Intellectual Property Rights - Photos/Videos - Page 1

Here's another few questions that could use some enlightenment....

Who owns the intellectual property rights to pictures or videos?

Does the photographer own the rights exclusively, or does a person in the picture also have legal rights to the photo?

What if the picture is just of a dog - does the dog owner have some legal claim to the photo?

Does consent of the subject matter have anything to do with the legal ownership of the photo?

Do the same rules apply for photos taken for profit as opposed to an amateur photographer taking pictures "just for fun"?

Do the same rules apply for video as for photography?

Do we have any lawyers on the board who can pony up to these questions?

Thanks!

Yvette

Yikes, long time ago. But bascially, you can take photos of anything but you may not publish them without permission. In general the person in the photo has to give permission for publication, that is called a model release. Photographers are familiar with that and routinely get it, may be in the small print of a contract. If its a minor the legal guardian has to give permission. Since dogs are the property of the owner the owner can revoke permission to have pix of his property published, or at least challenge it. In this case you need to get a property release. You do not own the image of yourself or your dog, the photographer does. Unless the photographer was hired. Then the terms decide who owns what. Even if you hire a photographer, they may still own the image and the right to it. But without permission the photographer, even if hired may not automatically publish the image. Some images are in the public domain. I would have to check again what applies if you take pix during a public event such as a trial. Usually if a person and a property can be identified, even in a crowd, a release is necessary.

If you want to be on the safe side always consider that the photographer has the right to the actual photograph that he took, it is his property. The subject in the photograph needs to give permission for publication but has no right to the photographers property (actual image). If the person or a property is identifyable you need a model or a property release. If you want to use the pix for commercial purposes, you definitely need to have releases and publishing rights cleared up beforehand. This is something you need to consult a lawyer with, especially if you are setting up a biz. 

Same pretty much applies for video.

Qestion to the new biz - do you really think it is such a good idea to get into something you know so little about? And a service that is basically being taken over by copyshops, online services such as coffeepress.com and even home computers where you can print images onto transfer paper and then put them onto T-shirts yourself... I would highly recommend that you get some figure for the last 5 years and see where this part of the biz has been headed. I predict a downward trend.

Who owns the intellectual property rights to pictures or videos?   You Do

Does the photographer own the rights exclusively, or does a person in the picture also have legal rights to the photo?  Yes and only if nude

What if the picture is just of a dog - does the dog owner have some legal claim to the photo?  No

Does consent of the subject matter have anything to do with the legal ownership of the photo?  Only if nude or a child (under 18)

Do the same rules apply for photos taken for profit as opposed to an amateur photographer taking pictures "just for fun"?  If published for profit or business image needs copyright

Do the same rules apply for video as for photography?  Yes

Do we have any lawyers on the board who can pony up to these questions?  Yes, money talks.

I agree with dh I myself would look more into the legal aspect before i would post any pictures or videos. common courtesy would be to ask first. Most will not have a problem as long as it is not being use negatively.

I believe if you are in a public place you are "fair game".  On private property it's different.  I know there's some lawyers out here so hope they give the details.

 There is also a concept known as "misappropriation of image."   And, yes, dog owners DO have property rights with respect to their own dogs' images, when profit-making ventures are involved.  As someone already stated, get the releases and you don't have to worry about it.  It is like Max said, "Do right and fear no one."   

But, if you are an essentially dishonest individual lacking ethics and integrity, do whatever the hell you wish and fear everybody... 

Nia

Hey,

with the advent of YouTube and other such media sites this will be more and more common. Bottom line is legally you can't do anything. Video like that is fair game. I don't understand, what is everyone so upset about? I thought it was an educational video....Am I missing something??

Know All Men (And Women) By These Presents that Bob-O is neither an attourney, nor does he play one on television or radio. Bob is just an engineer who has often has access to sensitive documents that were awaiting copyright and/or patent.

Applying the copyright protection laws of the United States to photographs that are posted on the web-the common practice is this: if the photograph is in the public domain without any stated protection via copyright, then it is available to anyone who wishes to copy it. It does not matter to who it belongs. As long as it remains unaltered it is still in the public domain, even while in the hands of the "taker". As long as it remains unchanged, there is no infringement. But, use the purloined photographs for devious or libelous reasons, then that becomes a very different matter and has serious legal consequences. Of course, one has to prove their personal or business interests were damaged beyond the doubt of the court.

A website can be protected so images cannot easily be copied. Now, it would not stop Bob from doing it if he wanted to, but I will not share with anyone here how it is done. Suffice it to say that with the correct software it is a very easy task..

But, bring common courtesy and decency into the forefront, where they should remain. On my website are pictures of two (2) dogs and two (2) bitchs who belong to someone else. They are there soley as representatives of each pairs' progeny that I own. In each case I asked permission to use the images. I did not have to do this as they were in the public domain, but I thought it most appropriate to do so. I also made sure the world knew who owned these dogs by placing the owner's names and contact information under each photograph.

Best Regards,

Bob-O

It's been my understanding, when I've been enrolled in past photography classes, that if you plan on publishing someone's image to the web, you should have a signed model release, unless the person is not recognizable.

It's questionable whether Agar was recognizable, as she had her back to the camera operator.  The individual holding the shepherd is shown clearly throughout the videos, as is the person conducting the tests.

Here's a link discussing photographic ethics.  Perhaps it will be of interest.

http://www.photoshare.org/phototips/developethics.php

Micky

Clearly "courtesy" would drive different behavior than "legal requirements".  Also publishing for profit or commerical use is a different venue than "for free."

Remember the "leerburg" thread, and the "Leerkopf" web site poking fun at Ed?  Apparently Ed tried to get the web site pulled, as it was obviously mocking him, but the web site hosting company refused, as there was no legal basis for this.  That web site was blatantly designed to make a mockery of him, complete with photoshopped pics and all.

Last I checked, Agar's Mom posted pictures of Agar on her web site that I took of them when they came to train at our club.  Does that grant me right to royalties off Agar's stud fees?  She certainly never asked my permission to post those pictures nor gave credit to me as photographer.  Is that a legal issue? 

In reality I don't care because in this circumstance I sent her copies of the pictures of she and her dog as a courtesy to a visitor to our club. 

A lawyer might have a different interpretation.  There seems to be discrepencies of opinion on what the law does or does not require.

Yvette