Another Dispute About Authorship

Another dispute about the authorship of an image:

 

LINK --- --- British photographer hired to press camera button claims ownership of photo of woman wrapped in hair | Daily Mail Online

I imagine the world's restaurant waitstaff is watching this case with great interest.

I had always presumed that whoever operates the equipment is deemed to be the author - or are we heading for a situation whereby the creator and vendor of Word Processing software (to say nothing of the computer manufacturer and seller), or the people operating the machinery which produces paint brushes, can now assert that without their contribution the 'work of art' could not have been created ? Maybe the photographer should have had a model release signed ? And, apart from the eyes, is there any evidence that the complainant is actually the person photographed ? Perhaps an Identity Parade should be held to ensure the veracity of her claim ? I would think that the evidence of the studio staff would not count for much, if they were paid by the complainant - they will know which side their bread is buttered, after all.

'I never would expect winning a major prize would be such a nasty experience

You might have thought of that before creating the oxymoronic situation whereby you have someone else snap the shutter on your "self portrait." When entering a contest, it's best to fully understand the theme.

 

That being said, I probably would not have taken the prize away because of the way the photo was made. I would take it away for two other reasons: the photo itself and the title. ;)

I don't know much about legal stuff. As far as I know, the person who clicks the button is legally assumed to have 'author rights' to any photos taken. This may, in many cases, conflict with claims that the 'clicker' - as is claimed in this case - is simply an employee of a photo director. There is of course more discussion on who determined the lighting and final image.

 

Without any practical knowledge of these kinds of situations, it seems to me that the discussion mainly arises from a lack of (or loose) contractual agreements between the 'director' and her employees..

Whatever happened in that case where some non-human primate took a bunch of photographs?

Oh...

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia

Oh my---the old human bugbear----do anything for "THE PRESTIGE".

If it is as Ms Gebler Davies says, which I have to say sounds the most likely scenario, then Corbett is simply pissed he got no credit for being an "assistant" for an award-winning pic. This is probably not unusual in these situations (see Pret-a-Porter/Ready to Wear: Altman film with an obnoxious famous photographer who does nothing but simply release the shutter). But I agree with Mike, this seems an issue she can resolve going forward with a more careful employment contract. I knew someone who assisted Annie Liebowitz, he knew where he stood on these matters, not that he didn't complain, but equally he learned a lot. He is a successful editorial photographer now.

 

I find the photo unattractive, a bit too "clever" for my taste (particularly the punning title), but it is unusual so all is fair in art and war.

For whatever reason my iPad would not let me read the link, so I don't have a clear grasp of the facts. However, generally, if one is hired to carry out a project, then the results belong to the employer, unless a deal has been struck when hiring. An analogy could be if a hit man kills someone, the person who did the hiring is also guilty. The hit man could even make a deal with prosecutor and get off with minimum sentence.

Of course, the photo being discussed is one of those sticky situations that exist for the benefit of lawyers.

if one is hired to carry out a project, then the results belong to the employer

What I took away from the article was that it was in large part not about ownership of the photo as much as whether the judges, now with knowledge that Davies didn't snap the shutter, were justified in rescinding the award on the grounds that it wasn't a self portrait. That's an artistic judgment at the discretion of the judges. The legal case of ownership might go to a court. But I think the judges were on firm ground in not considering it a self portrait. By the way, had they gone the other way and allowed it, I think they would also have been on firm ground, because reasonable arguments can be made both ways. But, in a contest, usually the judges' ruling is what counts.

So if it was taken with an extended cable release or self timer, then it is a self portrait, otherwise it isn't?

 

And if you use an audio controlled wet chemistry based shutter activator, it isn't?

So if it was taken with an extended cable release or self timer, then it is a self portrait, otherwise it isn't?

Who knows? What's that got to do with this case, where the shutter button was pushed by someone other than the self who's claiming it as a self portrait?

 

My guess, and it's only a guess, would be that the judges would use basic reasoning skills in determining the difference between someone other than the subject pushing the shutter on the one hand, and the subject herself setting a timer or setting up an audio controller on the other. Reasonable judges are usually able to deal with these sorts of causal connections.

Does an extended cable release count as "pushing"?

 

How about an electronic robot?

 

How about a "wetware" robot?

 

If, for example, the camera was on a tripod, already pointed in the right direction,

and the wetware robot (that is, person) "only" pushed the button, how (much)

different is that from the extended cable release?

 

And in the case of a self timer, is it the person who activated the self timer,

or the self timer itself that trips the shutter?

Why are you asking these questions and what, specifically, do they have to do with the case at hand, where a human being other than the subject took the picture? Make your point. Say what’s on your mind. Try to talk in terms other than hypotheticals. This is the real world, where actual facts are at play and known. Why not address them?

It depends on what you mean, or what anyone means, by "take a picture".

 

Normally that includes things like focus, setting exposure, and most important framing.

 

If you remove those, and only leave the actual pushing the button, then a self timer,

extra long cable release, audio controlled electronic release, or, finally,

audio controlled wetware, do exactly the same thing.

 

As it actually says:

 

'Mr Corbett will need to have made a creative contribution to determine whether he has

any claim to authorship which is, ultimately, a decision for the Courts. It will be crucial

to evaluate the process up to and the taking of the photograph.'

 

What the contest rules actually say might also be important.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

I think it would be consistent for the courts to determine that legal authorship of a photo belongs to Person X while the judges of a contest determine that Person X’s photo is not a self portrait. In my view, that’s likely the case here and I accept the ruling of the contest judges regarding the latter. We’ll see what the courts decide with respect to the former.

Uh-oh, I'm in trouble. A few days back on "No Words" the topic was 'Re-Purposed'. I got this quick idea to get a photo of putting our COVID masks to (much) better use as eye-masks for sleeping. I wanted to be over and done quickly so I got a mask, put it over my eyes and slouched down in a chair, and asked my 8 year old granddaughter to snap a photo of me on my cell phone. When I posted it I thought about adding the words "taken by my granddaughter" but it is "no words", so I just posted it. The marvelous idea was of course mine, not to mention I was the stunning model. Now when this photo wins the Magnum and/or National Geographic "Best Photo of the Year" award I'll have to share accolades and prize money with my granddaughter.

 

Oh and all the 'likes' it received in "no words" actually belong to her. This post is my coming clean.

When I posted it I thought about adding the words "taken by my granddaughter" but it is "no words"

If you read the Guidelines for No Words (posted permanently to the top of the list of No Words threads) and follow the long-established precedent of everyday users of the forum, you'll note that a brief introduction in words is perfectly acceptable.

 

Relevant passage from the Guidelines:

A sentence or two regarding how you made the photo, the technique, or about the subject is permitted, however discussions and comments about the submissions are not allowed in this forum.

OK, so I won't mention: Photo.net - Discover, Develop and Discuss Photography

 

But also note my mention above of the sound activated wetware robot shutter release.

Who owns the copyright on this film?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2022/02/04/kea-parrot-go-pro-video-new-zealand/

 

"There are things man is not meant to know"

Old Scotsman in any number of horror films....

This one works better for me:

 

A New Zealand parrot stole a GoPro and filmed its getaway