Apologies for going silent, I hadn't checked to get emails when you responses were added.
This is basically the argument I wasn't sure had been done in courts before.
Regarding the links, correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these have been challenged in a legal environment, right? If you find me a court decision showing that it is literally the person that clicks the shutter button, I'll be good with that interpretation.
In general, I'm good with the interpretation as given in these stories. I just can understand why someone might feel otherwise, and I am far from confident enough in saying that they are unilaterally wrong.
Also, as I said in another post. I hadn't meant to get drawn in to this actual argument. Not interesting to me. I just wanted to say that the photographer had not necessarily said the entire shoot was an accident. :) I still stand by that assertion.
I meant links as in precedent showing that this is the case. Failing that, I am not claiming you are wrong, but I also wouldn't bet the farm on any of this. The rest is just speculation by people that should know, but sadly aren't always correct. (Otherwise, we'd have a 100% track record here of predicting what the courts would decide.)
So, there is no way I'm going to be able to respond to everyone on this one. I believe this response has the same basic thought as the other posts that I am going to be ignoring here. Apologies if I'm wrong.
I do not directly disagree that this may not be enough. I'm simply saying that I also do not directly know. I would have to cede that it is more complicated than the typical scenarios that people mention. That is pretty much the entirety of my point in this case.
I understand the basics of the other scenarios that people mention. It actually is pretty straight forward, in most cases. Where it gets complicated is where the person "taking the picture" either did so on your behalf, or was unaware that they were doing so. In this case, I think it would actually be more akin to the latter, but I think both cases are different enough to be unique.
So, if anyone has a direct link to the scenarios that I have mentioned, I am very interested. Otherwise, you have about as much authority claiming "definite answer" as I do saying "it seems like it may be more complicated."
I should have said it was borderline libelous. You are entitled to think whatever you want, but you should not drag someone's reputation in the mud because you think something that they may not have done. In this case, the photographer has not actually changed his story, so to accuse him of being a money grabbing opportunist who will change his story when it benefits him is a touch wrong.
Now, you can continue to claim he is wrong. That is something else entirely.
I should say that in my head, there was also a note that said "please use this camera to help us capture some events from our wedding." Or some such (could have been an announcement about why the pictures were there. Basically something where it is clear that the couple plans on using the results of the usage of the camera for their own purposes. In these cases, yes, I would believe the camera operator has no claim on the copyright of the images captured.
I'm not sure how this supports your argument. It sounds like you're agreeing with me. No, the copyright does not automatically go to the owner, but to the person who took the picture.
No, I'm making a distinction between "loaning" equipment, and having someone take part in an semi orchestrated event. The pictures can be seen as outcomes of the event of giving a camera to a monkey. Not just of the monkey taking the picture.
Of course not! Why on earth would you think that? It's quite simple, really. The person (and it has to be a person) who takes the picture or video has the copyright. Not a monkey. Not a bride or groom. Not a person doing a little dance in front of a security camera. The...person...who...took...the...picture.
I'm saying this as it goes against where you are saying it requires "creative contribution" to get copyright. (To be fair, I don't think you have directly said that, but that is the factor that has been commonly used here to determine that the person taking the picture gets the copyright.) Contributing some creativity to something does not grant you any sort of copyright in the matter, as you agree.
Well, that is a different argument than I meant to get drawn into. My first post was simply that it is a touch libelous to say that he is changing his story.
You have something to back this up? Seems... well, dumb.
And yeah, I realize that is half of the beef with copyright laws. But, if you have a case that shows what you are stating, it has to explicitly not just be borrowed equipment.
Meh, to this I have no idea. I was using examples of children, because that is exactly how I would describe watching some toddlers play with something. The first person to activate a jack-in-the-box likely didn't do it on purpose. And it would cause a stir. And I wouldn't have just accidentally given it to them, if I was also off watching them to have seen the incident as it happened.
So, hard to say.
Also, I'm not at all trying to say this changes everything. I don't know enough of the law to say. Just comparisons to "lost" equipment don't count. This is giving something to an agent that takes pictures, where that agent was unaware that it takes pictures. Only that it made clicking noises and had a reflective section.
Is it? The evidence posted here is that transferred equipment does not leave the copyright with the equipment's owner. Taking part in an event does not give one ownership of the event. Note, I specifically have no clue if someone else does own the copyright. I just don't think the picture taker assumes they do. Rather, I think they should assume they do not.
Another example, I see a security camera pointed at a corner and decide to do a creative performance for it. I am the one doing the creative aspect of this, but I have no reason to think I own the copyright of the sequence recorded by the camera. Do I?
So... I forgot I couldn't edit my post. Rereading the original article, I stand by my reading. It says he "left it unattended." Does not say that he accidentally left it unattended. The only accident is the first setting off of the camera.
I haven't read the whole article since, but the quoted section is simply relating the first instance of the camera being triggered. It is like a child playing with a toy that when you push a button it makes a click. The first push of the button is likely an accident, especially if it is the child's first encounter with buttons. The giving of the device to the child is not an accident just because the child's first press is.
Now, again, I have not reread the entire article. Can do so now. Just going off the quoted section.
Again, I think I side on the "public domain" side of this. I definitely agree on the fair use aspect. I just think there is no contradiction in the one story where he said a monkey "must have accidentally taken a picture" and the one where he said he thought they would do this. He was just saying the first monkey probably didn't realize the button was going to cause a sound to be made on the first push.
As for the people in the Apple store. I used that because it was fresh in my head and I don't know the answer. Probably more accurately would be to compare this to the copyright on images taken at a wedding on the disposable cameras that some folks leave on the tables. I would assume the picture taker has no assumption of copyright ownership in those cases. Note, this isn't "borrowed" equipment, this was taking part in a partially scripted environment where someone else made some initial ideas and gathered the results for arrangement.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Josh Berry.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
This is basically the argument I wasn't sure had been done in courts before.
Regarding the links, correct me if I'm wrong, but none of these have been challenged in a legal environment, right? If you find me a court decision showing that it is literally the person that clicks the shutter button, I'll be good with that interpretation.
In general, I'm good with the interpretation as given in these stories. I just can understand why someone might feel otherwise, and I am far from confident enough in saying that they are unilaterally wrong.
Also, as I said in another post. I hadn't meant to get drawn in to this actual argument. Not interesting to me. I just wanted to say that the photographer had not necessarily said the entire shoot was an accident. :) I still stand by that assertion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
I do not directly disagree that this may not be enough. I'm simply saying that I also do not directly know. I would have to cede that it is more complicated than the typical scenarios that people mention. That is pretty much the entirety of my point in this case.
I understand the basics of the other scenarios that people mention. It actually is pretty straight forward, in most cases. Where it gets complicated is where the person "taking the picture" either did so on your behalf, or was unaware that they were doing so. In this case, I think it would actually be more akin to the latter, but I think both cases are different enough to be unique.
So, if anyone has a direct link to the scenarios that I have mentioned, I am very interested. Otherwise, you have about as much authority claiming "definite answer" as I do saying "it seems like it may be more complicated."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Now, you can continue to claim he is wrong. That is something else entirely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
No, I'm making a distinction between "loaning" equipment, and having someone take part in an semi orchestrated event. The pictures can be seen as outcomes of the event of giving a camera to a monkey. Not just of the monkey taking the picture.
I'm saying this as it goes against where you are saying it requires "creative contribution" to get copyright. (To be fair, I don't think you have directly said that, but that is the factor that has been commonly used here to determine that the person taking the picture gets the copyright.) Contributing some creativity to something does not grant you any sort of copyright in the matter, as you agree.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
And yeah, I realize that is half of the beef with copyright laws. But, if you have a case that shows what you are stating, it has to explicitly not just be borrowed equipment.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
So, hard to say.
Also, I'm not at all trying to say this changes everything. I don't know enough of the law to say. Just comparisons to "lost" equipment don't count. This is giving something to an agent that takes pictures, where that agent was unaware that it takes pictures. Only that it made clicking noises and had a reflective section.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Another example, I see a security camera pointed at a corner and decide to do a creative performance for it. I am the one doing the creative aspect of this, but I have no reason to think I own the copyright of the sequence recorded by the camera. Do I?
Re: Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
Now, again, I have not reread the entire article. Can do so now. Just going off the quoted section.
Re: Re: Saying it was an "accident."
As for the people in the Apple store. I used that because it was fresh in my head and I don't know the answer. Probably more accurately would be to compare this to the copyright on images taken at a wedding on the disposable cameras that some folks leave on the tables. I would assume the picture taker has no assumption of copyright ownership in those cases. Note, this isn't "borrowed" equipment, this was taking part in a partially scripted environment where someone else made some initial ideas and gathered the results for arrangement.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Josh Berry.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt