Copyright - Who Do You Think Owns The Rights To Photos

[Tesa]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

There has been a lot of discussion lately regading copyright. I am curious to know how well people really do know the copyright laws. My questions in the poll relates to an actual photo, but obviously I have changed the names. Perhaps people may wish to reply as to why they have made their choice or how well they know the laws.

Poll Senario. If I took a photo, using Tom's camera, of Dicks dog, while we were at Harry's place, who owns the copyright.

Karen

 

[parnew]

There has been a lot of discussion lately regading copyright. I am curious to know how well people really do know the copyright laws. My questions in the poll relates to an actual photo, but obviously I have changed the names. Perhaps people may wish to reply as to why they have made their choice or how well they know the laws.
Poll Senario. If I took a photo, using Tom's camera, of Dicks dog, while we were at Harry's place, who owns the copyright.

Karen

Good topic Karen, I'll be keen to see the out come.

TWA has a lot of copy right on photos that I have taken of other peoples dogs that I was never payed for, so very interesting.

 

[wild whippies]

Did you have permission to use Tom's camera, take a photo on Harry's premises and permission from Dick to photograph his dog?

The reason I ask is because the camera is private property and the photo being taken is shot also on private property. As the dog is present on private property, that too could possibly require a model release from the dog's owner ( as well as permission granted from Tom & Harry)

 

[Tesa]

Did you have permission to use Tom's camera, take a photo on Harry's premises and permission from Dick to photograph his dog?The reason I ask is because the camera is private property and the photo being taken is shot also on private property. As the dog is present on private property, that too could possibly require a model release from the dog's owner ( as well as permission granted from Tom & Harry)

Good question. Yes Tom gave me the camera. He and Harry were stacking the dog. Dick had brought the dog to Harry's place and was standing in the background watching. There was no release form.

I am sure that this would be a common senerio for many people trying to get that perfect stacked photo.

 

[wild whippies]

Seems to me that everyone has been present for this photo and given consent by the fact they have posed the dog for the photograph whilst on their property with no objections made. As such I would say that copyright belongs to you, assuming that you haven't manipulated the photo in a slanderous or derogatroy manner then I would imagine you can use the image for circulation in whatever way you wish.

However you can sue anyone for anything, whether they'd win though is an entirely different matter.

 

[wild whippies]

Ahh, I've just seen what all the hubabaloo is about, got to say I think it's a shame that TWA has been axed, I'm actually composing something similar for the non-ped racing whippets. (with owners consents of course) however I wouldn't leave such a site open to editing from anyone sheerly for the reason folk could be malicous. I know it must have taken an immense amount of work (and bandwidth) to compose such an informative website and with so many pedigree whippets about, I can understand it's probably accrued a lot more information by being open to public editing but unfortunately it only takes one rotten apple....

 

[Tesa]

As such I would say that copyright belongs to you, assuming that you haven't manipulated the photo in a slanderous or derogatroy manner then I would imagine you can use the image for circulation in whatever way you wish.

Just to be clear here, this is not about me wishing to use this photo. I actually think that of all the people present, morally I have the least rights to this photo.

Karen

 

[Tesa]

Did you have permission to use Tom's camera, take a photo on Harry's premises and permission from Dick to photograph his dog?The reason I ask is because the camera is private property and the photo being taken is shot also on private property. As the dog is present on private property, that too could possibly require a model release from the dog's owner ( as well as permission granted from Tom & Harry)

Would the answer change if we were on public property, say at a dog show?

 

[aslan]

Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G11 Photographers and copyright 3

PO Box 1986

Strawberry Hills NSW 2012

info@copyright.org.au

www.copyright.org.au

T +61 2 9318 1788 (copyright information)

T +61 2 9699 3247 (administration & sales)

F +61 2 9698 3536

ABN: 63 001 228 780

Commissioned photographs

Specific provisions set out the general rules on ownership of copyright where a person who is not the

photographer’s employer (a client) pays a photographer to take a photograph.

• For photographs taken before 1 May 1969, the person who paid for them to be taken owns the copyright,

unless the photographer and client agreed otherwise.

• For photographs taken on or after 1 May 1969 and before 30 July 1998, the first owner of copyright in a

commissioned photograph is the commissioning client, unless the photographer and client agreed otherwise.

• For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for

which the photographs were taken:

• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding

photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree

otherwise; however

• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first

owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.

If someone owns copyright in a photograph as a result of having commissioned it (without having reached any

other agreement about ownership), the photographer has the right to restrain the use of the photograph for

purposes other than those for which it was commissioned (provided these purposes were made known at the time

of the arrangement). This rule applies to any photograph taken on or after 1 May 1969. Even though the client

is the owner of copyright, the photographer can rely on his/her right of restraint to negotiate further payment for

uses that were not contemplated at the outset.

 

[aslan]

From the same information sheet/website as above - not sure if this applies to animals owned by people.

Do I need permission from people I photograph?

A person’s image is not protected by copyright. However, in some cases, using a person’s image without

permission may be prevented under other laws, such as the law of passing off, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and

State and Territory fair trading laws. These areas of law concern conduct which may mislead or deceive the public

and may particularly come into play if the photograph you are taking is of a well-known person, and is to be

used, for example, as a poster or as a postcard or in advertising. In some cases, uses of photographs may be

defamatory of people in them.

If you are commissioned to take photographs, it should not generally be your job to check these issues. However,

it may be a good idea to alert clients to the fact that they may need to seek advice from a solicitor with the

relevant expertise (note that the Copyright Council does not advise on these other areas of law).

Generally, if you have asked somebody to sit for you, it’s a good idea to get a “model release” from that person

so you won’t have to worry later about whether or not your use of resulting photos will raise issues under areas of

law such as passing off or the Trade Practices Act. (For a sample photographer's model release, with explanatory

notes, see the Arts Law Centre of Australia website http://www.artslaw.com.au).

In other cases, photographers may take more casual shots—for example, photographs of people in the street or at

markets, or playing sports. If you know that you might later be using such a photograph commercially, it’s

generally a good idea to get a model release from the people you have photographed. If it’s impractical to get

the people in your shots to sign model releases, or if they refuse to do so, your ability to use or license the use of

the photograph in certain ways might be limited because of the laws discussed above.

Privacy

It is generally not an invasion of privacy to take another person’s photograph. However, in some circumstances,

you may be required to comply with the National Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act 1992 (Cth).

For further information on this issue, contact the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner or see the website

http://www.privacy.gov.au. The Copyright Council cannot advise on this area of law.

 

[Tesa]

Thanks for the interesting replies Lana. I would suspect that many of the types of photo's most of us would take of each others dogs, no money or consent forms would change hands, so therefore the laws that pertain to commissioned photo's would not apply.

Karen

 

[GotWhippet?]

I'd say whoever took the pictures owned the rights. Just look at the celebrity magazines. There is nothing the celebs can do about their pictures being publicised.

 

[Tesa]

.Just look at the celebrity magazines. There is nothing the celebs can do about their pictures being publicised.

Not fair is it.

 

[aslan]

Thanks for the interesting replies Lana. I would suspect that many of the types of photo's most of us would take of each others dogs, no money or consent forms would change hands, so therefore the laws that pertain to commissioned photo's would not apply.
Karen

If they ask you to take the photo they have commissioned it, whether they are paying for it or not: they have given the authority for you to take the photo.

 

[Tesa]

Thanks for the interesting replies Lana. I would suspect that many of the types of photo's most of us would take of each others dogs, no money or consent forms would change hands, so therefore the laws that pertain to commissioned photo's would not apply.
Karen

If they ask you to take the photo they have "commissioned" it.

Thanks Lana

 

[aslan]

Again from the copyright site as listed above:

Copyrighht protection is automatic. Certain forms of expression – such as text, photographs, music, computer programs and films – are automatically protected by copyright under the Copyright Act. You do not need to do anything to get copyright: if your work meets the requirements for protection in the Copyright Act, it is protected as soon as it is made.

The work must be:

the type of thing that copyright applies to (e.g. an artistic work or a musical work), the result of some skill and effort (and not merely copied from someone else), and

recorded or "fixed" (for example on paper, a computer disk or a CD).

No registration system in Australia

There is no government registration system for copyright protection in Australia. You do not need to publish your work, put a copyright notice on it, or to do anything else to be covered by copyright — the protection is free and automatic. There are no forms to fill in, and there are no fees to be paid. You do not have to lodge your work with a government agency or anywhere else.

It does help to 'sign' your photos and you may use the copyright symbol to alert people to the fact that you own it. But this doesn't stop people cropping your signature out and using the photo elsewhere - but then they are infringing that copyright.

 

[aslan]

the last paragraph in my above post is my wording - not from the site - I tried to go back and edit to make the text purple but it wouldn't let me....

 

[Tesa]

Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G11 Photographers and copyright 3.

I had also found this Information Sheet Lana.

What Lana posted is only a small portion of the sheet. It is worth having a read of, and not to taxing on the brain. Here's the link Copyright Information Sheet for Photographers

Karen

 

[BeeJay]

In my instance photos that I have taken that found their way onto TWA.

1) Photo taken by me, at my house, of my dog with my camera. Don't think that anyone was attributed with taking that photo.

2) Photo taken by me, in a public park, of my friends dog with my camera. That one was attributed to the breeders kennel name. (Breeder isn't the dogs owner btw and they most certainly didn't ask for the photo to be taken, and don't own the camera or the dog ).

Actually thinking about it now there were also 2 more photos that I'd taken that were put on the TWA. All photos copied from biennials. These photos were taken years ago and not using a digital camera. Not sure how I'd ever have put a copyright symbol on them.

 

[Tesa]

What has been surprising me the most on TWA is the number of photo's posted with the poster claiming copyright they obviously had no right to. There is a HUGE difference between "posted by" and "copyright"

Karen