Ex-girlfriend suddenly wants photo credit...

<blockquote>

<p>send her a notice that she <strong>can't not </strong>use any photos of you without a model release</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We already covered the fact that model releases are only needed for very narrow circumstances.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's o.k. It was a double negative!</p>

 

<p>Who is really "taking the picture?" Let's say I own the camera, set the aperture, shutter speed and focus and ask my girlfriend to "Stand here and push this button." She does so and then I process in PS and make prints or post to web. I did 99.9% of the work and she performed as a remote trigger. I maintain that the picture is mine. I "took" it. <br>

Extrapolating a little further. I am the rock band owner, manager and lead performer. I arrange the venue, set up the staging, lighting, and choreography, (i.e. "poses"). I ask my GF to use my camera, all set up and ready to go, to "Stand here, focus on this, and when this happens, you push this little button. Then take up different positions and shoot thus and such and so on." She has a little more creative input if she picks her own vantage point and zoom level, but essentially I am the major creative force. I a well aware that there is a major difference in what is "right" and what is "legal", but what really is the definition of "the person who takes the picture"? There are many steps involved in creating a photograph from obtaining photo equipment and computer access, concept, execution, processing and final output. Does the person who acts solely as a "remote trigger" or "helper" own the entire copyright and say-so on an image that is a cooperative venture?</p>

 

 

<p>I am changing my input to simply, delete, forgive and forget. No double negatives here... I hope.</p>

<p>While your comments are most kind Ian, I don't dispense legal advice here. More like ideas for people to research on their own or to ask experts. As I said, we all make mistakes.</p>

<p>Now if anyone desires gratuitous "Dear Abby" type advice, I'm here. Results not guaranteed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't dispense legal advice here. More like ideas...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, I know, John. And, yet, we love you, anyway.</p>

<p>The person who takes the picture, takes the picture. Copyright exists at the point the work is placed into a tangible medium. The law doesn't wobble or speculate over who might have owned the camera, who might have set up the shot, etc. It's really unlikely that some waiter, another visitor to the park, etc., etc., is going to claim ownership of your Pulitzer Prize image.</p>

<p>The law also provides methods to agree through contracts, employemt agreements, etc., who will own the copyright when there are employment or collaborative type efforts. Problems will arise, as here, when professionals don't take care of the business aspects of copyright ownership when more than one person is involved.</p>