Who Owns YOUR Photograph? | BlackBeltBarrister
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2021
- Many people have asked Who owns your photograph? and this literally comes down to who pressed the shutter on the camera... sort of... Like everything in law, there are degrees, caveats and exemptions - photography is no exception.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3yFFcFf
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
🎙 RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ And if you like my house and decor:
MY CHAIR:
amzn.to/3mYpPBB
Lamp 1 - amzn.to/3ntbEnm
Lamp 2 - amzn.to/3dXfUZi
🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 🎓 Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV 🎓 Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #law #barrister
Description contains affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Remember, one has the option to included copyright information in the photograph’s EXIF metadata automatically. This can included not only one’s name (author) and copyright terms (best just put ‘(2021) All Rights Reserved’ if you don’t know what else to put) but also one’s contact details, like company name, website etc. To find this facility on Canon cameras, set mode to any creative zone, then go to the Set Up Menus. This part of the metadata can also be added or changed in post processing. Might as well check the date/time/zone whist there, as the Canon clock drifts.
My habit carried over from the days of negative films is to include as the first file (or back then, first frame) on memory sticks, a image of a card with my details on it. Plus what the job was as aid memoir. If it gets dropped someone may find it. Most people are considerate if you make it easy for them to be so by including this file. If one laminates the card, one can add the job details with a dry-wipe White Board Marker.
A point partly covered is that one can retain copyright over the original image but grant different copyright terms for (say) a low resolution and/or cropped image. This would be useful for (say) uploading a derived image to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons licence (you still retain copyright) and writing in the information area below that you can supply better quality versions (for which you can charger a free). Creative Commons licences have the advantage that they are more likely to be used by many people and so helps to spread your name about if you are a semi or pro.
I do the same with my Nikon and put my details in the EXIF, it's a useful feature to have.
Interesting and informative. I imagine it gets even more complex sometimes!
Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge on this particularly interesting subject. I've seen many video's lately on youtube of "Auditers" generally wasting Police time and other peoples in a poor attempt at holding people in authority to account by taking video footage of them, when people complain about not having permission they use the excuse "What the eye can see can be filmed in public" however on a number of occasions when they have been photographed the complain that it is illegal because the person taking the photo works for a company and quote GDPR and demand it be deleted. I have heard you say in previous video's that nobody has the right to delete or demand you delete your photos or videos. Many thanks for taking the time to read this.
Nobody has the right to use random incorrect apostrophes like you do!
@@alistair1978utube Is this O Level English or are you flogging that grammerly app ? Let me offer my most humble apology as I only attended a mere state run comprehensive school where the main subjects were bunking off and playing footy in the park. Or sneaking behind the bike sheds. It was the bleak 80's, the Thatcher years, yes and Derek Hatton too. I'm a victim of a system that didn't care, doffing my cap now sir.
@@mrspudly1 Not O Level, it's primary level English...
@@alistair1978utube Well 2 people liked the original comment so I guess your in the minority, this is UA-cam not the grammar police so get a life XXX
Good, informative summary of copyright. Thanks.
I assume you’re talking about UK copyright law?
I had someone try to steal a photograph, for which I demanded compensation and issued a cease and desist notice. They argued, until I decrypted the metadata (why didn’t they know the key, if it was their photo?). BTW I live in the USA.
How do you do that?
As I understand it, the "Author of the Work" is the first copyright holder. In a situation where the composition of the photograph is designed by person, 'A' and person, 'A' instructs person, 'B' to push the shutter button, then person, 'A' is the Author. Gregory Crewdson is an example of a photographer working this way. There are also differences where employees create works.
Certanly an arguable case that the pasder-by did not "set up" the photo.
@@fintonmainz7845 - indeed that would be an interesting to see how that would be decided in court.
The other aspect to consider is that the 'passer by' would need to provide evidence that they were indeed the person who operated the camera at the time. If they cannot do that, then they would surly have no case.
Interesting take on it...but regardless of who set up the camera, provided instruction and composed the shot, the person operating the camera would be the one who had first CREATED the image. Regardless of all other things preceding it, the image did not exist until the shutter was operated to capture the scene
@@Penguin_of_Death True but not relevant. The "Author" of the work, is the key term. The person pushing the shutter had no creative input in the case of Crewdson.
To complicate mathers, in Holland there's also a thing called Portrait Right. So, if a wedding photographer wants to use your wedding photos for commercial purposes he needs your permission.
That would seem to be the case in Australia as well, to use anyone's picture for any commercial purpose there needs to at least be a "model release" or a contract.
Although, it seems that is not to be the case for political advertisements, which have the "authorised by [party/candidate]" line on them.
Germany enters...
Yes we had this with my son's christening photos which was done by a professional! We could not copy thay had to do it! Thankyou for taking the time to do this,
Very interesting BBB thank you. Mick 👍🍻
... it depends on the intent of the one taking the photo. if it is a favor done for someone, i suppose it goes that there is no claim of ownership over the image. it would have been waived so that the one receiving the image can enjoy it fully. but if there was a commercial angle to it, the photographer would be paid for services in operaring the camera and not for license to use the image. it is also possible that the photographer brings.all the gears required to take an image in pursuit of a particular aesthetic akin to the skill and craftsmanship of that photographer. then i suppose that is when one pays for the license to use the image over a particular period of time.
There was a case where photographer Carol Highsmith donated her 30 years of images to the public domain for royalty-free use. Then later on was contacted by Getty Images for copyright infringement for use of her OWN photographs. Getty had downloaded her entire catalog and slapped their copyright on them. While this could have been a case worth literally billions of dollars for Getty's infringement, the court said that once she donated the images into the public domain, she lost her copyright. However, there was an undisclosed settlement for "Deceptive business practices" on the part of Getty.
My view would be that if you just get the passerby to press the button under your instructions - as opposed to having any 'creative input' - then they are just acting as your amaneuensis and you will still be the copyright owner of the photograph. This follows the line of reasoning in literary copyright where you dictate the words of your novel to your secretary who just types it up as you go along. The secretary does not own the copyright (employment issues aside). Your wedding photographer has creative control and supplies his labour, skill and judgement in creating the photographs and therefore in the creator and thus the owner. The copyright symbol is put on material to have an effect in secondary infringement situations.
Absolutely fascinating this. I had no idea a passer by would be the copyright owner of they took a photo of me.
In Theory. In real life, no.
@@apsert Oh do shut up.
@@apsert More time researching the use of the apostrophe in English grammar would make your rantings easier to read
@@apsert Prefixes*
Very informative
On your first point , I you are asked by a friend or a member of the public ie a stranger to take there picture you will automatically own the copy right to the image weather you use your own camera or there camera. And the copyright remains in your family for 75 years after your death. I had to study and learn this subject when I did my photography course. Point 2 copyright does not give you the right to use or sell the image as and when you fill like this depends on what they will be used for and who you sell to , in most cases you will need to get the subject to sign a model release. This is to protect all parties concerned.
Point 3 putting the copyright © along with your name and the date the picture was taken dose have legal standing as it a proof of your ownership of copyright , that is the hole point of putting it on all your pictures .
Many thanks.
What if one has a camera with a Smile Mode? The subject could be said to have had no creative input into the ‘creation’ of the image. There is some legal judgement on that regarding computer generated creative works.
I would say It depends on what you say to the person who takes the picture.
Great content and simplistic explanation of copyright law.
Thanks for watching!
I'm going to enhance this compliment, & amend it to 'simple'. 'Simplistic' is actually a negative term, as in over-simplified/missing many points.
@@Lucentlens 🙏
Great vid 👍 - Does the law alter if the photograph is taken in someone else's home? In my line of work where I make custom made products for people's homes it's common to take a photograph once the products are fitted and then publish those photographs mostly on social media but occasionally in sales material too. The photographs generally only feature the products and never the homeowners themselves but of course other aspects of the customer's home are captured.
Depends on what other aspects of the homeowner's personal belongings you photograph and advertise. If you took a photo inside someone's living room of one of your products, but, at the back of the photograph clearly in shot is a cabinet with some nice ornaments inside, that criminals see, and then break into that house and rob in the future, the homeowners can say that you advertised those expensive items in your pictures and you should have taken better scrutiny of what was seen by the general public, especially, when you printed them in sales leaflets and other publicity marketing, like social media, etc, I'd suggest you'd have a difficult case to defend yourself, really.
With the first scenario, would the conversation around the taking of photograph not constitute a transfer of copyright or copyright transfer agreement ? In that the passer-by is asked 'would you mind taking a photograph FOR us' (not of us); and usually the passer-by would then leave without identifying themselves or laying any claim. Thus there is a clear implication by all that this was done as a favour or gift of time and the copyright is transferred to the couple in the photo. Presumably the test of this is also what a 'reasonable person' would expect or understand of this transaction ?
How does GDPR or Data Protection affect this? I have heard that, under GDPR an image that includes an identifiable person, that person can ask you to stop using it, even if they initially gave you permission, and the photographer becomes a data processor and must comply with GDPR as such.
Lol, I've shocked so many ppl when I've been asked to make a photo and asked them not to publish them anywhere because I own the copyright :D
Very useful information but I have two questions. In the case of a video or film does the editor (who really created the programme) have any claim on the programmes copyright and I was told that the on screen presenter (who is just paid to present the programme) of a programme has copyright and you would need his/hers permission to use that video even if you produced it in the first place?
As a pro photographer I would give this an A* as a succinct explanation of a complex subject. There is just one thing I'd like to add, and it's particularly pertinent to wedding photography; these days, most clients want their photos in digital format (be it a DVD, memory stick or even an online transfer), and this means that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to copyright. Yes, in theory, the same laws apply, but there is no practical way to stop copies being sent to Auntie Vera in Australia or to the groom's family. My solution is to grant the client a licence in perpetuity to supply these copies for non-commercial use. I then build a fee into the cost of the job to cover lost earnings; not perfect, but I haven't found a better solution.
High praise from a pro, thank you! Yes this is indeed a problem because most people won't understand why you would want any extra money for additional copies - but it is absolutely solid reasoning in my view. Watermarks had their day but now easy to remove. The only option really is for very low-res image previews and set up a pay-per-print. I'd be interested to stay in touch about this! Check my Insta!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Would love to stay in touch on this too, but unfortunately don't do Instagram or social media. Believe it or not, I have plenty of work without them.
Ds@ShenSmith.com
What happens when you have an old photo taken by a photographer who has died or no new contact details can be found?
In the first instance mentioned, would the person, who took the photograph for you, not need to be able to provide some evidence that it was them who took it?
Good question. Should that eventuality get to court, the defence would need to declare who,if not the litigant, took the photo and prove it.
The passer by holds the copyright on the image, because the created it and it is their expression of the situation!
I'm suitably edified also! I would've thought that, 'Our idea, our camera' would make it obviously the couple who own the copyright! TISL!
The UK courts offer insulting and derisory compensation for copyright theft.
Usually, they ask the infringer what they think they should have paid or what they think its worth and award the photographer that.
You dont even get your bus fair.
Really interesting video.
Thank you!
As always 👌👍
Where does s62 of the Copyright act come in? Does that override the problems with s31 of the same act? Might not apply if standing in front of a painting, but standing in front of a statue in a public place won't breach any copyright.
That is interesting because I make images on my camera for an agency and we have no copyright agreement. They have always assumed they own the copyright of my images.
Do you have a contract of any kind?
@@drcl7429 If not than the copyright is 100% yours :)
@@tolyko9159 not necessarily. Can depend on who owns the camera too. ipo.blog.gov.uk/2019/06/11/copyright-and-gdpr-for-photographers/
It's a minefield!
I remember a case where a wildlife photographer had set up a camera, and an inquisitive monkey pressed the shutter and took a photo of himself. In this case, and following the law outlined in the video, the copyright holder would be the monkey!
As a follow up: there are many traffic monitoring cameras where a photograph of the car and driver is triggered by the presence of the car. In this case could the driver argue that, as his action in driving past the camera caused the shutter to be triggered he is the owner of the copyright, rather than the owner of the camera?
Regarding the scenario of a photograph being taken in a gallery and including an incidental painting.
first: The Berne convention has a clause which exempts work which is permanently displayed in public from reproduction rights, so provided that the gallery is a public gallery and the incidental painting is part of a permanent display, it shouldn’t be subject to copyright restrictions, it is essentially ‘in the public domain’.
Also: As copyright protects ‘a creative act fixed in a medium’, the photographing of a painting does not infringe the copyright of the artist that painted it, as it is in a different medium, also the creative act of photography is distinctly different from painting. Just as a prose description of a painting does not infringe the original artists copyright of that painting.
For these reasons most public galleries freely allow photography but will assert copyright on photographic reproductions that they make available (in publications, postcards etc.).
I also remember reading of a case made for ‘Reproduction photographs’ where the camera is set to frame a print or painting exactly, with neutral lighting, a standardised formulaic approach where the process explicitly aims to negate any creative interpretation.
forgot to say that Im really enjoying your work, so hope that Im not coming across as belligerent.
If so, all I can say is its not meant that way.
Thanks
Thank you - glad that you enjoy the content! Photography is indeed a different medium but will still create another permanent form of the original work
Hi If a person takes video / picture of an sporting event on private land without permission, can they sill claim exclusive copyright of the video / picture ? thanks
I took a selfie on my phone and used the picture as my bio pic on Twitter. One of my tweets upset someone where instead of debating the topic or the tweet, they decided to lift my profile pic and use it in a derogatory pic of their own. Which was then posted in a tweet. I told them they didn’t have my permission to use my image and should delete the tweet. Does your explanation about copyright encompass my right to demand the deletion, or were they within their rights to use my pic to do anything they liked with it?
Hi there I am a airsofter in England and iv been at it for a fare few years but it's still unclear for me what is the law behind the firearm replicas/imitation as I have to transport them with me to sites and shops for various reasons. Yes indo own a UKARA but allot of the police on the street doesn't even know what its is. And for the Last question I travel while wearing most of my kit part from the guns ofcourse they are always secure in a gun case. I just would like to understand how it works properly so I I don't get myself into trouble
Does this apply to a film clip from a mobile phone?
What about a profile picture that I’ve put on my personal Facebook. If someone takes a screenshot of it and reposts it in a private group. Is that allowed if they don’t have my permission?
Thousands of people wrote on their Facebook walls "I do not consent to this" kinda thing when they changed the TOS, do you have any thoughts? Many thanks.
I often come across the following scenario. I am an amateur photographer with a decent camera. My club is doing an activity, for example bowling. I take photographs of the activity.
When I am about to bowl, someone suggests that I take a photo of myself bowling. Fine. I hand over my camera. I make sure the settings are right. I explain which button to press.
After the activity, I do post processing for a few hours. I select. I edit. I publish the album on social media.
Who is the author of the photo that someone took of me with my camera, with my settings, with my post processing?
I think it's a joint work. The image as it came out of the camera may be copyright the person who took it, or perhaps copyright the two of you together, since you chose the camera settings and someone else choose the composition and timing.
You probably added enough further creative input in the post processing to make effectively a new work with its own copyright, derived from the raw photo.
So I think you would both have copyright - anyone wanting to make further copies of the image should technically require permission from both you and the person who pressed the shutter button.
Spot on BBB, good information as usual. People are very blasé about what they publish. Reminds me of the case of ‘Doctor Martin’ boots. Really interesting case.
Lol is it just me,
or does the black belt barrister look the spitting image of Lex Luther from Smallvile 😎😂
Good video, Thanks for the info.
If I go into a bookshop, read a book and leave the store without buying have I stolen anything?
No, you haven't made a copy. Your own memories don't count.
In fact I think one of Waterstone's big innovations in the 80s was designing bookshops to make you feel comfortable reading without buying - obviously on theory that if enough people do that some of them will in fact end up buy books.
No
Ther passer by who took the photograph!!
👍
So do you need to apply for a ‘copyright’ for each piece of work, or a general catch all ‘copyright’ or can you just say, copyright on anything without having to prove it.
You don't generally have to apply for copyright - almost everywhere in the world the law says that you get copyright in a creative work simply by the act of creating it in a permanent form.
Of course you might need evidence to prove that you created it and to prove when you created it, and there are various ways to do that. In some countries you can get enhanced protection for your copyright by registering it with the authorities.
Thank you for the latest in a series of very interesting and informative videos. Your last remarks on Facebook had me thinking: is it possible to negate their blanket abusing of copyright by posting an entry on your account such as 'I DO NOT GIVE FACEBOOK PERMISSION TO SHARE ANYTHING OF MINE., THAT I HAVE PUT ON THEIR SITE, . PICTURES, CURRENT OR PAST POSTS, PHONE NUMBERS OR EMAILS.. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN BE USED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT MY WRITTEN PERMISSION OR VERBAL CONSENT.'
Given that they made the change on 5/4/17, does what you posted prior to that date fall within the terms of their conditions?
Your thoughts on this would be welcome.
Yes I and many others put words to this effect on our profiles at the time, good question.
In your 1st picture I would argue that possession is 9/10th of the law. How is the random photographer to prove his case without external documentation and witnesses. 2 other ideas. Implied tranfer of copyright to the owner. The case of the time delay photographs. Where there's no photographer.
If you use a time delay, you still have to press the button.
@@jerry2357 the purpose of the time delay is so nobody has to press the button. Jerry!
@@thewizzard3150 But somebody still has to initiate the start of the time delay, so the person who did that took the picture. Speaking as the President of my local camera club.
He's a Def Leppard fan!
What would the copyright law be if an artist drew an image of someone else’s photo to a high level of detail? Does the person who owns the original image have any rights to the artists image?
This sounds like a derivative work.
Questions would be asked such as:
1. Is this substantially different from the original?
2. Have you added anything, for example a documentary about it?
3. Is the original work still in copyright
… and, as always, …
4. What are the copyright laws in the various countries involved (your country, country where original photo was taken, country of the person taking the photo)?
p.s. I am not a barrister, but I did once watch an episode of Columbo.
Question : does images submitted to a court and distributed by the opposing side count as copyright infringement?
No, there are certain exemptions
@@BlackBeltBarrister what are those exemptions if I might ask?
What if someone buys a painting, puts it on the wall above sofa then photographs friends, family, kids etc while sat on sofa?
My understanding is that it is ok as long as it is not the subject of the image. If the family is the main focus that is ok. If someone is on the corner and the phone is filled up by painting then it is not ok.
This can be different if you selling the photo in on mass.
I took a photo during the Falklands War, not long ago I was reading a book and lo and behold my picture is in the book, credited to someone else. I have the negative so can prove I am the owner. Be interesting to see if I am due compensation!
It involves a court battle and you will get an insulting settlement.
@@markpaul1154 Why a battle, I can quite clearly prove I took the pic?
@@wafudave6041 Depends what you want, having been through this, its two days in the Copyright and patients court in London, to get what they would have paid a standard agency for a similar picture plus £25 token payment for pilgarism.
No expenses, not even your bus fare.
Those that steal work know this and its worth the punt for them.
@@markpaul1154 Thanks for the info Mark. To be honest it isn't the money its the fact it was used in a publication without my permission and someone else took the credit for taking the picture.
Emailed you but unfortunately got no reply. Does a parking attendant own the rights to each photo they take of vehicles parked in contravention?
Your question answered: ua-cam.com/video/zkM7QNUFeP4/v-deo.html
my grandpa had his personell memoirs of his time in WW1 written .... word by word ..... by a news reporter over 100 years ago. No picture was taken of him! The unknown newspaper printed his said memoirs? .... I want to put it in a book ..... but who owns the copy write? ... The newspaper or his family (as he is long deceased) that had inherited its (namely me).
the passer by imho
I have a pile of amateur photos dated 1905-25. The photographer is not named. As they started doing photography in 1905, they would be dead more than 30 years. As I own these photos, does that mean the copyright is mine?
I was in a band years ago and fell flatt on our faces with copyright. We paid for a photo shoot (£4000) and couldn't use any of the results as we had to go through them and they wanted a fortune. We had to scrap the lot! It was all our plans, ideas and location. Basically we were using them just to hire their equipment and press the shutter when we were ready, but no! We couldn't use any of it! The only way was to do it buy the equipment and do it ourselves. The results were just as good (or maybe even better) posed photos are easy. Theres no creativity. There needs to be a change in the law? Thanks for the video!
model release!
Only if it's for commercial use.
i am not worried about the Facebook terms and conditions if they want to use my pictures of cats or my dinner on chippie Tuesday they can.
Intellectual Rights. One thing that has irked me over the years has been a local newspaper reproducing architectural drawings without crediting the author. (No dog in the fight.)
Indeed in the 1988 Act there is an entitlement to be recognised the author.
What about copying an old photo about 100 years or more old is that still in copyright?
Photos have a long list of rules for copyright!
In the UK, the standard term for copyright is 70 years after the author's death. However, for anonymous works, the copyright term for photographs created before 30 June 1957 is 70 years after creation if unpublished, or 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation.
You'll have to do some more investigation to determine whether the photographer can be identified, and when they died. If no photographer can be identified, you'll need to establish whether the photographs were published, and if so, whether the date of first publication is less than 70 years ago.
@7:32 so we can show a UA-cam video in our own video for criticism and review?
🧑⚖ 👩⚖ 👨⚖ 👩⚖ 👍👍👍
A classic example is taking photos of the Eiffel Tower at night..
Only in France though - that law wouldn't apply in the UK - we have a much stronger 'freedom of panorama' law which provides an exception to copyright protection buildings and suchlike.
@@barneylaurance1865 Yeah that is idiotic, don't make a.work of architecture if you don't want people to see it and enjoy it! Also true of the Hollywood sign. We do have some decent legal principles in UK.
@Barney Laurence yeah I know, it's still silly. It's not self contained in a gallery but out in public and in fact a derivative work of the tower itself - it should clearly be copyright free. I'd be surprised if they enforce it of course.
Sorry it’s not about photos Does UK have a constitution like other countries. Thank you. Love your site.
The UK doesn't have a single written constitution because the UK never became independent from another power. Our constitution evolved. Judges uphold principles in just the same way as american ones do.
IMO, the first scenario... the handing back of the camera voids the takers copyright, in the second scenario the 'wedding photos' are the copyright of the taker since a. It is their profession you are employing them for, and b. It would be written into part of the contract
Nope, you are not 'employing' them. They are contracted to supply a service. If you didn't pay them, no Employment Tribunal would class them as a worker.
However, circa 'valuable consideration' you could ask them to licence them to you or purchase the copyright.
@@philtaylor194 it's not employment. It's not a contract either. You wouldn't be able to sue them if they point the camera the wrong way. They're just doing you a favour.
I think Facebook, Instagram etc should not have the photo copyright just by a user uploading/sharing it for others to see.
As a 'once upon a time' cub Motorsport and F1 photographer, at Silverstone, I would love to know! (Eh, I meant 'Club')
My alarm didn't go off properly!
I am amazed about the freindly passer -by, owning the copyright.
Actually, in full disclosure, I dropped the ball myself. I couldn't find this channel. My fault! Thank you for the content.
Oops. So, I just I gave my entire F1 portfolio to Facebook.
Would you perhaps consider helping me sue Mr Z, please?
If I were to understand your example of the photographer, am I to assume I am the copyright holder of software I made while under the employ of someone else?
I was under the impression that the employer retains copyright of works created while employed.
A photographer is being employed, even if it is only verbal contract for no compensation? They wouldn't have taken the picture if they weren't asked to.
That isn't a contract and the passer by photographer is not an employee.
No, you are not to assume that. You should check your contract.
There's no such thing as a "contract for no compensation". To be a contract an agreement has to be a genuine exchange, with something of value for each party.
Off topic, My neighbours (who are anti social) have been putting their recycling into my bin and I am finding stuff that shouldn't be in there. I am going to label it clearly but they will still ignore it I expect. They are not exactly neighbours one would talk to. They have been putting dog stuff and I don't have a dog, Tampax and I am in Menopause! Can you do a vid this sort of thing one day? I don't know my rights. I put my bin at the end of the private shared driveway, and there is no public road other ppl could put stuff in. This has happened before. Should I keep evidence?
Will address on BlackBeltSecrets!
@@BlackBeltBarrister How exciting, can't wait!
@@BlackBeltBarrister PS I like how you do ordinary, everyday stuff, but something a bit unusual and thoughtprovoking.
The biggest question is will we own anything in the coming year's the big push for the whole world to become one giant service industry totally globalised and utilising every person on the planet, it could be a good thing or it could be even worse for poorer exploited nations
Who ever takes the picture, we can reference the picture of the monkey selfie, the monkey owns the copyright, not the owner of said camera.
The Facebook blurb at the end of the video where FB own the image rights royalty free. Does that mean I can copy someones photo's from their FB Page. And does it matter if the are in the UK, Ivory Coast or Australia, can I use these images?
Life just gets more complicated, all about money as usual.
All this is theory. in the end you have to potentially prove things in a court. A person in the street will not be able to.
The person who took the photo is the copyright owner. Remember the monkey selfie??
In April 2018, the US Appeals court affirmed that animals cannot legally hold copyrights to photographs, case closed.....
@@joespud3727 You missed the bit about this being UK law.
@@mrfish2064 Do you think it's different in the UK, animals are not human beings. They can't have driving licences, or, vote, they cannot hold copyrights on music, book writing, or, photography. Arguments against animal's rights depend on whether any animal behaves morally, or, not, rights are only unique to us.
Video on ALL CAP DOG LATIN FRAUDULENT GRAMMAR foisted on the public. Thanks 💎💎💎
I remember the case when a monkey took a selfie of himself on a wildlife cameraman’s equipment. Who owned the copyright?
Most likely the monkey’s owner!
@@BlackBeltBarrister Can one "own" another sentient being? Does a beekeeper just keep bees or do they own them? Because a person looks after an animal can the ever own it? I guess the Law says that livestock or farm animals are possessions, but would that extend to a monkey? The animal in that case is not livestock.
@@BlackBeltBarrister agreed, otherwise, he might go ape shit🤦🏻
There's a long Wikipedia page about that case. From what I can make out it's uncertain, and the answer might be different depending which countries courts you're asking in. It could be the photographer who owned the camera, or there could be no copyright in it all. PETA tried to claim that the monkey should own it but that seems somewhat fare fetched.
@@RadioJonophone Interesting point, I believe wild animals per se in the UK are owned by the crown. So then could the crown have the copyright.
Why don't we have more decent honest people in the maleficent judiciary
Do barristers count as part of the judiciary? They're forced to work with laws, even where those laws might be asses (as in donkies).
It’s all a big scam to take money and assets from the uneducated to line the pockets of professional parasitic liars.
I believe in almost all cases it works to think of copyright as simply the right to make copies. If you want to sell an image without making copies (e.g. selling the individual copy that you already own, or buying copies from the copyright holder and then selling them on to other people at a higher price) I don't think you need permission from the copyright holder.
What I'm not sure about is altering the image - do you need permission to alter an image if you do it without making a copy? For instance if I buy a book of photos, can I cut the photos up and stick them back together with the elements re-arranged? And then potentially give away or sell that individual book?
Scenario. A thief steals an image and then uploads to say Facebook, asserting that they are the copyright owner. Does Facebook still have an irrevocable, royalty free, worldwide licence …. etc? Think the answer is no, but not sure.
If I nicked your bike and I then sold it to Dave, does Dave own it? No, he doesn't. It still belongs to you.
You would have grounds to have it taken Down because thief didn’t have rights to upload it
The person who took the photo is the copywrite owner.
👍
TLDR: whoever pressed the shutter button.
Not always!
@@BlackBeltBarrister If an agreement has been made to transfer copyright before the work is created ?
@@SalticidaeFan and employment for another
Hey BlackBeltBarrister. I just went to comment on your new picture holding a Knife, but UA-cam would not let me comment, then Your post just disappeared. What Gives???.
Umm. YT often removes some firearm videos and anything they think might be useful to people planing malfeasant acts. Perhaps someone complained that it gave such people tips on how to get round the law. Here is YT’s firearm policy which links to the rest of them. support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en If YT did this, perhaps BBB could appeal it - if he knows of a good barrister.
I was considering an edit so removed the post. What did you think?
Good point but it wasn’t that!
@@BlackBeltBarrister don't forget England game today at 17:00 this will test the loyalty of your subscribers 👍❤️I will watch both simultaneously but I'll be listening to you really 👍
@@robmarrin6720 Haha yes, very good point ;)
You are talking about something called photography because your not saying my property are you.
So if i get another man or woman to aid and assist i, and give that man or woman fear compensation £2 then who claims what again?
Or ask that man or woman to voluntarily aid i,
No one can copyright their face
I wonder whether in the passerby scenario it might be arguable that it is implied that the targets of the photos would be the exclusive licensee of the photos leaving the author as the moral rights holder only (if you knew their name!)
Hi, last year whilst i was working for a now (different) employer & in the course of my work i took a picture & tagged my employer in on it, my employer then went on to use my picture in its LinkedIn profile & on line advertising without seeking my permission, the picture included an image of myself in it also, the background is, i was delivering ventilators to the NHS during the pandemic & at an NHS site i met 15 British Army Gurkhas, i'd worked with the Gurkhas over 20 years ago so it was easy for me to engage with them, they all agreed to a selfie with basically myself in the foreground & the Gurkhas standing behind all smiling & giving thumbs up (proper cool pic😜), anyway, my (ex) employer used my image without my express permission for commercial purposes, does the fact that i tagged then in on the post (my SM page) affect any copyright? Ta.
I'm sure the MoD would be extremely interested in the use of Army personnel's images for commercial matters. ;)
Like a lot of things, there is the law as it is technically and there is the law that can be enforced, and in the passer by scenario, it is highly unlikely they will ever be in a position to pursue a copyright claim. Many years ago I wanted to reproduce an article including some photographs published in the Observer, The Guardian gave their permission but said that I would have to seek seperate permission from the photographer, a quite famous one as it turns out, but again the permission was freely given. Years later I was interviewed by the Guardian, they wanted to send a photographer, but I said they could use a selfie I had taken for which I explicitly retained the copyright. They took a picture of me once before and I did not have the rights to that, so I wasn't going to let that happen a second time. FWIW photographs I have taken do appear all over the place on the internet without permission or acknowlegement. It annoys me that they did not even have the politeness to ask. I have also reproduced pictures taken of me when I was a child, by a professional photographer on the basis that the photographer is a) probably dead, and b) if not, is highly unlikely to be able to identify every picture he ever took unless his name is Shereshevsky.
Or thay run off with your camera then you don't own nothing
What an incredibly dull & boring subject, however, saying that, I watched until the end....
And don't forget, this creative response it my copyright.
This is part of the reason I agreed ownership of all photos when hiring a wedding photographer. I certainly didn't fancy paying a professional to create a product to then sell to me. Effectively paying for the product twice. As an amateur photographer who's done a handful of paid jobs myself, the system used by many professionals has always felt exploitative to me, capitalising on copyright to make more money rather than making a contract in good faith.
In all of this - is it true to say that 'none of this matters a jot' as long as there is no commercial use, gain, or other kind of financial profit involved? As far as I've thought - where there is none, you can do what the heck you like, with anything (virtually).
He became a Barrister because he's a slap head and being a barrister, he can wear a wig without being made fun of.