[WikiEN-l] Grandmother copyrighted anonymous works

[Richard Holton]

On 9/12/06, zero 0000 <nought_0000 at 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]]