Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Copyright


DaveRyder Plus
3 1.9k 1 United Kingdom
17 Jul 2017 5:49PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

EddieAC Plus
12 1.6k 2 United Kingdom
17 Jul 2017 6:41PM
This was on This Morning today.

Link
sherlob Plus
11 2.9k 129 United Kingdom
17 Jul 2017 6:54PM
This just goes to show (again) that the law can be an ass. The fact the photographer has used a degree of judgement and skill in setting up the conditions for the image to taken seems to be completely lost on those who instigate laws to that copyright can only be owned if the photographer took the picture. So what of the various remote trigger systems that are in use for images of species such as the snow leopard? In setting up this case the conservationists after the cash for the monkeys well fare have likely done irreparable to the valuable conservation work wildlife such photographers do.
EddieAC Plus
12 1.6k 2 United Kingdom
17 Jul 2017 7:55PM
I seem to recall quite a few years ago someone posting in a topic on this site that when taking photos of children he would sometimes sit the subject down in front of the camera with a remote release and let them trigger some of the exposures as it would help relax them and also get some fun photos.

So far I've never heard that a human could claim ownership of a photo in this way but it seems that large organisations can just step on a single person whenever it suits them.
17 Jul 2017 9:13PM
Whoever presses the button that takes the picture is the primary owner of the copyright in the image, but there are exceptions:-

When the photographer has taken pictures in the course of employment, the copyright will normally reside with the employer. In the case of freelancers or self-employed assistants, copyright should be clarified by the contract of engagement.

If there are stylists, hairdressers or make-up artists etc who made a significant contribution to the image, they can claim a share of the copyright.

Can animals "own" property in their own right? In the case of pets who inherit their late owners estate, isn't it usually held in trust?
Ross_D 3 662 1 United Kingdom
18 Jul 2017 9:04AM

Quote:So what of the various remote trigger systems that are in use for images of species such as the snow leopard?


I seem to remember just such an example. The winner of a photo comp (Wildlife Photographer of the Year ??) was later disqualified after it was revealed that he used a triggering system (motion sensor ??) to get his image of a snow leopard. Basically he just set the camera up and left it, so in effect the snow leopard triggered the camera.
Philh04 Plus
11 1.1k United Kingdom
18 Jul 2017 9:37AM

Quote:I seem to remember just such an example. The winner of a photo comp (Wildlife Photographer of the Year ??) was later disqualified after it was revealed that he used a triggering system (motion sensor ??) to get his image of a snow leopard. Basically he just set the camera up and left it, so in effect the snow leopard triggered the camera.

Certainly not Wildlife Photographer of the year, the Snow Leopard image by Steve Winter still stands even though it was a camera trap, Steve is an exceptional and honest Photographer and carried out a massive amount of research and time in the field.
The disqualified image was of a wolf jumping a gate that was subsequently proven to be a captive animal which is against the rules of the competition...
JR1 2 1.0k United Kingdom
18 Jul 2017 3:13PM
is there a shot showing the animal holding the camera or tripping the shutter, if not it could just be looking into a camera shot by a snapper
Philh04 Plus
11 1.1k United Kingdom
18 Jul 2017 3:34PM

Quote:is there a shot showing the animal holding the camera or tripping the shutter, if not it could just be looking into a camera shot by a snapper

David himself explains how this image came about...

"I thought that if I put the camera on a tripod with a shutter button, they would start playing with it and sure enough they did, and that was the result."
18 Jul 2017 4:22PM
The photographer could have kept quiet about the making of the shot.
DaveRyder Plus
3 1.9k 1 United Kingdom
18 Jul 2017 7:52PM
I just thought it incredibly funny.
In what world did the ones taking the action live...

There again, coming from Hartlepool, we have a different history with monkeys.
Its elect them as Mayor or hang them as French spies. See google for more on this.
njalgar 10 332 United Kingdom
23 Jul 2017 9:55AM
Can a bank robber now claim copyright on CCTV images taken during the act and refuse permission for them to be shared? (I can see a whole new profession looming...)
23 Jul 2017 11:41AM
CCTV can be a veritable minefield as one of our Federation of Small Businesses members found out.

His pharmacy suffered a robbery and he suspected that he'd seen the offender before. He looked through his CCTV footage, found him and informed the police. To his surprise, the police charged him with a breach of the Data Protection Act and he was subsequently fined about 5k. Then the police decided that they couldn't pursue the thief because the only clear evidence had been "gathered improperly".

Quite bizarre! Fact can often be stranger than any fiction! There was an article about the case in the FSB magazine and it wasn't the April 1st edition.
DaveRyder Plus
3 1.9k 1 United Kingdom
23 Jul 2017 12:10PM
While I still see the amusing side of the a further article this week gave an insight into the upset this has caused the photographer. Utter lunacy...
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
25 Jul 2017 8:50AM

Quote:CCTV can be a veritable minefield as one of our Federation of Small Businesses members found out.

His pharmacy suffered a robbery and he suspected that he'd seen the offender before. He looked through his CCTV footage, found him and informed the police. To his surprise, the police charged him with a breach of the Data Protection Act and he was subsequently fined about 5k. Then the police decided that they couldn't pursue the thief because the only clear evidence had been "gathered improperly".

Quite bizarre! Fact can often be stranger than any fiction! There was an article about the case in the FSB magazine and it wasn't the April 1st edition.



That sounds very odd. He was using CCTV precisely for the reason it was installed - I suspect there is more to that case than seems on the surface.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.