Who REALLY owns copyright?

[Grumby]

Here's a poser for the community...

If copyright belongs to the person that took the photograph, who owns the photo taken with my camera, on my tripod, lined up by me, exposure set by me, and then the button pressed by my wife after I dash round to the front of the camera to be in the picture...? My guess is that technically, my wife has copyright?

Take it a stage further, and I have the Nikon camera control software set up on my PC to automatically take a photo every 30 seconds - perhaps Microsoft owns the copyright? OK - let's hope not!! Bill Gates has enough money, without hijacking our photos...

It's not really a serious question - just thought I'd put the cat among the pigeons and get people 'discussing'
Grumby

[jdepould]

You do. Button pressing is irrelevant, "creative vision" is what counts.

[Grumby]

Originally Posted by jdepould

You do. Button pressing is irrelevant, "creative vision" is what counts.

I'm glad to hear that. Does everyone agree, that it's not the finger that presses the button, but the eye that saw the potential, that owns the copyright?

So let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute... if that's the case, and I sent an email to my daughter in Canada saying something like "I think it would be really great if you could take a photo of a Moose wearing a Mountie's hat, standing in the snow against a blurred background of pine trees" - and she was foolish enough to believe me and actually went out and did it (and survived the encounter with the Moose) - could I claim copyright on THAT photo - after all, it was my 'creative vision' that inspired it...?

Please don't take offence - I'm not trying to pick a fight - just encourage a healthy debate. I don't know WHAT the answer is

Grumby

[jdepould]

It's not an opinion thing, according to the US Copyright Office, you would own the copyright in the first example.

In the second example you wouldn't, giving someone a general description like that isn't specific enough.

www.copyright.gov is your friend.

[dakwegmo]

I agree with Jamie regarding the first example, you did all of the work in setting up the shot. You conceived it, and did everything to create the image, except for pressing the shutter release. Your wife was basically acting as another piece of equipment (a voice activated shutter release?), and didn't contribute anything to the creation of the shot.

In the second example though, there's not really a clear cut answer. Since you came up with the concept and wrote it down in an email, you could easily claim a copyright on that expression. Though you wouldn't own the rights to the images, you would be able to claim those images violate your copyright. The same description given to your daughter over the phone, wouldn't necessarily qualify, since at that point it's just an idea, and ideas not fixed in tangible form aren't protected by copyrights.

[Gobae]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

In the second example though, there's not really a clear cut answer. Since you came up with the concept and wrote it down in an email, you could easily claim a copyright on that expression. Though you wouldn't own the rights to the images, you would be able to claim those images violate your copyright. The same description given to your daughter over the phone, wouldn't necessarily qualify, since at that point it's just an idea, and ideas not fixed in tangible form aren't protected by copyrights.

So going down this road, I assume it would become even more murky if you told the daughter in the emal what shutter speed, f-stop, speedlight, etc, etc to use? If that's the case I wonder how many people here have a copyright stake because they gave detailed photo advice?

[Grumby]

Some good points guys...
Jamie - I wonder if the copyright law as per the US is the same elsewhere - and in the second example (just to be annoying ) would it be Canadian or Australian copyright law applicable - I guess I could claim the Australian version applied and my daughter claiming the Canadian version?

Dak - Nice point about the 'written' record of concept.

Gobae - I like your thinking... so I read how Bryan Peterson took a particular shot in one of his books, and I travelled to the exact same location, and waited for conditions to be right to allow me to take the same shot with the same settings... could Bryan claim copyright - ha ha - and I thought I was being extreme with the Microsoft scenario

Keep your opinions voiced... more suggestions needed
Sublime, Ridiculous, Factually Accurate or just plain fantasy - all welcome

Grumby

[jdepould]

International copyright (Bern Convention) would apply if you're crossing borders, although one e-mail is a bit thin.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by jdepould

It's not an opinion thing, according to the US Copyright Office, you would own the copyright in the first example.

In the second example you wouldn't, giving someone a general description like that isn't specific enough.

www.copyright.gov is your friend.

This is quite true........your camera, your copyright.

[Grumby]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

This is quite true........your camera, your copyright.

Cool - a third option - the owner of the camera!!

He he - the devil in me is coming out again Sorry Jim...

So, I am going to visit my daughter in Canada soon, and when I come back, I'm bringing her camera back with me (the long awaited loaner ). Does this mean that the copyright on any photos I take with her camera when I get it back here to Aus are hers and not mine - surely not?