On 9/11/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 9/11/06, dmehkeri@swi.com dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
Hang on, hang on, wait a second. It is yours. I'm assuming you asked someone to take your picture, that person did so, and then handed the camera back to you.
With the sole copy of the "work" inside it.
Without comment.
The understanding is obvious, by common practice. The "release" is given. No? Really, are we going just a bit overboard here?
probably but copyright law wasn't really desighned to handle situations like that.
I agree that copyright law wasn't designed to handle things like that, but that's probably because it was hard for them to imagine that there would ever be such an idiotic situation as an incidental tourist acquaintance claiming copyright on a picture that he neither knew nor could ever prove that he took.
When it comes to being a bit overboard we like to do it with a big splash. Serendipidously I to-day read an interesting coment in Peter Suber's introduction to "The Case of the Speluncean Explorers". [Lon Fuller's] greatnes lies in his lifelong proof that rigorous legal thought does not exclude creativity, does not require jargon, and does not make morality an independent variable or an afterthought."
Ec
Disclaimer: IANAL
Copyright in the US seems rather clear. Copyright is designed to protect ideas and to a limited extent the expression of those ideas. Follow the money. Who is the creator, who is the producer? The person owning the camera had the creative idea and the funds (by owning the camera and developing the film) to take the picture at that location. The random tourist just plays the role of the photographer, but has no claim to copyright.
"my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button." Your idea, you own it.
-jtp Electrawn