If A Kid Grabs Your Camera In The Street And Snaps Some Photos, Who Owns The Copyright
from the well,-at-least-they're-not-monkeys dept
You may recall, from a few months back, the copyright debate we had going back and forth over the question of whether or not monekys could hold the copyright on some photographs they took. The general conclusion was that they could not, and the photos taken were almost certainly in the public domain, contrary to the claim of the guy who owned the camera, and the news agency he tried to "license" the photos to. That said, what if you have a similar situation involving a human? Photographer Mirjam Letsch has an interesting blog post on her site, in which she notes that while walking through an Indian bazaar with her camera dangling on her shoulder, a kid grabbed the camera and took five quick photos, some of which are pretty nice. Here's just one, but click through to Letsch's site to see the rest:
I really liked the creative result when I later saw these images! Don’t know who owns the copyright though!While it may depend on the specifics of Indian law, in the US and many other parts of the world, it's likely that the kid almost certainly holds the copyright, technically, though the likelihood of him ever enforcing those copyrights is minimal at best. Similarly, it's unlikely that Letsch holds the copyrights on the images, but thankfully, this doesn't seem like a case where anyone wants to fight over the copyrights, but rather is an opportunity to just see some cool photos taken in under unusual circumstances.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Link to the site
http://mirjamletsch.com/?p=3344
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to the site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Link to the site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
awww
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The kid under the Berne Convention controls the copyright but as Mike states it is highly unlikely that he would ever enforce those rights. It's still necessary to attribute the work to the child (John Doe) though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ill-got(ten) gains
In another light, if minor passerby did not have permission to take the camera, he could be in the act of theft. Most jurisdictions in the English tradition do not allow criminals to profit from their crimes (once caught).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ill-got(ten) gains
As for model releases unless the photograph is going to be used for commercial purposes, and commercial purposes for photographs do not mean if the photo is sold for profit, as a lot of people think if sold. Commercial purposes for photos means for advertising and promotoin only.
If I take a photo of someone and then sell that photo to a photo collector, magazine, photo gallery, whatever and the photo is not being used to promote anything it is NOT for commercial gain and therefore a model release is NOT required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ill-got(ten) gains
I could sue him for damages as well as remove and sell the wall as an original Picasso.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tourists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tourists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tourists
> hire" if the person was explicitly asked to take the picture,
> even if there was no payment involved.
Payment (or other consideration) is pretty much necessary for the 'hire' part of 'work for hire' to be met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tourists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tourists
Now if you handed the person some currency that is then entirely different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tourists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: racist?
Due to the phrasing and content I'm favoring "sincere but clueless" but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logical answer: photographs are image records of external conditions, ergo they are NOT a creation of the photographer, therefore the entire concept of a copyright on an un-manipulated image is demonstrably idiotic. A photograph is no more worthy of copyright than a list of yearly average temperatures in Las Vegas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a photographer, and more importantly, as a fan of photography, I can say that this claim is dead-wrong.
Spend 10 minutes looking through some random facebook photo albums, then look through a great photographer's portfolio and tell me there's no difference.
Composition, exposure, aperture, lens selection, colour balance, lighting, posing, etc. all have a significant effect on the final image. Each of these factors involves a creative decision that alters the scene in some way to create the photograph.
Saying a photograph is undeserving of protection is like saying a realistic painting is undeserving of protection, because like a photograph, realism also just an un-manipulated image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transformative Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformative Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110902/03151515777/photographs-are-mechanical-represe ntations-facts-thus-should-have-only-thin-copyright-protection.shtml
Therefore, the *THIN* copyright on these images isn't worth fighting over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So kid committed a crime by "stealing" photographer's film to make copyrighted images. Then photographer steals the copyrighted images for use on her website, is she committing a crime? I see she sells prints, it'd be super ironic if she started selling prints of those photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your using copyrighted material without getting permission and paying for a license!
I'm going to track down that kid and get him to:
i) Send you a DMCA notice
ii) Sue you for willful copyright infringement (Statutory damages baby!)
I'll settle for a few grand though :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, a false DMCA notice is perjury, which will result in prison time on conviction.
Then there's the fact that demanding "a few grand" under threat is coercion/extortion. That's a felony right there, hope you like prison.
If you have no ownership rights to the content in question, then you lack standing to file a DMCA claim. Any DMCA claim filed under those circumstances is a false one. Have fun in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And how many lawyers are in prison for their part in copyright suit settlement schemes?
If they aren't both big fat zeroes I'd love to know.
(I agree that there should be some btw. The initial post was irony, I forgot you have to make that patently clear on US forums.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious?
BUT
Without the input from the camera owner they wouldn't exist at all so the owner of the equipment would have a claim for a percentage of any royalties earned (possibly up to 100%).
Or am I being too reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obvious?
Granted, it's a VERY petty theft, but it is still a theft. Many countries have laws that prevent a thief from profiting, even indirectly, from his crime. Theft does not confer ownership, so it's entirely possible that the kid doesn't own a thing, since the copyrights arose from an act of theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it was only a matter of time
We have recently seen lawsuits for copyright infringement over less similarity than this.
I think we can all see where this is headed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the kid stole the camera, I would expect that you beat him bloody and then dragged his ass to the cops. If the parents want to get involved, no problem... beat them bloody too for allowing their child to be a punk. It can be an educational experience for the entire family.
So no copyright for the kid. If it were me, I would just delete the pics and move on. What is the point of baiting a lawsuit. I have better things to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Profit from crime?
Or at least that's how it works in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The kids parents
I've also wondered in the past about the situation where you are on vacation and ask some passerby to take a picture of you and your buddies/family--the stranger owns the copyright, though presumably the camera owner has an implied license granted by the stranger...
Such a mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]