A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Just a question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 17th 18, 09:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,429
Default Just a question

In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how
much you get to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to
use?

Neil:
I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades.


Sandman:
While I find that hard to believe, this really wasn't about you,
was it?


That depends on what you meant by "...how much *you* get to apply
it" in your above statement. I typically regard the term "you" in
that context as a reference to me, which would make your comment
really about me.


Correct, the question was posed to you, but not about your skills, if any.
It's a general discussion about skills, not your skills.

--
Sandman
  #62  
Old September 18th 18, 02:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default Just a question

On 9/18/2018 6:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.

This probably varies according to the laws in different countries. In
the US, ownership depends on whether one is working *at* a company or
*for* a company, as in the company is their client. Employees of a
company do not own the products of their work (unless specifically
written into their contracts), but in the latter case, ownership remains
with the photographer.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #63  
Old September 19th 18, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Just a question

On 09/18/2018 06:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 15 September 2018 20:51:02 UTC+1, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/14/2018 10:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ron C
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .

so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?


The person who started the self-timer's "count-down" is the person who
pushed the button. The image capture was simply delayed.
Just as when I press the shutter button on my mechanical SLR, the image
is not captured instantaneously; there is a very slight delay as each
gear, cog, and lever in the mechanism does it's thing.
Nonetheless, I am the person who initiated the image capture, so once
the image is fixed in a permanent and tangible form, I am the copyright
owner.


I don;t think that is true or at least it can be argued. A friend of mine was taking professional pictures of jewlery for a company using a high end flash unit, where you weren't allowed to be in the same roonm when the flash went off.
The photographer set up all the equipment ready to take the pictures and then got the photographers assistant to place the jewelry on the spot then fire the shutter for a few dozen items the assistant didn't change any setting other that what was said by the photgrapher who wasn't even in the same building at the time.

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.


I think you are getting into the "Work For Hire" issue. It's a murky
issue, and can keep lawyers billing many hours!

As one example, go back to the Murrah Federal Bldg, 4/19/1995: An
Oklahoma City fireman, Chris Fields carries a critically injured
one-year-old from the wreakage. Lester Larue, a safety coordinator for
the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, also happened to be on the scene that
day, with a company camera because he initially thought the blast was a
gas explosion. He got $14,000 from Newsweek initially; other sales
followed. The Gas company had a problem with that- they said basically:
Our camera, our copyright, our money... turn over the cash, or hit the
bricks. And they were legally right: the photographer was on the clock,
the camera was provided by his employer for documenting gas safety
issues; so any photos belonged to the gas company.

Work-for-Hire is not a universal concept. If a photographer thinks his
work might come under it, he can negotiate with his employer for an
exclusion.


Here at university any work a student does while here at university while on their course is owned by the university NOT the student, even if they buy and pay for the hardware themselves it is the colleges property.


That 'sounds' a bit flakey and unfair, but if the university makes it
clear up front, well then, it's a learning experience for the student.




In the case of the monkey pictures, the photographer created a situation
where an image capture (or several images) was likely to occur. He set
up the camera so that the lighting and focus would be conducive to that
image capture (most likely by setting the camera to an auto function).
And he likely owns (or is responsible for) the camera gear. So the human
is the photographer and the copyright owner. Whether or not an animal
can hold a copyright is not material.


yes this makes sense because it's not belived that monkeys are self aware enough to take photos.


They may or may not be self aware of making a photograph, but do they
have a concept of property? Many animals "mark" their territory
(property), so they do seem to understand property. And a copyright is
property.
I don't think the monkey gets the copyright in this case, but not simply
because an animal can't own property.






--
Ken Hart

  #64  
Old September 19th 18, 02:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 359
Default Just a question

On 9/19/2018 6:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 September 2018 14:41:36 UTC+1, Neil wrote:
On 9/18/2018 6:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.

This probably varies according to the laws in different countries. In
the US, ownership depends on whether one is working *at* a company or
*for* a company, as in the company is their client. Employees of a
company do not own the products of their work (unless specifically
written into their contracts), but in the latter case, ownership remains
with the photographer.


https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/eif...llegal-photos/


Under current French law, it’s totally fine to take a picture of the Eiffel Tower’s evening light display. However, distributing that photograph via Facebook or Instagram might land you in hot water.

But snap-happy tourists, you can breathe a bit easier. You can legally take all the photos you want during the day, because the Eiffel Tower is a public space. It’s only the tower’s evening light display, installed in 1985 by Pierre Bideau, that is technically owned by the artist and protected by copyright.

That's a good example of a country-specific copyright law. In other
countries photographs taken in public space are the sole property of the
photographer.

In your example, I wonder how copyright would apply if the shot was of a
single light bulb on the tower (unless that light bulb was created by
Pierre)? In other words, does the copyright apply to the hardware, the
arrangement of lights, the view from different locations...?

--
best regards,

Neil
  #65  
Old September 19th 18, 10:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Just a question

On 09/19/2018 06:59 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 September 2018 00:09:22 UTC+1, Ken Hart wrote:
On 09/18/2018 06:17 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:


snip

I believ that even as a pro photographer that any picture yuo atke while working for the company then the copyright belongs to them the company.


I think you are getting into the "Work For Hire" issue. It's a murky
issue, and can keep lawyers billing many hours!


Anything can keep a lawyers for hours when they are earniong by the hour.
If you are employed by a company they do own the work you do for them.

snip work-for-hire example: fireman photo at Oklahoma bombing.


Work-for-Hire is not a universal concept. If a photographer thinks his
work might come under it, he can negotiate with his employer for an
exclusion.


I'm not sure what Work-for-Hire actually means, is it like freelance.


I would say that "work-for-hire" is probably the opposite of free lance.
If you are employed to create photographs (or even if you are employed
for another purpose, but photographs might be incidental to that
purpose), and your employer provides the camera gear and side-items,
then your photos belong to the employer, _UNLESS_ you have negotiated a
work-for-hire exception.

A free-lancer generally is hired for an event (that may or may not have
already occurred). He usually provides his own camera gear, and sells a
finished photograph. That photograph is probably his own copyright,
unless the employer previously executes a work-for-hire agreement. For
example, many publications have a fine print paragraph that says items
submitted for possible publication become the property of the publisher.
In that case, if I submit a photo to "The Daily Muckraker" for
publication I have given up my copyright, since they warned me of their
policy.






Here at university any work a student does while here at university while on their course is owned by the university NOT the student, even if they buy and pay for the hardware themselves it is the colleges property.


That 'sounds' a bit flakey and unfair, but if the university makes it
clear up front, well then, it's a learning experience for the student.


That's the way it is done, it's the same for most people.

snip monkey copyright


--
Ken Hart

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Rgr Digital Photography 0 April 21st 05 03:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.