff journalist for publi-cation in the newspaper that employs him" A musical arrangement written for XYZ Music Companyby a salaried arranger on it's staff" A sound recording created by the salaried staff engineersof ABC Record CompanyThe closer an employment relationship comes to regular,salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work cre-ated within the scope of that employment would be a workmade for hire. However, since there is no precise standard fordetermining whether or not a work is made for hire underthe first part of the definition, consultation with an attorneyfor legal advice may be advisable..

Who Is the Author of a Work Made for Hire?If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or otherperson for whom the work was prepared is the author andshould be named as the author in Space 2 of the applicationfor copyright registration. The box marked work-made-for-hire should be checked yes.Who Is the Owner of the Copyrightin a Work Made for Hire?If a work is a work made for hire, the employer or otherperson for whom the work was prepared is the initial ownerof the copyright unless there has been a written agreement tothe contrary signed by both parties.".

U.S. Copyright Office Library of Congress 101 Independence Avenue SE Washington, DC 20559-6000 http://www.copyright.gov.

Circular 11 print rev: 11 ? 2004 web rev: 11 ? 2004 Printed on recycled paper u.s. government printing office: 2004-xxx-xxx/xxxxxVan..

Comment #30

Gets hard to keep track of these things. usually I'll find I'll be thinking of one post after having moved to another and get them all wrapped up...

Comment #31

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

None of this connects, Chris..

This is getting very long so I have edited. It depends whether you want bald assertion or reasoned argument. You asked for "citations".The first part merely highlights relevant sections and distinguishes the LESS relevant that may not apply directly..

(3) In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic workwhich is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be theperson by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of thework are undertaken..

Yep, that addresses issues like whether the writer of the demosaicingsoftware has any claim to copyright, because he made a contributionto 'creating' the photograph..

No it may go much further in the age of the digital camera. On one interpretation our photos are computer generated so this subsection determines copyright. On a narrower interpretation it deals with use of the computer to produce random patterns and the like for artistic purposes. Demosaicing would not be a "literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work" to enable a claim to copyrigh to begin to get off the ground..

.......

No disrespect, Chris, but all you have done up to this point is toshow that the first paragraph you quoted: "author, in relation to awork, means the person who creates it", applies to photography. Whichis not contested..

So, after that very long preamble, it is 9(1) that applies but onecan use the anology of 9(2)(a) and 9(3) to follow the intention ofthe Act..

No, emphatically you cannot. Those paragraphs are quite specificabout what they apply to..

There are two modern approaches to statutory interpretation The first is called "purposive interpretation". The second is "contextual interpretation". In applying S 9(1) a court will look to the rest of the Act to understand the bare words of S9(1) as well as a dictionary definition. "Makes the arrangements necessary" is a common theme running through a number of sub-sections of the Act. It is in that context that I have set out (below a) to f) from my earlier post) how the bowls player will have "made the arrangements necessary" and thus have created the work. a) to f) are cumulative.

The person who presses the shutter is my agent. He is not a paid agent like an employee but he acts under my instructions and is under my control. If he has an indipendant role that would be different. So if I hand him my camera and say "Walk around and get some nice candid shots. You can leave it on Auto or do what you like" I have surrendered control of the creation to him..

Thus I create the shot if:a) it is my camera & my lens combination that I choseb) I set up the shot positioning the tripod and chosing the angle ofview etcc) I chose aperture, shutter speed and ISOd) I own the memory card being the sole device on which it wasrecorded (I see no difference here from film)e) it is always intended, expressly or by implication, that I PP thephoto (the case gets stronger with RAW which, in my case, wouldrequire a Nikon dedicated program to render the image)f) it is always intended, expressly or by implication that thefinished image should be stored on my PC..

However I often shoot opera .......

This gets to the very heart of this discussion. You feel that you*should* own the copyright, but if someone else took the pictures,there is every chance that that you don't..

I am confident that I do and would have taken steps to protect myself if I felt there were serious doubt of consequence. The purpose of mentioning my (amateur) opera was, in part, to demonstrate that I have had cause to ponder this question whereas others may not. But the direct purpose of my post was to explain:http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-applies/c-photo/c-photo-ownpost89.htm.

Which supports my proposition!.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #32

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.