allison mindy wrote:
I've heard of a few photographers who have other people snap a photo of them (without a tripod- so composition is up to the person taking the photo) and call it a self portrait.

Not a self portrait.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
If you click the shutter on a camera that is pointed at you, it's a self portrait.

But what if someone else clicks the shutter and you edit the photo afterwards.

allison mindy wrote:
But what if someone else clicks the shutter and you edit the photo afterwards.

Not a self portrait.

Editing, post work, retouching, call it what you will, has absolutely nothing to do with the shot being a self portrait or not.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
If you click the shutter on a camera that is pointed at you, it's a self portrait.  Or, push a button that clicks the shutter.  Either way.  It's just a shot you set up and took yourself of yourself.

If you read my post I'm asking about people who have other people click the shutter then call the photo a self portrait.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
Not a self portrait.

Ok thanks. I just know of a few people who do this and I was wondering if they call it a self portrait because they edit it themselves or in some cases set up the lighting.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
They'd be wrong.  You can school them.

I'd rather not create any drama which is why I wanted to check my understanding of things here.

allison mindy wrote:

If you read my post I'm asking about people who have other people click the shutter then call the photo a self portrait.

technically you would or should call that an assisted self portrait and give credit to a photographer, if you don't i think you (not you personally) are full of shit

then again im slightly biased about how difficult shooting a sp can be, even though it seems to be a bit "poo-poo'd" in terms of "real photography"

Carlos Occidental wrote:
LOL.  Yeah, sometimes it's better to just be quiet about such things.

Very true Thank you for your help!

wrongsideofthirty wrote:

technically you would or should call that an assisted self portrait and give credit to a photographer, if you don't i think you (not you personally) are full of shit

then again im slightly biased about how difficult shooting a sp can be, even though it seems to be a bit "poo-poo'd" in terms of "real photography"

Ok new term for me I like it thank you

allison mindy wrote:
But what if someone else clicks the shutter and you edit the photo afterwards.

Then you're the retoucher

If they were not using a tripod and were choosing the composition and when to click the shutter themselves then they would most definitely be the photographer, taking portraits of you, although you could probably claim to be the art director.

However, if you set up the composition and put the camera on a tripod (or instructed somebody where to put it) and told them when to click the shutter then they would be effectively acting as your assistant, so you would be the photographer in that scenario.

Legally, unless there was a written contract that specified they were acting as your assistant, the person pressing the shutter release would probably still be the copyright holder in name but most people would understand that you had the moral right to claim the photo as yours.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

allison mindy wrote:
I just want to say upfront that I am genuinely trying to understand the term "self portrait" and am not trying to criticize anyone or be a smart ass.

So my question is what defines a self portrait? I've heard of a few photographers who have other people snap a photo of them (without a tripod- so composition is up to the person taking the photo) and call it a self portrait. Can they say it's their own work because they do the editing afterwards? Thanks for helping me understand!

A self portrait is a picture you take of yourself.

Light Writer wrote:
The setup and concept is the most important, if an assistant actually does the shutter click, it's still a self portrait.

I think

Okay let's get hypothetical...

You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. Is that a selfie?

Here's another...
You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. It turns out that bystander is Annie Leibovitz. Is that a selfie or an original AL? Who gets the rights?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
self–por·trait noun \-ˈpȯr-trət, -ˌtrāt\

Definition of SELF-PORTRAIT: a portrait of oneself done by oneself

This is always what I had thought...

That Italian Guy wrote:

Then you're the retoucher

If they were not using a tripod and were choosing the composition and when to click the shutter themselves then they would most definitely be the photographer, taking portraits of you, although you could probably claim to be the art director.

However, if you set up the composition and put the camera on a tripod (or instructed somebody where to put it) and told them when to click the shutter then they would be effectively acting as your assistant, so you would be the photographer in that scenario.

Legally, unless there was a written contract that specified they were acting as your assistant, the person pressing the shutter release would probably still be the copyright holder in name but most people would understand that you had the moral right to claim the photo as yours.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I feel like this is the most thorough answer thank you. This is what I had originally thought, but there are a good handful of photographers in my area calling photos others took of them (without a tripod) self portraits and putting it in their photography ports as such. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy in thinking that they were using the wrong terminology.

Laurence Moan wrote:

Okay let's get hypothetical...

You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. Is that a selfie?

Here's another...
You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. It turns out that bystander is Annie Leibovitz. Is that a selfie or an original AL? Who gets the rights?

If you had the camera on a tripod and were using the person as nothing more than a meat shutter release, it's a self portrait. If the person pressing the button isn't actually doing anything, like lining up the shot or focusing, then I could consider it a self shot picture, because really what's the difference between a wireless trigger and some person pushing the button with no input? If you simply hand the camera off to them and let them line up the shot and take it, no.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

If you had the camera on a tripod and were using the person as nothing more than a meat shutter release, it's a self portrait. If the person pressing the button isn't actually doing anything, like lining up the shot or focusing, then I could consider it a self shot picture, because really what's the difference between a wireless trigger and some person pushing the button with no input? If you simply hand the camera off to them and let them line up the shot and take it, no.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern … wo001.html

Republic of Korea is a signatory

Laurence Moan wrote:

Okay let's get hypothetical...

You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. Is that a selfie?

Here's another...
You're at Disneyland with your main squeeze and the Mad Hatter shows up. You ask a bystander to take a picture of you and your lady with the MH. It turns out that bystander is Annie Leibovitz. Is that a selfie or an original AL? Who gets the rights?

Doesn't matter who the photographer is.  If someone else is responsible for even some of the creative aspect of the work, then it is legally a collaboration.  I'll let other people hammer out how much is "some of the creative aspect," but at they very least, any time you're not using a tripod, any button-clicker could potentially be found to have creative input.  So if the person is anything other than a cable release, it's not a self-portrait.

Doesn't the name really sum it all up?  Honestly, I fail to see the confusion.  It doesn't have to be a literal portrait - you can take a photo of your dirty dishes, and claim it's a self-portrait.  But you do have to take the photo yourself, or without outside help - it's right there in the term itself, for God's sake.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/bern … wo001.html

Republic of Korea is a signatory

and?
It doesn't change how I'd feel about calling something like that a self-portrait. If the person pushing the button has zero creative input, you're going to have a hard time making the case. Heck, I could even tell them not to look through the view finder. This was a discussion of what we'd consider a self-portrait in terms of someone being able to say "This was a self-portrait". If someone sets up everything, and uses a wireless trigger or says to some life-support system for a hand "push that button"
there really isn't much difference. The hand support system, for whatever reason, might be able to try and pull out the berne convention, but good luck with that.

beyond that, I wouldn't put much stock in the things that Korea has signed. Korean laws barely apply here.

MC Seoul Photography wrote:

and?
It doesn't change how I'd feel about calling something like that a self-portrait. If the person pushing the button has zero creative input, you're going to have a hard time making the case. Heck, I could even tell them not to look through the view finder. This was a discussion of what we'd consider a self-portrait in terms of someone being able to say "This was a self-portrait". If someone sets up everything, and uses a wireless trigger or says to some life-support system for a hand "push that button"
there really isn't much difference. The hand support system, for whatever reason, might be able to try and pull out the berne convention, but good luck with that.

beyond that, I wouldn't put much stock in the things that Korea has signed. Korean laws barely apply here.

Your opinion is immaterial. LEGALLY, if someone else has actuated the shutter, they are the copyright holder (in full or part) and it isn't a "self-portrait".

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Your opinion is immaterial. LEGALLY, if someone else has actuated the shutter, they are the copyright holder (in full or part) and it isn't a "self-portrait".

Actually, it is still a self-portrait.  It's a self-portrait that someone else may own the copyright to, but it's still a self-portrait, so long as the other person had no creative input.

Who made the photo is not the same thing as who owns the photo.

Which means that the button clicker could claim ownership, sell prints (if they had a copy too), etc., but they could not claim sole credit; they would have to say, "Photo by button pusher and Al Lock."  But that's assuming that this person somehow had a copy of the original file, and you both felt like going to court over something that silly.

Zack Zoll wrote:

Actually, it is still a self-portrait.  It's a self-portrait that someone else may own the copyright to, but it's still a self-portrait, so long as the other person had no creative input.

Who made the photo is not the same thing as who owns the photo.

Which means that the button clicker could claim ownership, sell prints (if they had a copy too), etc., but they could not claim sole credit; they would have to say, "Photo by button pusher and Al Lock."  But that's assuming that this person somehow had a copy of the original file, and you both felt like going to court over something that silly.

Go tell a Copyright lawyer that. When they finish laughing, come back.

Go tell a Copyright lawyer that. When they finish laughing, come back.

Let's say I'm the photographer setting a shoot of myself, and I ask someone else to trigger the shutter.

Then let's say I sign a contract with that person allowing me to use the pictures, but where there is no mention of changing the intellectual property of the pictures in question, thus making that other person the copyright holder.

In that case, can you show me any law that would keep me from inserting that picture in my portfolio, with the mention "self portrait"?

From my understanding, this is what this thread is about.

Carlos Occidental wrote:
...
The lighting can be set up by anyone.  It's the person that clicks the shutter, or trips the shutter that is the "photographer" for that shot.  Nobody cares who sets up the lighting.

I wish Yousuf Karsh were around to respond to that.
I guess I should have skipped all those lighting classes.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Your opinion is immaterial. LEGALLY, if someone else has actuated the shutter, they are the copyright holder (in full or part) and it isn't a "self-portrait".

Not if you're an 'employed photographer' - none of the photos I took when working for HM Armed Forces 'belong' to me though I am now allowed to use them for self-promotion - all of those images are HM Crown Copyright. That is, the copyright belongs to the British Government.

Same thing applies if you're a stipendiary newspaper Staff Photographer - the publication owns the copyright (freelancers will come to individual arrangements).

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Go tell a Copyright lawyer that. When they finish laughing, come back.

You're clearly confusing artistry with ownership.  They are not the same thing.

Say Bob Dylan writes a song about you, and even calls it "Al Lock."  You get zero creative credit, and he wrote the song, so he gets the copyright.  You can sue for damages( possibly including shared copyright ownership) because he used your "likeness", but there is absolutely no way that you could make a case that anyone other than Bob Dylan wrote that song ... and no matter what the award, Dylan will still have at least a partial creative credit for the lyrics, even if he loses all copyrights in the lawsuit - because of course he will, he wrote them.

Now say the lyrics were all things that you said to Dylan.  You'd have a creative credit, because you directly influenced the song.  But you don't get a copyright credit, because you can't copyright a conversation.  The song would say, "Lyrics by Bob Dylan and Al Lock," but Dylan or his record company would be the sole owners of the song.  Again, unless you sued for likeness damages.

Lastly, if Dylan took all the lyrics off your blog, then you would get a creative credit, AND have a copyright claim.  You actually wrote those words down, and you CAN copyright text - especially something that has been "published" and has an IP address linked to it.  If all the lyrics were from a single post, read in order, then you'd get full creative credit for the lyrics; if they were spliced together from a variety of posts, Dylan could claim a creative credit for the lyrics too, as he "edited" them.  But in either case, Dylan would STILL have at least a copyright claim, because he wrote the music.  Even if you wrote the music too, and Dylan has no copyright claim at all, he still gets a creative claim, as an arranger for choosing that music for that text.

And that version of the song, on that record, is still copyright Bob Dylan/his record company, even if the song itself is owned by you.  You can license your lyrics and let other people sing it, and he can't - but every time the Dylan version gets downloaded on iTunes, Dylan gets paid.  Maybe you do too, but he definitely does.

To put it another way:  the FSA photos are all public domain.  You can download, print, and distribute as many copies of Migrant Mother as you want.  But it's still a Dorothea Lange image, and the copyright is held by the US Government.  So if you credit that photo as anything other that Dorothea Lange, the Government, FSA, Department of the Interior(I think)or anything similar, it's illegal.  If you credit the photo as the authour(Lange) or the copyright holder(FSA, etc.), then you can do whatever you want with it.

But it's all a silly discussion, since the button-pusher is extremely unlikely to have a copy of the original file, which will make a lawsuit pretty difficult.