Whos Video Is It?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sigh ... I've been online long enough I know how this is going to go and I'm not going to play that game. Nothing I show or tell you will change your opinion. I'm only going to say this. In the US, absent an agreement otherwise; whoever presses the shutter release button is the owner and copyright holder. <<-- see that period there? Period.

You wanna go bananas with a crazy scenario? Guy goes out in the jungle and sets his camera down. A monkey comes over and actually takes a selfie of himself. Guess what? Ended up in court. And ONLY the fact that it was a monkey and not a human is what kept the copyright from going to the monkey. Yes, had to be debated in court becuse there IS case law - a LOT of it that says, "whoever pressed the button, created the photo and therefore is the owner and copyright holder, but apparently you didn't bother to simply Google: "who owns the copyright to a photo" and add "shutter release" so you can see why it's pointless to continue.

Have a great day!
I read the monkey story. I will go back and have a look now that it seems there was a verdict. If I recall correctly the issue there was that the image was argued to in be public domain, copyright couldn’t go to the monkey and the photographer arguably didn’t take it.

Opinions don’t matter here- it’s the facts that are important. Yes, I understand copyright will automatically belong to the original photographer (convenient to say the person who fired the shutter, set the intervalometer, motion trigger whatever) absent other contractual agreements that may assign rights elsewhere.

I am taking specifically about the examples you provided. Specifically the drone one which I’m saying would be very unlikely to present in reality for the reasons i provided.
 
Last edited:
I read the monkey story. I will go back and have a look now that it seems there was a verdict. If I recall correctly the issue there was that the image was argued to in be public domain, copyright couldn’t go to the monkey and the photographer arguably didn’t take it.

Opinions don’t matter here- it’s the facts that are important. Yes, I understand copyright will automatically belong to the original photographer (convenient to say the person who fired the shutter, set the intervalometer, motion trigger whatever) absent other contractual agreements that may assign rights elsewhere.

I am taking specifically about the examples you provided. Specifically the drone one which I’m saying would be very unlikely to present in reality for the reasons i provided.

Edit- another take on the monkey story with some lawyer opinions thrown in.

We Asked A Bunch Of Lawyers: Who Owns The Copyright To This Amazing Monkey Selfie?

It is not as simple as who presses the button.
 
You guys took it waaaaaayy out there. OP is the owner of the drone (I think). He took it out flying and took some videi. He put his time, effort, and expertise to get the best possible shot. He made a mistake to give the footage to a friend, who screwed him over and took the credit.

Conclusion: the footage belongs to the OP and the friend is an a.. hole and should be sued. Although I agree with @BigAl07, cut your losses and continue with your life.
 
You guys took it waaaaaayy out there. OP is the owner of the drone (I think). He took it out flying and took some videi. He put his time, effort, and expertise to get the best possible shot. He made a mistake to give the footage to a friend, who screwed him over and took the credit.

Conclusion: the footage belongs to the OP and the friend is an a.. hole and should be sued. Although I agree with @BigAl07, cut your losses and continue with your life.

AgreeD.

All I’ve ever said is: he who took the photo/video owns it. Period. The work his “friend” did is an unauthorized derivative. He could legit sue over it (whether it’s worth it or not is a different story)
 
AgreeD.

All I’ve ever said is: he who took the photo/video owns it. Period. The work his “friend” did is an unauthorized derivative. He could legit sue over it (whether it’s worth it or not is a different story)
And nobody is arguing the general principal is t as you stated. If you have a chance look at the link I posted above with a few other examples. Including where a selfie of Ellen DeGeneres where it was taken by a third party but she claimed she owned it successfully as she gave creative direction. Merely pressing the button is too simplistic a view to maintain for absolute comfort. Other factors can and do come into play.
 
And nobody is arguing the general principal is t as you stated. If you have a chance look at the link I posted above with a few other examples. Including where a selfie of Ellen DeGeneres where it was taken by a third party but she claimed she owned it successfully as she gave creative direction. Merely pressing the button is too simplistic a view to maintain for absolute comfort. Other factors can and do come into play.

And I agreed with the quote from your link:

[...]said Cyna Alderman, general council of the New York Daily News, in an email. “If you own a camera and someone else takes a picture with it, the photographer owns the photo, not the camera owner.”

I respect your OPINION buts it’s settled case law, he who took it owns it, comfortable to you or not.
 
And I agreed with the quote from your link:

[...]said Cyna Alderman, general council of the New York Daily News, in an email. “If you own a camera and someone else takes a picture with it, the photographer owns the photo, not the camera owner.”

I respect your OPINION buts it’s settled case law, he who took it owns it, comfortable to you or not.
You don’t need to respect my opinion although I am grateful that you might. If you read the following paragraph to that your quoting (didn’t stop where it seemed a restricted view, conveniently that you claim to be valid, was the begin and end all of the issue) it would be apparent that it’s not always a case of who pressed the button.
 
You don’t need to respect my opinion although I am grateful that you might. If you read the following paragraph to that your quoting (didn’t stop where it seemed a restricted view, conveniently that you claim to be valid, was the begin and end all of the issue) it would be apparent that it’s not always a case of who pressed the button.

Respectfully:

I can respect an opinion, and I respect that you feel as you do. Sincerely I do.

However, the debate is one of a point of law. So precision matters. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of the law.

Say it is of your opinion that the earth is flat. You know what? It’s not. Full stop. It. Is. Not. I don’t have to respect that opinion. It’s factually incorrect.

Show me a case where it was ruled that someone who didn’t push the button got the copyright and we can together marvel at an exception to the rule.

I respect that you have a different opinion. And I rest my case here.
 
Respectfully:

I can respect an opinion, and I respect that you feel as you do. Sincerely I do.

However, the debate is one of a point of law. So precision matters. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of the law.

Say it is of your opinion that the earth is flat. You know what? It’s not. Full stop. It. Is. Not. I don’t have to respect that opinion. It’s factually incorrect.

Show me a case where it was ruled that someone who didn’t push the button got the copyright and we can together marvel at an exception to the rule.

I respect that you have a different opinion. And I rest my case here.
Did you go back to the article you quoted from?

Here is the text you quoted with that immediately following it.

“I’m on Wikimedia’s side here,” said Cyna Alderman, general council of the New York Daily News, in an email. “If you own a camera and someone else takes a picture with it, the photographer owns the photo, not the camera owner.”
Of course, there’s a caveat to this rule, as illustrated by the widely shared selfie Ellen DeGeneres snapped at the Oscars, which went on to be the most retweeted photo of all time. Some argued that it wasn’t DeGeneres’s property; after all, it was Bradley Cooper who pressed the shutter. However, since DeGeneres was giving the shot creative direction, a case could be made that the Samsung-sponsored selfie was, in fact, hers and hers alone.

There is a difference between understanding the law and suggesting the most often accepted principal applies. You don’t get to cherry pick to rest your case- who pressed the button isn’t the only element. Fact.
 
The problem, according to Los Angeles-area entertainment lawyer Ethan Kirschner, whom The Wire also spoke with, is that DeGeneres might not own the copyright on the photo. "Historically," Kirschner told me, "it's always been the person who pressed the shutter who's technically the person that owns copyright." In part, that's a function of the age of the art of photography; the idea that everyone has his own camera in his pocket is a fairly new one. When the courts were trying to figure out who gets copyright, they "had to assign copyright to someone; they gave it to the person that literally pressed the button."

Paging Bradley Cooper's Lawyers: He Might Own Ellen's Famous Oscar Selfie - The Atlantic
 
The problem, according to Los Angeles-area entertainment lawyer Ethan Kirschner, whom The Wire also spoke with, is that DeGeneres might not own the copyright on the photo. "Historically," Kirschner told me, "it's always been the person who pressed the shutter who's technically the person that owns copyright." In part, that's a function of the age of the art of photography; the idea that everyone has his own camera in his pocket is a fairly new one. When the courts were trying to figure out who gets copyright, they "had to assign copyright to someone; they gave it to the person that literally pressed the button."

Paging Bradley Cooper's Lawyers: He Might Own Ellen's Famous Oscar Selfie - The Atlantic
And when we read a little further on we find that Kirschner also states.

It's unlikely that Cooper, should he choose to do so, would be able to defend sole copyright in court”.

It is clear he is referencing the historical (we could fairly say and seemingly agree on) clean cut view that historically it’s the person who pressed the button. It would appear that isn’t always the case though.

Worst case for both your earlier examples, as unlikely as they might be, woukd be an argument for coauthorship of the resultant works by the person who pressed the button.
 
Back in the days of film film, the owner of the film had a say in the ownership of the image (at least in the UK). I wonder who would own an image taken on A's camera, by B, onto C's memory card, and maybe edited by D..
Not helping much, am i?
 
Folks following along might think: DB has gone too far, a monkey selfie?

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia
DB, I can't read all of the posts as I have blocked at least one of the posters. Beware, I only block trolls. Don't get sucked into his silly game.

P.S. You are spot on in that the copyright rules are complicated, however, in this case the OP would be the creator and as such entitled to credit for the work. Not the editor.
 
OK, monkeys and copyright questions aside, what advice to the original poster? If a FRIEND did the editing as a favor to the OP, then it was uncool of him to post the video as his. Or did he? Was he claiming that he shot it? Anyway, regardless of that he should not have done anything with the video without permission. The only recourse the OP has right now is to give his friend a hard time about it all. If his friend really is a friend, he will pull down the video and let the OP post it as his. The OP could give the "editor" a mention in the description.
 
DB, I can't read all of the posts as I have blocked at least one of the posters. Beware, I only block trolls. Don't get sucked into his silly game.

P.S. You are spot on in that the copyright rules are complicated, however, in this case the OP would be the creator and as such entitled to credit for the work. Not the editor.

Sorry to you and everyone else for indulging it for so long.

In my opinion, there is zero question that the OP is the content creator and as such, absent any agreement to the contrary, the automatic copyright holder. He is within his right to demand it be taken down (DMCA).
 
And when we read a little further on we find that Kirschner also states.

It's unlikely that Cooper, should he choose to do so, would be able to defend sole copyright in court”.

It is clear he is referencing the historical (we could fairly say and seemingly agree on) clean cut view that historically it’s the person who pressed the button. It would appear that isn’t always the case though.

Worst case for both your earlier examples, as unlikely as they might be, woukd be an argument for coauthorship of the resultant works by the person who pressed the button.
HOLY BaJesus with the birds. You are wrong, it happens, let it go!. I keep scrolling thinking the back-and-forth will end soon but you keep trying to be right somehow...Thanks DB, this thread has been educational which is why I love this forum--learning new things!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drestin Black
Sorry to you and everyone else for indulging it for so long.

In my opinion, there is zero question that the OP is the content creator and as such, absent any agreement to the contrary, the automatic copyright holder. He is within his right to demand it be taken down (DMCA).

Unless you are a licensed attorney at law, it is unlawful for you to give legal advice. I've been a pro photographer for 49 years, and I'm well informed about copyright law, especially as it relates to photos. I say you're wrong to insist that the act of tripping the shutter determines the copyright holder. Copyright law is clear that copyright belongs to the creator of the work. The act of creating a photograph is a lot more involved than triggering the shutter.

However I agree that the OP is the owner of the video, whether it is edited or not, unless he entered into a signed written agreement giving somone else ownership, and assuming he didn't do it as an employee as part of his job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
Unless you are a licensed attorney at law, it is unlawful for you to give legal advice. I've been a pro photographer for 49 years, and I'm well informed about copyright law, especially as it relates to photos. I say you're wrong to insist that the act of tripping the shutter determines the copyright holder. Copyright law is clear that copyright belongs to the creator of the work. The act of creating a photograph is a lot more involved than triggering the shutter.

However I agree that the OP is the owner of the video, whether it is edited or not, unless he entered into a signed written agreement giving somone else ownership, and assuming he didn't do it as an employee as part of his job.

I am amused that you chastise for passing on legal information (unlike giving legal advice, two different definitions often confused by the lay person) then in the same paragraph offer your own legal opinion.

Sadly, as a photographer should have learned about the shutter release copyright long ago as it’s settled case law, not open to debate actually. Ask an actual licensed IP attorney to confirm it for you — *I did* (also, ask the folks at the PPA, they can help you too)

As has been established, 50 people could be involved in setting up a shot on a camera you don’t even own; if you push the button, you own it. You don’t “like” how that sounds, petition congress for a law change, until then that’s how it works. Not trying to upset or insult you in any way but I’ll not debate this as I wouldn’t debate a Flat Earther.

I’m seriously over this topic. Anyone seeking anymore information can ask an IP Attorney so the lawyer police don’t come bust me for giving “legal advice”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic