Copywrite question
Discussion
A colleague was asked to take a holiday picture of a person in a scenic location, using the picture subject's own camera. To whom does the copywrite belong, absent any mention of the subject at the time? The subject (owner of the camera) acknowledges that the picture was taken by my colleague. The relevance of all of this is that the picture was subsequently entered into a competition by the subject, and won a multi thousand pound holiday prize for the subject.
The copyright lies with the photographer, not the film / camera owner or the subject.
I'd be in touch with the competition organisers (unless the OP's 'subject is happy to relinquish their prize freely) to see how they can rectify the situation, as it appears to be a solid case of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as your own for gain)...
What evidence has the photographer got that they actually took the photo? Is it verbal or is there something in writing / email?
I'd be in touch with the competition organisers (unless the OP's 'subject is happy to relinquish their prize freely) to see how they can rectify the situation, as it appears to be a solid case of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as your own for gain)...
What evidence has the photographer got that they actually took the photo? Is it verbal or is there something in writing / email?
chris.mapey said:
The copyright lies with the photographer, not the film / camera owner or the subject.
I'd be in touch with the competition organisers (unless the OP's 'subject is happy to relinquish their prize freely) to see how they can rectify the situation, as it appears to be a solid case of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as your own for gain)...
What evidence has the photographer got that they actually took the photo? Is it verbal or is there something in writing / email?
I believe that the subject has acknowledged the photographer in writing, although the whole thing was friendly (it was a group holiday) and none were pros. The picture was never taken with the competition in mind. There is apparently an offer of dinner / drinks by way of thanks, although the value of the prize is around £4-5K.I'd be in touch with the competition organisers (unless the OP's 'subject is happy to relinquish their prize freely) to see how they can rectify the situation, as it appears to be a solid case of plagiarism (passing off someone else's work as your own for gain)...
What evidence has the photographer got that they actually took the photo? Is it verbal or is there something in writing / email?
As noted above, under UK law Copyright belongs initially to the creator - in this case the person taking the photograph. However, this might not be the case in the country in which the image was created and would be worth checking if a real issue is going to be made over this.
Assuming that the photographer and not the camera owner does owns the copyright then, if I was to argue in support of the subject of the photo, I would be suggesting that, by agreeing to take the photo for free using the subject's camera and putting no restrictions on the further use of that photo, the photographer effectively gave a free license to the subject to do what they liked with it - although entering a competition and subsequent publication of that image might be stretching things a little far.
A key thing here seems to be the terms of the competition and whether any misrepresentation has been made by the subject and what happens to the image now. There is a risk that by making any formal challenge the competition might rule the image ineligible which might cause more problems.
The photographer may still be able to assert their Moral Rights in the image (the right to be named as the creator), but trying to restrict the use of the image now might be difficult - particularly if any photo editing was done by the subject prior to submitting the image.
Assuming that the photographer and not the camera owner does owns the copyright then, if I was to argue in support of the subject of the photo, I would be suggesting that, by agreeing to take the photo for free using the subject's camera and putting no restrictions on the further use of that photo, the photographer effectively gave a free license to the subject to do what they liked with it - although entering a competition and subsequent publication of that image might be stretching things a little far.
A key thing here seems to be the terms of the competition and whether any misrepresentation has been made by the subject and what happens to the image now. There is a risk that by making any formal challenge the competition might rule the image ineligible which might cause more problems.
The photographer may still be able to assert their Moral Rights in the image (the right to be named as the creator), but trying to restrict the use of the image now might be difficult - particularly if any photo editing was done by the subject prior to submitting the image.
Technically the person who took the photo may be entitled but morally?
Someone asks you to take a photo as a favour in a setting of their choosing & a vague idea it will look nice.
They get said photo and see it is excellent, enter it into a competition, win and offer a thank you drinks and meal. Sounds reasonable.
"Friend" then trying to claim prize for, in essence, pointing a camera roughly as directed???
Couple of questions:
Would the photographer honestly have entered it into the competition if they had the picture?
Would the photographer have recompensed the people if they had stuck a finger over the lens?
Apologies if there is a lot more to it and the photographer did far more than point a camera and press a button as a friend but that's how the post came across to me.
Someone asks you to take a photo as a favour in a setting of their choosing & a vague idea it will look nice.
They get said photo and see it is excellent, enter it into a competition, win and offer a thank you drinks and meal. Sounds reasonable.
"Friend" then trying to claim prize for, in essence, pointing a camera roughly as directed???
Couple of questions:
Would the photographer honestly have entered it into the competition if they had the picture?
Would the photographer have recompensed the people if they had stuck a finger over the lens?
Apologies if there is a lot more to it and the photographer did far more than point a camera and press a button as a friend but that's how the post came across to me.
Dollars to doughnuts, any and every court in the land would accept that (a) the photographer owned the copyright in the photo, and (b) the subject was granted a licence by the photographer to create at least one print of the photo.
The photographer's problem is that when the subject hands the print (the subject's physical property) to a third person in order for it to be judged, on the face of it, no infringement of copyright takes place: there's no further reproduction, issue to the public, and no dealing in an unauthorised copy.
The photogrpaher's answer is to argue that the licence to create prints was a licence to create prints purely for personal use. However, this isn't as if the subject took the print and exploited it by further repro (eg printing on t shirts). So the photographer's argument really comes down to one that restricts the use of the subject 's property, being the print itself, rather than one that restricts the use of the photographer's property, being the copyright/right to control further copying.
Nice little problem. IMO the photographer has the more difficult case.
The photographer's problem is that when the subject hands the print (the subject's physical property) to a third person in order for it to be judged, on the face of it, no infringement of copyright takes place: there's no further reproduction, issue to the public, and no dealing in an unauthorised copy.
The photogrpaher's answer is to argue that the licence to create prints was a licence to create prints purely for personal use. However, this isn't as if the subject took the print and exploited it by further repro (eg printing on t shirts). So the photographer's argument really comes down to one that restricts the use of the subject 's property, being the print itself, rather than one that restricts the use of the photographer's property, being the copyright/right to control further copying.
Nice little problem. IMO the photographer has the more difficult case.
If the subject found the shot, set the camera and posed the subject, the "photographer" is effectively a glorified tripod. Would the photographer ever have taken that shot and the subsequently entered the very same competition?
I know the guy who pressed the shutter technically has the copyright, but I don't see what claim he has to the prize. I'd take the dinner and drinks and avoid damaging a friendship.
I know the guy who pressed the shutter technically has the copyright, but I don't see what claim he has to the prize. I'd take the dinner and drinks and avoid damaging a friendship.
mcflurry said:
Did the photographer just press the shutter, or did they change the settings and move the camera?
I see your angle, but it's pointless because it can't be proved.Copyright vests in the author of the work, and that's the bloke who took the photo. We presume he allowed his friend to use it, which is called license (ie use of copyright work with permission) but the question is 'how far does that license extend?'.
But as said unless he is prepared to go to court it's all pointless anyway - and nothing can be proved, not even who took it.
No doubt the competition had something like this in the rules:
"Photos submitted must be your own work...."
In this is the case it would seem that the image should not have been submitted in the first place. If the promoter gets wind of the fact that the person submitted an image taken by someone else then it's likely they will be disqualified.
"Photos submitted must be your own work...."
In this is the case it would seem that the image should not have been submitted in the first place. If the promoter gets wind of the fact that the person submitted an image taken by someone else then it's likely they will be disqualified.
Some interesting comments. There was no print AFAIK, the image was submitted in electronic form. It was taken in Tanzania, so I would have no idea what the copywrite law there might be. The image has subsequently been used for commercial purposes by the company holding the competition. Just to be clear though, much as it was a shock to the colleague that this picture won a prize, there is no animosity towards the subject. I posted seeking some opinion on what the legal position might be. As for using the camera's creative settings - unknown, although I guess composition would be considered intrinsic to a picture (I don't imagine there was a tripod for example).
Number 7 said:
Some interesting comments. There was no print AFAIK, the image was submitted in electronic form. It was taken in Tanzania, so I would have no idea what the copywrite law there might be. The image has subsequently been used for commercial purposes by the company holding the competition. Just to be clear though, much as it was a shock to the colleague that this picture won a prize, there is no animosity towards the subject. I posted seeking some opinion on what the legal position might be. As for using the camera's creative settings - unknown, although I guess composition would be considered intrinsic to a picture (I don't imagine there was a tripod for example).
Regardless of copyright law in Tanzania, it's a safe bet that the case would be dealt with in an English (or Scottish court). It's likely that mentioning anything to the organisers of the competition would result in disqualification. As it stands, one party gets a free holiday, and another gets a nice dinner. Make sure to have the steak.
sgrimshaw makes a sound point; competition organisers are noted for helping themselves to the copyright when the image is submitted - which may close the matter at a stroke.
As for 'the legal position'; I think the person who sent the image to the competition organisers breached the photogapher's copyright; it was not his to assign elsewhere.
Two things.
1) Get your friend to find and read the T&Cs because otherwise we can only guess.
2) Note it is 'copyright', nothing to do with copyWriting
Number 7 said:
The image has subsequently been used for commercial purposes by the company holding the competition.
- which would seem to prove the point. As for 'the legal position'; I think the person who sent the image to the competition organisers breached the photogapher's copyright; it was not his to assign elsewhere.
Two things.
1) Get your friend to find and read the T&Cs because otherwise we can only guess.
2) Note it is 'copyright', nothing to do with copyWriting
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 30th December 20:28
iwantagta said:
Technically the person who took the photo may be entitled but morally?
Someone asks you to take a photo as a favour in a setting of their choosing & a vague idea it will look nice.
They get said photo and see it is excellent, enter it into a competition, win and offer a thank you drinks and meal. Sounds reasonable.
That's how I see it.Someone asks you to take a photo as a favour in a setting of their choosing & a vague idea it will look nice.
They get said photo and see it is excellent, enter it into a competition, win and offer a thank you drinks and meal. Sounds reasonable.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff