Whos Video Is It?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not a lawyer. Based on US law, except where noted.

The idea that whoever presses the shutter owns the copyright seems to be a myth (see below) in which a small kernel of truth has been distorted beyond recognition.

In the case described by OP, based on limited information I would say:
  • OP probably owns the raw footage itself
  • "Friend" probably owns the edited version but must get permission to use the raw footage in the derivative work.
  • Excepts from the edited version that only include raw footage and not the edits are probably owned by OP.
  • OP might, however, have accidentally given overly broad permission to use the footage not anticipating the way in which it was used.
  • regardless of ownership of the video as posted, OP may have a right of attribution.
  • It is possible that the work could be consider a joint work (an inseparable whole) or a collective work under copyright law. As a joint work both authors own the whole; as a collective work, they own pieces. To be joint requires that the authors intended this.
Copyright covers "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". To qualify, there must be some, albeit small, amount of creative control. Although the copyright exists the moment the button is pressed (provided some element of creativity exists), pressing the shutter button, by itself, does not qualify (unless, perhaps, the timing of pushing the button was significant). If I setup a camera pointed at a fixed landscape with no significant time invariant aspects in the short term (such as people, animals, etc.) then someone pushing the button exerts negligible creative control - all the creative control was exercised before hand. Just pushing the button or even setting controls while following detailed instructions from another makes you the assistant not the photographer. However, in some cases the assistant might also be making creative decisions.
From the US copyright office: "A work is “fixed” when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time. " (emphasis added)
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
Notice that the act of capturing can be done by someone other than the author; therefore, the act of capturing does not, in of itself, make you the other. Often, but not always, the person who presses the shutter release is the one who makes the creative decisions that create an original creative work. Also, depending on your employment status an employer may be the considered the author of the work.

In british law, the author is defined as:
"Author" shall in relation to a photograph mean the person who shallhimself (not being an employe or assistant) have taken the original photographic negative or positive and prints or copies therefrom, or in the case of a person who employes another person to do the work and who gives pecuniary consdieration for work done, such employer shall be consider the author of the work"
Some examples of what might be considered creative control:
  • Aiming the camera
  • Choosing what to photograph
  • posing, arranging, or modifying the subject of the photograph
  • Choosing foreground and background objects
  • lighting the scene
  • tilting the camera
  • setting exposure
  • setting aperture
  • setting exposure time
  • setting zoom/lens focal length
  • using automatic exposure doesn't qualify by itself although choosing a particular type of automatic exposure might. Also, manual settings of exposure might be considered more creative if they differ from settings automatic exposure might choose.
  • filters
  • choosing the timing of a photograph - to capture lightning, particular facial expressions, an object in motion at a particular point in its trajectory (or the camera in a particular part of its trajectory) etc.
  • dolly movements
  • manually flying the camera ship along a trajectory
  • creating a preprogrammed flight path.
  • Subsequent editing of photos or videos may create new works but they are dependent on the original works.
  • Choices based on visual impact of clouds, etc.
Where more than one person is making the creative decisions, you might end up with a shared ownership situation (joint or creative work) or a decision to be made (potentially by the courts) as to who was the owner based on who had the more significant authorship.

Who owns what:
  • A monkey pushes the button. Yes, this really happened and was litigated. Work is in the public domain.
  • You have a day job which does not involve creating intellectual property. Your employer may not own rights to your IP even if you did it on company time using company facilities unless the contract stipulates otherwise. A janitor is hired to clean floors, not invent a new mop or take pictures.
  • You have a day job in which you are "hired to invent" (engineer, chemist, artist, etc.) - your day job employer may own the work by default even though they had no involvement in your off-duty activities. It may partially depend on whether the creation was of the types you were hired to create.
  • Likewise, if your employment contract lays claim to your off-duty creations.
  • You owned the camera. This doesn't make you the owner. But if you also employed the photographer, the situation is more complicated, even if the use of the camera was not part of the employees duties.
  • You used your day job employers facilities for off duty creation and you weren't hired to invent: your employer probably doesn't own it but they may have a non-exclusive "shop right" to use the invention/creation. The extent to which the conception and perfection of the invention occured on company time and/or using company equipment/facilities can affect the outcome.
  • An employer asked you to take photos/videos as part of your job. Work done for hire, owned by your employer, unless otherwise stipulated by contract.
  • You have (drone) photography business. A client hires you to take photos. Work done for hire. Owned by your employer, which happens to be you. Not owned by client unless stipulated by contract.
  • You are the person photographed. This doesn't make you the owner. However, you may be able to assert privacy and/or publicity rights, especially for commercial works. What constitutues commercial use may not be obvious. Editorial use in a newspaper doesn't count as commercial but use in an advertisement does. If a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy when and where they were photographed, then they have privacy rights.
  • Editing video creates a new derivative work owned by the editor (or someone who has an employment or contractual relationship with the owner) but they must obtain permission from the owners of the raw footage.
  • A copyrighted work, such as a painting, is photographed. If the photograph includes more than just the painting it may be a new work but it is also a derivative work and you may need to license the use of the photograph. Likewise for music included in video.
  • You hand a camera to someone to take pictures of your wedding (unpaid, no contract). They own the copyright as they had the creative control.
  • You set the filter, exposure time, zoom, aperture, and ask someone to take a picture of you in front of a sign from a specified location with the camera you hand them and to take the picture when you tell them to. You probably own the photo as you exercised almost all the creative control.
  • A loosely organized unpaid group collectively create a work without a contract. Might be treated as an "informal association" or "unicorporated non-profit association" and you might be treated as employees of said association.
  • There is an identifiable product brand viable in the photograph. You might need a release from the brand.
  • You manually create a flight path that the drone/camera follows automatically. You may own the copyright since there was some human creativity in the choice of flight path, and more so than the person just pushing the go button.
  • Your computer/tablet automatically generates a flight path that the drone follows. Absent other creative input that qualifies it for copyright, it may be considered a work created by a machine which is, like a work created by an animal, not copyright-able. Setting a polygon that the machine fills in a raster pattern might qualify as human creativity. barely. maybe.
  • dashcam video: in some countries, you need permission of other motorists or others in the video to distribute. There are concerns about dashcam voyuerism. Copyrightability of raw video taken as you go about your business driving might be dubious as there was no creative input. On the other hand, if you specifically chose your route or the manner which your drove it for effect, that should qualify. Including storm chasing. Pushing the save button to capture an event that just happened might possibly qualify. Editing clips out of the footage might qualify. Adding narration should qualify. In italy, license plates are private and need to be blurred.
  • Your photograph includes the Eifel tower. If you did it at night, the lights on the tower, but not the tower itself (expired) are a protected work. France opted out of the Freedom of Panorama law which in most other countries allows you to included copyrighted buildings in photographs of public places.
Sample employee agreement that tries to balance rights of employer and employee:
github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement

There are moral rights in addition to economic rights though in US law these are very limited. However, limited edition visual works (paintings, photographs, sculpture)
  • Right of attribution - the right to receive credit for your work
  • Prevent use of your name on works you did not create.
  • Right of integrity - "object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation"
  • prevent use of name on distorted works
  • prevent destruction of works of significant stature.
17 USC 106a allows a joint author to waive these rights in a visual art and this is binding on the other authors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
Holy photographony, Batman!!! This is absolutely absurd! It's gone on way to long, for ME. Can you see the smoke emanating from my ears?

Let's get this back on topic........... WHO owns the monkey??? LMAO :p
 
Holy photographony, Batman!!! This is absolutely absurd! It's gone on way to long, for ME. Can you see the smoke emanating from my ears?

Let's get this back on topic........... WHO owns the monkey??? LMAO :p

I agree, this is beyond useless now. And, the long post above actually fully confirms the Whomever pressed the shutter created it statement if the guy who copy+pasted it had read and understood it fully.

I recommend anyone who wants to continue to argue the point contact Carolyn E. Wright, the renowned photoattorney (.com) and pay her to explain it to you, or buy her book (as I did) which spells it out and provides case law examples.

Can we close this one out?
 
There is a circular from the US Copyright Office called Copyright Basics that touches on copyright ownership.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Copyright Office agents are also available by phone, but they probably won't give legal advice.

I am by no means a legal authority on the subject but I have prevailed in court when suing someone for copyright infringement. I have also successfully gotten a great many of my works removed from the web by sending a Notification of Claimed Infringement to the web host. It can be a real pain, especially if you haven't done it before, but doing so provides some legal recourse to copyright holders short of going to court which is often completely impractical because it is a federal issue usually requiring a lawyer and not one that can be dealt with in small claims. Sending a Cease and Desist notification to the infringer will sometimes work.


In my experience people are largely ignorant about copyright but that doesn't seem to prevent them from having an opinion or taking unlawful actions, regardless of how wrong they may be.
 
This thread has ran it's course (a few times actually).

Let's close it and go fly :)

**Thread Closed**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers