Vito wrote:
Don't think so. Does that mean I can't own the copyright of a sunset because there is already a picture of a sunset (or a drawing of one)? Or a photo of a building for the same reason. I don't need a license for that.

Well think again. 

No, just because someone else took a picture of a sunset doesn't mean that you can't take one.  But you can't publish one that is substantially identical to one somebody else has a copyright on.  Chances of you getting such a picture are near zero anyway.

As to the picture of a building, you are dealing with two issues.  One is the issue of copyright on a photo.  The other is on the (design of) the building itself.  In the first issue, you can't publish a picture of a building that is substantially identical to one that someone else holds copyright to.  In the second issue, that's what property releases are all about.  You need to do some reading up on them.

lll wrote:
"Written on the body: intellectual property rights in tattoos, makeup, and other body art." Thomas F. Cotter; Angela M. Mirabole

Took me a while to find this.    Hope it would be helpful to the discussion.  I believe you can buy this article on Lexis-Nexis, too.

There is a FULL COPY on-line at:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/pdf/tatt.pdf

Studio36

lll wrote:
"Written on the body: intellectual property rights in tattoos, makeup, and other body art." Thomas F. Cotter; Angela M. Mirabole

Took me a while to find this.    Hope it would be helpful to the discussion.  I believe you can buy this article on Lexis-Nexis, too.

studio36uk wrote:
There is a FULL COPY on-line at:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/pdf/tatt.pdf

The article is pretty unambiguous.  The view of the author, supported by a large body of case law is that body painting and tattooing are copyrightable.  It is also clear that the author considers the application of bodypaint to the model to be sufficient to make it tangible.

Most of the article goes onto deal with the consequences and issues of it being copyrightable.  But it begins with the presumption that it is.

This is a good find.

studio36uk wrote:
http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/pdf/tatt.pdf

Excellent.  Didn't know he put it online.  Thanks for finding it.

TXPhotog wrote:
Well think again. 

No, just because someone else took a picture of a sunset doesn't mean that you can't take one.  But you can't publish one that is substantially identical to one somebody else has a copyright on.  Chances of you getting such a picture are near zero anyway.

Yes you can.
What if I went shooting sunsets with another photographer and we were standing shoulder to shoulder with the same camera, same lens, same settings and shot at the same time (or even 1 or 2 seconds apart). I can't publish mine (meaning I own the copyright) or he can't publish his? That's absurd.

As to the picture of a building, you are dealing with two issues.  One is the issue of copyright on a photo.  The other is on the (design of) the building itself.  In the first issue, you can't publish a picture of a building that is substantially identical to one that someone else holds copyright to.  In the second issue, that's what property releases are all about.  You need to do some reading up on them.

Wrong! The building owner can hire as many photographers as he wants to photograph his buiding and you can shoot from the same angle, same focal length, same f-stop and the picture can look practically like the others and you own the copyright for that image.

So, I can't shoot the same mountain that Ansel Adams shot that looks almost exactly the same? I believe there was a lawsuit years ago about this and The Adams estate lost. You can copyright your photograph, but not the subject you shot.

TXPhotog wrote:

Well think again. 

No, just because someone else took a picture of a sunset doesn't mean that you can't take one.  But you can't publish one that is substantially identical to one somebody else has a copyright on.  Chances of you getting such a picture are near zero anyway.

As to the picture of a building, you are dealing with two issues.  One is the issue of copyright on a photo.  The other is on the (design of) the building itself.  In the first issue, you can't publish a picture of a building that is substantially identical to one that someone else holds copyright to.  In the second issue, that's what property releases are all about.  You need to do some reading up on them.

In my original post (Bill/Bob/Jim), it said the owner of the building was paid (for the property release) by the photographer to shoot the photo. I do know about property releases.

Vito wrote:
Yes you can.
What if I went shooting sunsets with another photographer and we were standing shoulder to shoulder with the same camera, same lens, same settings and shot at the same time (or even 1 or 2 seconds apart). I can't publish mine (meaning I own the copyright) or he can't publish his? That's absurd.

Well, Vito, I suppose there are cases where you could take the same picture as someone else without a problem.  Perhaps you have just found one.  I do have to ask, though:  how do you know that everything was the same between you?  Did you happen to share creative ideas, or just by sheer accident make exactly the same choices?  It matters.

But cases like that aren't what we need to be worrying about here.  They are very rare, special case situations, not what most photographers would have to concern themselves with.

You can copyright your photograph, but not the subject you shot.

Of course you can't copyright the subject (if it's nature).  It's the artistic/creative treatment of the subject that can be copyrighted.  Adams didn't become a famous photographer because he chose especially pretty mountains to shoot.  He became famous because of the artistic and creative choices he made in how he shot them.  That is what is subject to copyright protection.

Vito wrote:
In my original post (Bill/Bob/Jim), it said the owner of the building was paid (for the property release) by the photographer to shoot the photo. I do know about property releases.

If you understand property releases, please explain to us what they are for, and how, knowing that, you could ask your question.

TXPhotog wrote:
If you understand property releases, please explain to us what they are for, and how, knowing that, you could ask your question.

I was trying to make a point, not ask a question.
And the (rhetorical) question was do you need a release from the mural artist as well as the owner of the building

TXPhotog wrote:
Well, Vito, I suppose there are cases where you could take the same picture as someone else without a problem.  Perhaps you have just found one.  I do have to ask, though:  how do you know that everything was the same between you?  Did you happen to share creative ideas, or just by sheer accident make exactly the same choices?  It matters.

But cases like that aren't what we need to be worrying about here.  They are very rare, special case situations, not what most photographers would have to concern themselves with.

Yes it is. Either way (if the two photogs told each other what settings to use, or the camera's autoprogram mode happen to pick the same settings) it doesn't matter. Both photographers own the copyright to their images. And it doesn't matter if it's a rare case or not. It can't be good for one instance and not the other. If in this case they both can market their image (because they each have it copyrighted), it will then not matter if Photographer #1 (Ted in NY) and Photographer #2 (Bill in LA) take (almost) the exact same photo days (weeks, months, years, decades) apart. They both own the copyright to their own photos and can market/sell them.

You can copyright your photograph, but not the subject you shot.

TXPhotog wrote:
Of course you can't copyright the subject (if it's nature).  It's the artistic/creative treatment of the subject that can be copyrighted.  Adams didn't become a famous photographer because he chose especially pretty mountains to shoot.  He became famous because of the artistic and creative choices he made in how he shot them.  That is what is subject to copyright protection.

Well, Adams became famous not so much for the image he captured (the negative) but for the prints he made from them. He would only let one printer make his prints (with his watchful eye overseeing the original ones, and then later on his own) and that's what made them "Ansel Adams Prints". Of course his "eye" on what to shoot and when was important.

Vito wrote:
If in this case they both can market their image (because they each have it copyrighted), it will then not matter if Photographer #1 (Ted in NY) and Photographer #2 (Bill in LA) take (almost) the exact same photo days (weeks, months, years, decades) apart. They both own the copyright to their own photos and can market/sell them.

I disagree.

Imagine the following set of circumstances:

Photographer A takes a picture of the San Francisco skyline at sunset, and licenses his picture to Coca Cola for an ad after registering it with the Copyright Office.  Photographer B sees the shot, "reverse engineeers" it to figure out the exact place it was taken from, waits until the sky conditions are very similar to those in the original shot, frames the shot the same way as the original and exposes and prints the picture to get one that is substantially identical to the one licensed to Coca Cola.  He then takes it to Sears and licenses it to them.

Photographer B can expect to have a summons arrive on his doorstep after a while, and he can expect to lose in court.

TXPhotog wrote:
I disagree.

Imagine the following set of circumstances:

Photographer A takes a picture of the San Francisco skyline at sunset, and licenses his picture to Coca Cola for an ad after registering it with the Copyright Office.  Photographer B sees the shot, "reverse engineeers" it to figure out the exact place it was taken from, waits until the sky conditions are very similar to those in the original shot, frames the shot the same way as the original and exposes and prints the picture to get one that is substantially identical to the one licensed to Coca Cola.  He then takes it to Sears and licenses it to them.

Photographer B can expect to have a summons arrive on his doorstep after a while, and he can expect to lose in court.

Okay, first, let's get the preliminary out of the way. They both own the copyright to their respective images (as soon as the shutter is pressed). I think in the 4 pages of this thread, the distinction between owning the copyright and being able to market the image have become INCORRECTLY synonomus. They're not.

The suer would have to prove reverse engineering and even then, the suer would probably have to prove he lost income due to the sale. If Sears, in your example went and looked for the original photographer and he wouldn't sell and they then went to hire a "reversed engineered" version, then maybe. If the second photographer was "inspired" by the original, that's perfectly fine. Inspiriation is allowed.

TXPhotog wrote:
I disagree with several of the specifics in what you said, but the fundamental points seem to have been made and I don't see any point in continuing with the conversation.

Two final questions. I didn't understand these above statements. What (and who's) fundemental points have been made? And, is inspiration allowed or not?

Solvi Strifeldt wrote:
A copyright can be of av group. It's not only one person, if there are lots of people who has done a work on it.
The photograph own his picture, but not the right of the content.
That meens;
All of name of involved people should be written.
The photograph can not do as he want without they others agreement.
Because he don't own the motives in his picture (models, makeup, styling etc).
If de does all the work of his own, he can do what he want.

If another person do retouched work, this person own his retouch, not the picture, but the part of its content.
Hes name should be on the list to.

I take the photographs name down, if the photograph not take mine name with the destription for the picture.

When all do a job for "free" (TF*) they name must be with!

If a person buy your picture, he buy your rights, so its his.
Therefor you always must pay for its content two, otherwise the second claim their rights.

Everything a man or woman do with their hands to kreate something, has the person theyre own copyright on.

So, you as a photograph not own the content in it. You just own a this picture, but can not do what you want with it, without permisson from they others.

I hope all have the respect for every person on the set, and respect every work as a an art, in the same way you want others to have respect for your work and person.




A person who take picture of the sun, don't own the sun. And he don't own the makeup or, mode og style.
But since nobody own the sun, the photograph can do wat he want with the picture.
But he can not do that to the makeup or bodypainting on that picture.

But another person can not stay at the same point and take excact picture of without youre permisson. But you cannot but stop him either.

But you can stop another person to take picture of your sets prosjekts. Because its not his.
He don't own the picture because he click on the camera and took the picture.
Its still they other person at the set who own the rights on the picture, not the photographer who took the picture.
But the right photographer has pernmisson to take the picture.

So, the right photographer own the picture, but not the picture, because of its content.
The makeup artist don't own the picture because he don't take it.
So, all of you own your part of the picture, so nobody can't do what they want, if they other not give theire permission for that.

But, endeed, that person who did the most work on the prosject own it most.

So, if an art director do 3 weeks for the prosjects, makeup artist 2 days, photograph 1 days (because he don't do jobs with photoshop etc), it is the AD who are the "boss" to the picture.

So; have respect to others work, and do your best and do your work, and you have your rights. If you do bad works, you don't get your rights.

I am not sure why you brought back this old thread, but, while you may or may not be right on some of what you are saying, as it applies to the law in Norway, much of it is incorrect as it applies to the U.S.