who owns the pictures?

exif data can be stripped/modified not /much/ protection there...

The only real way to protect your copyright is to register the images with the Copyright office (at least in the US). That makes it very clear and is a very strong protection if you need to sue someone for use of the image. I doubt that the camera data will make much difference if you loan the camera to someone - you can claim all you want in the file data, but if the real photographer for the image can show that he/she took the picture, then the copyright will always belong to them.

Steve

Personally .....
I have resisted putting obtrusive watermark/copyright markings
on my images as it mars the enjoyment of viewing.
The fairly low resolution images you see on my (your)
work over the net are of limited practical use.
We all know is as a fact.
You cannot make a "sellable" enlargement from a
copied image from the internet. It is too pix-elated.

If someone needs to "steal" an image & post it to their site,
then consider it as a complement.

People, if your that nervous about posting ..... then don't.

Gary Trent photography wrote: People, if your that nervous about posting ..... then don't.

What has anything said in this thread have to do with posting??? Seems like you are on a whole other tangent.

effron wrote: My images are imbedded with my copyright, it is part of my exif data. Whether I loan you my camera, I lose it and you find it, or someone steals it, my copyright will be embedded in those images. Now you can change the copyright in camera, but you CANNOT change the serial number of the camera.
The OP doesn't give any details as to why he'd be using another person's camera, so there is a lot of jumping to conclusions here. Very interesting subject, I'd like to hear more......

Maybe the OP, is just simply asking a question out of curiousity and they never used another person's camera. In the end, we don't need to know the reason behind OP question to answer the question. The only person who can give us a true answer is a lawyer, but as it seems, the person who took the photograph owns the copyright.

geoffellis wrote:

Gary Trent photography wrote: People, if your that nervous about posting ..... then don't.

What has anything said in this thread have to do with posting??? Seems like you are on a whole other tangent.

No one mention about being afriad to post their photos on the net, so I am not sure why it was brought up.

Sea Lite wrote:

effron wrote: My images are imbedded with my copyright, it is part of my exif data. Whether I loan you my camera, I lose it and you find it, or someone steals it, my copyright will be embedded in those images. Now you can change the copyright in camera, but you CANNOT change the serial number of the camera.
The OP doesn't give any details as to why he'd be using another person's camera, so there is a lot of jumping to conclusions here. Very interesting subject, I'd like to hear more......

Maybe the OP, is just simply asking a question out of curiousity and they never used another person's camera. In the end, we don't need to know the reason behind OP question to answer the question. The only person who can give us a true answer is a lawyer, but as it seems, the person who took the photograph owns the copyright.

Absolutely wrong. If I loan my camera to you, the pics you take are probably yours, if you steal my camera, you still believe those pics are legally yours? You are correct about one thing, a lawyer and a court of law would be needed, and every case most likely would differ in circumstance.

Absolutely wrong. If I loan my camera to you, the pics you take are probably yours, if you steal my camera, you still believe those pics are legally yours? You are correct about one thing, a lawyer and a court of law would be needed, and every case most likely would differ in circumstance.

I think this is wrong. If I steal your camera, then you are quite right that you can take legal action against me, including reporting me to the police, getting me put in jail etc. If I had taken some images, downloaded them, and sold them, then I'm 100% sure the copyright on the images would be mine. You could not claim copyright (which is a licensing right) even if I had stolen the instrument that took them.

Go back to the great post about the artist brushes. If I stole a brush, went off to France and painted some impressionist paintings, then came back and owned up to the theft of the brush, do you think you could claim ownership of the paintings?

It is the artist (even if a thief) that owns the copyright of a piece of art - whether a painting or a photograph.

Steve

The artist example is one example, and maybe a poor one. How about I work for Ford Motors, I work their assembly line, I steal a vehicle part by part, and build a car in my garage. My car?
Like I mentioned, my camera is registered to me, via a serial number, and that number is in all exif. So it could be erased? Not from an original. A lot of hypothetical going on here, however maybe its an eye opener, before you loan or borrow, have an agreement.

I think we are getting a bit confused between the physical and the legal here. If I steal a car bit by bit and build it, the physical item is still stolen. The copyright on the car is not the physical thing - it is the design.

Copyright on art (including photography) is the legal ownership of an image created in the mind of the artist and turned into some form. A digital file is one form, a print is another. The copyright gives the artist the right to control how that image is used. Nothing about the camera itself impacts on the copyright of the image whatever you write to the file.

So if I legally bought your camera and didnt play with the exif data, the images I took still belong to you?

Steve

Ok, Effron makes a point... so what if you buy a used or unknowingly buy a stolen camera & lets say that both owners are very good photographers... would it make a difference in who would own the copyright years down the road? The serial number would be the same, the work of like quality the same, perhaps obvious style difference.... copyright?

UNLESS you take the photograph with a government camera. All imagery taken on government equipment belongs to the government. So every photo I have ever taken at work, the copyright does not belong to me. It belongs to the DoD.

Fun little fact!

This is a good site about copyright for photographers

It confirms that the copyright (which is the right to control copies) is created at the instant the shutter is pressed by the photographer. It has nothing to do with ownership of the camera. It doesn't need a copyright symbol, doesn't need registering, doesn't need or depend on exif data on the file - it is something automatically given to the artist at the moment the image is "fixed" in some form onto the memory card or film.

These other things (exif data) are a way of trying to prove copyright if it is disputed.

Steve

UNLESS you take the photograph with a government camera. All imagery taken on government equipment belongs to the government. So every photo I have ever taken at work, the copyright does not belong to me. It belongs to the DoD.

But that is because you are employed or in some sort of legal relationship with the DoD. If you took your own camera to a site and took a picture, I bet their agreement with your would still claim copyright. You have in effect agreed to transfer the copyright to them - the camera ownership is still nothing to do with it

Steve

www.photoattorney.com/?p=1492