[WikiEN-l] Grandmother copyrighted anonymous works

[zero 0000]

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 (who knows nothing about it).

> From: Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> On 9/11/06, Jason Potkanski <electrawn at electrawn.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> As was pointed out, copyright protects creative expression, not
> ideas.
>  However, I think you're on the right track here.
> 
> What is copyrightable in a photo?  Assuming everything in the photo
> is
> public domain (or incidental fair use/fair dealing), what's
> copyrightable is the choice of a particular place, direction, zoom
> level, and moment in time.  In more sophisticated photos (not point
> and shoot) there's the choice of F-stop, exposure, etc, but we'll
> ignore that as it doesn't really apply.
> 
> > 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.
> >
> In the case of a photographer who literally just presses the button,
> there would be almost no creative input (I suppose the exact moment
> in
> time was chosen), and therefore s/he would probably have no copyright
> interest.  I say probably because there is of course that issue of
> moment in time.
> 
> More likely the photographer also chose to some extent the zoom and
> the framing of the photograph, so they'd probably have an argument
> that they have some copyright interest.  But if you set the scene,
> posing with your friend in front of the Eiffel tower at 6 PM on a
> cloudy evening, then you put creative input into the photo too, and
> you probably have some copyright interest too.
> 
> I believe the preceding is fairly standard across different
> jurisdictions.  The following is more likely to be US-specific.
> 
> Copyright law has rules for such situations where more than one
> person
> has put creative interest into a work.  There are two possibilities -
> it is a work for hire or there is a joint copyright.  I don't think
> such an unpaid scenario would qualify as a work for hire so more
> likely there would be a joint copyright.
> 
> What are the rules of a joint copyright situation?  Any joint
> copyright holder can grant a non-exclusive license (such as CC-BY-SA
> or the GFDL) to anyone, for any reason, but the joint copyright
> holders must share any financial gain they derive from exclusive use
> of the work.
> 
> Of course, in conclusion, yes, this is sort of a long discussion in
> pointlessness, because the fact of the matter is that the person who
> pushed the button on your camera almost surely just doesn't care. 
> But
> some Wikipedians like to cross their Ts and dot their Is, and they
> even like to force other Wikipedians to do so.  So in some sense it
> is
> useful to think about this for the case of those Wikipedians, just to
> get them off our backs.
> 
> > "my camera, my idea, but you held it and pushed the button." Your
> > idea, you own it.
> >
> > -jtp Electrawn


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com