Yes. Until they decide to amend it.
The one who took it will get the most trouble.
Everybody else who own a copy of the photo will also be in trouble ... if it didn't pass censorship.
Copyright?
- Thread starter Astin
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Until they decide to amend it.
The one who took it will get the most trouble.
Everybody else who own a copy of the photo will also be in trouble ... if it didn't pass censorship.
Interesting alright..
I believe the one who has the evidence that and he can prove that he has full ownership deserved the copyright..!!
Law works on facts and evidence..!
Anybody can make up a story to claim that they are the one who press the shutter therefore they deserved the reward... But I will always go for the person who can shot me ther realthing.. hehe
Ooopps time to go home.. nice topic it kept me occupied for about 30 mins hehe..
I believe the one who has the evidence that and he can prove that he has full ownership deserved the copyright..!!
Law works on facts and evidence..!
Anybody can make up a story to claim that they are the one who press the shutter therefore they deserved the reward... But I will always go for the person who can shot me ther realthing.. hehe
Ooopps time to go home.. nice topic it kept me occupied for about 30 mins hehe..
Law still says guy C has full ownership to the photo
Well ... all persons involve in the case will need to be sworn into court to tell the truth ... so for whatever the reward, the person who lies will swear away his soul to the devil that's all ... so everyone will be fighting to be Guy C ... assuming things are clear cut and that there are no other factors ...
Tosses a spanner in the works ....
Who owns copyright would largely depend on the contract terms of the sale to the Ad agency :devil:
Who owns copyright would largely depend on the contract terms of the sale to the Ad agency :devil:
It really would depend on the jurisdiction as Eug points out. A lot also hinges on the current state of case law and at which point on the evolutionary ladder you are on. I think it's a far easier case to argue for joint authorship...
So, is it right to conclude that:
- when you are in Singapore, you want to be guy C.
- when you are in Canada, you want to be guy B.
- when in most other countries, you want to be guy A.
- when you are in Singapore, you want to be guy C.
- when you are in Canada, you want to be guy B.
- when in most other countries, you want to be guy A.
When in most country, you want to be guy C
The only time you may want to be guy A, is when it is a digital camera ... :bsmilie:
So if you walk around Orchard road and some nice *ahem* birds ask you to take their pictures for them, using their camera, and their film. But you are holding the camera and you pressed the shutter with your finger.
Later you can go to court and claim ownership of those pictures?
Later you can go to court and claim ownership of those pictures?
I don't understand why Guy C will own the copyright inder Singapore law though his my pick too (anyone care to explain?)
Anyway to me... he pressed the shutter. and Guy A was to short. so how to compose the photo properly? So probably Guy C had to compose the picture ......
Anyway to me... he pressed the shutter. and Guy A was to short. so how to compose the photo properly? So probably Guy C had to compose the picture ......
See the problem with copyright is that it doesn't fit easily into any predefined areas of law. Copyright wasn't a legal concept until relatively recently.
There are two main concepts lawyers have to deal with when considering copyright; authorship and originality. And defining those terms has been the difficulty, as a sizeable amount of conflicting case law has come about. Basically, copyright belongs to the author once you can establish that there is an author and who that author is. Courts have had different thresholds down the years towards acknowledging whether a person is an author or not, but we have meandered to the extent where generally speaking the person who presses the shutter is considered the author, even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the composition.
Some as usual oppose this viewpoint, because they find it highly silly. But at the same time copyright is a complex legal animal and if it were easy to appease everyone then it would have been done by now. In this case, how can you argue that someone who's composed a shot, arranged to have it taken, provided the equipment and let someone else press the button be considered the author? The alternative argument is the scientific; it is the person who's pressed the shutter who's created the image at the formation point.
Like I said, copyright is a flabbergasting thing. You can for instance spot a photographer taking a photograph, mimic his exact actions, and arrive at virtually an identical picture, but there would be no infringement unless you copy his picture.
For further reading try to find the case regarding Creation Records. Bearing in mind it involves the Gallagher brothers it should be fun reading anyway.
And somewhat off tangent because this is more originality related than author related, look for the Bridgeman Art Library case as well. Those two are probably major reading for the field of copyright at the moment, even though they are some years old now.
There are two main concepts lawyers have to deal with when considering copyright; authorship and originality. And defining those terms has been the difficulty, as a sizeable amount of conflicting case law has come about. Basically, copyright belongs to the author once you can establish that there is an author and who that author is. Courts have had different thresholds down the years towards acknowledging whether a person is an author or not, but we have meandered to the extent where generally speaking the person who presses the shutter is considered the author, even if he had nothing whatsoever to do with the composition.
Some as usual oppose this viewpoint, because they find it highly silly. But at the same time copyright is a complex legal animal and if it were easy to appease everyone then it would have been done by now. In this case, how can you argue that someone who's composed a shot, arranged to have it taken, provided the equipment and let someone else press the button be considered the author? The alternative argument is the scientific; it is the person who's pressed the shutter who's created the image at the formation point.
Like I said, copyright is a flabbergasting thing. You can for instance spot a photographer taking a photograph, mimic his exact actions, and arrive at virtually an identical picture, but there would be no infringement unless you copy his picture.
For further reading try to find the case regarding Creation Records. Bearing in mind it involves the Gallagher brothers it should be fun reading anyway.
And somewhat off tangent because this is more originality related than author related, look for the Bridgeman Art Library case as well. Those two are probably major reading for the field of copyright at the moment, even though they are some years old now.
V
vince123123
Guest
Actually, even though the literal reading of s7 Copyright acts says that the person who "took the photograph" is the author, a purposive reading, which is allowed in cases wehre the literal reading leads to absuridty, suggests otherwise.
Further, the case of Bauman v Fusell [1978] RPC 485 suggests that the the copyrightable element in a photograph is the selection or arrangement of the features in the photograph. THat suggests that A is the author as he was the one who created the copyrightable element, and not B.
Further, it can be said that B was an agent acting for A when he pressed the shutter. Hence copyright again belongs to A.
The basic principle of the law of copyright is that it protects the author of the copyrightable element of the work and that person would probably be A and not B.
Further, the case of Bauman v Fusell [1978] RPC 485 suggests that the the copyrightable element in a photograph is the selection or arrangement of the features in the photograph. THat suggests that A is the author as he was the one who created the copyrightable element, and not B.
Further, it can be said that B was an agent acting for A when he pressed the shutter. Hence copyright again belongs to A.
The basic principle of the law of copyright is that it protects the author of the copyrightable element of the work and that person would probably be A and not B.
- Status
