On 9/12/06, zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
I think there is a point you are missing. If I ask someone else to take a photo of me with my camera, then (if nothing is otherwise said) both of us normally assume that the photo and all its rights will be mine. Such a shared assumption can be considered an [[implicit contract]]. If so, an actual (not just imagined) transfer of copyright has occurred.
Zero, I think you're more or less on the right track: there's simply no
expectation on the part of the person pressing the button that they'll have any continued relationship to the photo.
However, if I remember my business law course correctly, in order for a contract to be valid, there must be an exchange of value (at least in the US). In this scenario, the kind stranger taking the photo receives nothing of value (a smile and a "thank you" doesn't count). Therefore, there is not a valid contract.
Not responding specifically to Zero, but in general... It seems to me that thinking about creative input isn't going to be useful here either. Imagine if the kind stranger happens to be a professional photographer, and "takes charge" to arrange the subjects of the photo, and perhaps even takes two steps to the left so as to include a very dramatic lighting effect. The pro then hands to camera back to the owner and walks away.
This is not work for hire; it's not any sort of contract arrangement. It's just a kind pro giving away services. I'm not any sort of lawyer, but it sure seems to be that, in handing the camera back to the owner and walking away, the photo-taker is almost literally handing away any rights to the photo.
-- Rich
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]