Michael Fryd wrote:

In the USA, ownership of the camera is not a factor in determining copyright.   Absent a valid work-for-hire agreement, a client who hires an independent contractor is probably not the natural copyright owner.

There's no "probably." It's "definitely."

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

There's no "probably." It's "definitely."

I tend to shy away from absolute pronouncements.  I suspect if we put our minds to it, we could come up with some unusual and/or bizarre situation where the client actually was the natural copyright owner.

However, I suspect that in the vast majority of cases, the client is not the natural copyright owner.

thiswayup wrote:
I really doubt it. Certainly in the UK if you are working for someone else and the camera belongs to them then copyright automatically does too.

You are badly, badly mistaken. It does NOT work that way in the UK....... or anywhere else.

Here's a link to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

You are welcome to show me where it says what you claim.

Studio36

Michael Fryd wrote:

My recollection is that there could be no copyright in the "monkey selfie" as it did not involve any human creativity.

Copyright provide protection for artistic creations, not the artistic results of nature.

Suppose you see a rock slide, and racks fall into a pattern that happens to form letters and letters happen to spell out a beautiful haiku.  You are not entitled to copyright this newly created poem.  The reason is that you did not create it.

BUT, if you take a photograph of it you are certainly the author and copyright owner of the image.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

BUT, if you take a photograph of it you are certainly the author and copyright owner of the image.

Studio36

I was under the impression that in the USA there must be some minimal amount of creativity in order for something to be copyrightable.

For instance, a photo of the monkey looking at the selfie photo would likely qualify.

However, let's say you had a print of the monkey selfie and placed it on a copy machine.  Would the copy you made be copyrightable?

What if I use an old fashioned copy stand and make a copy with my camera.  Is that enough creativity to be copyrightable?

What is the minimal I would need to do in order to have a copyrightable version of the selfie photo?

studio36uk wrote:
BUT, if you take a photograph of it you are certainly the author and copyright owner of the image.

Studio36

Michael Fryd wrote:
I was under the impression that in the USA there must be some minimal amount of creativity in order for something to be copyrightable.

For instance, a photo of the monkey looking at the selfie photo would likely qualify.

However, let's say you had a print of the monkey selfie and placed it on a copy machine.  Would the copy you made be copyrightable?

What if I use an old fashioned copy stand and make a copy with my camera.  Is that enough creativity to be copyrightable?

What is the minimal I would need to do in order to have a copyrightable version of the selfie photo?

What constitutes minimal? If I compose the image in the viewfinder is that not minimal creativity. Add setting the exposure variables to produce the image I want, that can be manually or by using camera automation. Either way I am making a creative decision. Finally choosing the moment of that exposure. That 1/8000th second, 30 minutes or anything in between. They were creatively chosen to capture my other creative decisions prior to that.

Since I hold copyright your other arguments disappear into a federal court case. be warned, I registered the image before publication

Zack Zoll wrote:
The fundamental misunderstanding in this thread is that the person with creative rights is, assuming the right paperwork is signed, the person with copyright - that they are one in the same.

I don't know enough to explain the difference, but I do know enough to know that there is one - at least in the US.

I also know that being the creator grants you absolutely ZERO inalienable rights, aside from being given credit where credit is due; everything else is negotiable.

But that right is indeed inalienable. Should you hire a photographer, and get them to sign away copyright, no matter the situation the photographer still gets creative credit.

Now as I said, I don't know if if is a shared credit, and it would probably require a suit to find out. But regardless of how many names appear in the credit, the button pusher will be one of them.

This might not matter. Berry Gordy made a ton of money without creator credits.

An assumption I perhaps wrongly made in my response Zack

Michael Fryd wrote:
I was under the impression that in the USA there must be some minimal amount of creativity in order for something to be copyrightable...

Kool Koncepts wrote:
What constitutes minimal? ...

That is the key question.

My understanding is that there must be some creativity, but the bar is very low.

Choosing some camera settings, aiming the camera, deciding when to shoot, it enough creativity to warrant copyright.

However, if there is absolutely no human creativity, then there is nothing to copyright.  If you use a copier to make an 8.5 x 11 copy of the monkey print, is the duplicate copyrightable?  Is there enough creativity in making a copy on a copier in order to warrant copyright?

John Olson wrote:
At a recent photo shoot I took one of my assistants and made her a second shooter. We were in studio. For a series of photographs my contribution was:

- Hired the model and MUA
- Directed the makeup and hair look
- Set the light, adjusted the aperture, shutter speed and ISO on the camera
- Instructed my assistant on where to stand how to frame the shot to get what what I wanted.
- Directed the model through a series of poses and emotions
- All of the post-processing

My assistant's contribution was:
- Physically held the camera (no tripod)
- Pressed the shutter button

John I have been there. Do not mark claims to the photo. Mark claim to the experience, and let the wisdom from the experience guide your next decision. Walk away with the satisfaction of knowing that not only do you take great photos, but that you also instruct pretty darn good. Then let your assistant have her moment in the lime light. After all, the assistant now have a standard to maintain. I always say to my assistant "I can teach even a monkey how to push a button".

R_Marquez wrote:
Legally the person that pressed the shutter is the copyright owner unless they're under a contract where they give up the rights.

Interesting.

Who's copiright of Stephen Hawkins books? Because he sure is not the one writing them down.

I thought the copyright was to the one owning the project or author. Most if not all modern art instalation exhibition was never touched by the artist themselves, as well as many paintings from the past that was intirelly made by assistents.

Otherwise it would be like construction workers have the copyright of building architecture.