Who owns a picture?

[Yoli]

Does the person who took a picture or shot a video the owner of that picture or video? What if they did not own the camera? Does the subject of the picture own it?

Scenario: client snaps a picture of girl giving bj. who owns the picture? the client, the provider or the owner of the establishment? What if the client posts the picture on the web.....what can happen to him?

[guest043013-2]

Originally Posted by Yoli

Does the person who took a picture or shot a video the owner of that picture or video? What if they did not own the camera? Does the subject of the picture own it?

Scenario: client snaps a picture of girl giving bj. who owns the picture? the client, the provider or the owner of the establishment? What if the client posts the picture on the web.....what can happen to him?

I have no idea, but here are a few thoughts:

1. Not sure if the owner of the camera or the photographer own the pic, these are probably the same person usually. However, the flood of camera phones which make having a camera always available probably opens up a whole new era of laws. I also think you have to avoid the whole issue of the fact that if money was exchanged then this was an illegal act, thus making ownership a side issue - public policy would say no one should profit from an illegal act. If someone tries to assert an ownership, a whole new set of problems can erupt.

2. No matter who "owns" the picture, I think you need a release from the model(s) (in other words the blowee and the blower) to legally post the picture.

3. Not sure I see a scenario where the owner of the establishment owns the pics.

Now, screw the laws, let's talk what would be considered correct protocol in the hobby world. If the blowee and the blower do not consent to having their activities shown all over the world, then destroy the damn file and move on. To post the pic otherwise would be a inappropriate thing to do. PERIOD.

[Stag]

Among artists and lawyers (two VERY different groups of people), the "ownership" question is usually a matter of copyright law. And with some limited or odd exceptions that probably don't apply to your question (like "work for hire" and "derivative work" doctrines) the owner of the copyright is the person who created the "work" -- in this case, a photograph. Who owns the camera, or who is depicted, or who owns the location where the work was created -- all these questions are irrelevant to who owns the copyright, and therefore who owns the right to say how the picture is used, copied, distributed, or published.

Tigercat mentions the need for a model release, and as a general matter he's right. However, the need for a model release has nothing to do with who "owns" the picture. Every person has certain privacy rights, and the extent and enforceability of those privacy rights can vary depending on the state. Publishing a picture that clearly identifies a person (showing enough detail to allow someone who knows the subject to recognize the subject) without that person's permission can lead to civil liability (lawyer-talk for "you can get your ass sued"). That's why I, as an amateur photographer, always get a signed model release when I shoot someone (regardless of whether I ever intend to publish the photo). As a lawyer, I also draft customized model releases for my photographer clients to use depending on the situation -- is it a boudior portrait or a high school senior portrait package, will you just sell it to the client or will you use it in your own advertising or web portfolio, etc.

From your question, I'm assuming that someone took a picture of someone giving or getting oral sex, and possibly in a public "establishment." If that's the case, the subject of the picture (assuming he/she is recognizable from the picture) may have the ability to sue the photographer/publisher for the exposure. You should probably consult a lawyer who has brought these kinds of cases, and have him/her ask you many more details about the circumstances, because lots of variables can affect your chances of recovery, and/or whether it is advisable to even bring such a suit. However, if your question is really only who "owns" the picture, that's going to be decided the same way every time -- the photographer (who created the work) owns the picture.

Hope this helps.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by tigercat

To post the pic otherwise would be a inappropriate thing to do. PERIOD.

+1

[Bigh1955]

Nikon Coolpix - $100
A hooker giving you a bj - $150
Posting explicit, undocumented images on the internet - 5 years and $250,000
The expression on face when you're arrested - priceless.

The photographer owns the image copyrights unless he "releases" them in exchange for payment. This is normally done thru a photographer's written release contract. Models, if compensated in any way for their time, are normally required to sign a similar release prior to a session. These rules hold true for all professionally crafted images in order to address US and international copyright laws.

If the images are of an explicit sexual nature (real or implied) Title 18 USC Section 2257 requires additional documentation be secured and retained. This is in response to child porn issues. However, even if the "model" was 50, if this documetation isn't maintained the person who took/posted the image could be in BIG trouble.

Still want to post that pic of your gf?

[Stag]

If the images are of an explicit sexual nature (real or implied) Title 18 USC Section 2257 requires additional documentation be secured and retained. This is in response to child porn issues. However, even if the "model" was 50, if this documetation isn't maintained the person who took/posted the image could be in BIG trouble.

Well, there's proof that I just don't represent enough pornographers -- I didn't even think about the Sec. 2257 stuff. (Even though all the model release packages I've drafted for my regular clients has mentioned it, and included a "special" model release for any work including nudity). If you approach a lawyer for help, be sure to mention this issue, and give Bigh1955 the credit.

[junglejorge11]

if the pic was in public the owner of the camera owns it..if it was in private its yours till you sign a release form..

[Stag]

Hate to disagree, Jorge, but it doesn't matter where the picture was taken -- in public or "in private" -- the "ownership" of the photo is always with the creator unless and until the owner gives away, sells, releases, abandons or otherwise "alienates" his or her copyrights in the photo. The place where the photo was taken does not affect the "ownership" question in any way. It may, however, have some impact on whether publishing the photo that the photographer "owns" otherwise subjects the owner/photographer to liability for something else, like defamation, false light, or other invasion of privacy rights. That's what the model release is for.

[ck1942]

Per my knowledge (such as it may be) the existing federal laws and case law provides that:

Copyright of the "art" vests with its creator, unless it was a work for hire.

To enforce copyright, it must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in Washington, D.C.

Speaking of the various examples above, a photo, taken in a public place (subject to the copyright law) belongs to the creator.

That creator may freely distribute (without getting compensation) said photo.

Persons (or objects, think the classic trademarked Coca-Cola bottle) within the photo have zero rights unless the photo is being sold or "rented" for commercial purpose. And if the photo is being used by a legitimate "news" organization, likely the commercial aspect is null and void due to First Amendment rights assertion.

If you will, ponder Andy Warhol, for a moment. He created many works of art containing trademarked objects. There were no payments nor releases legally required since he was exercising his First Amendment rights of expression.

Now, certain subject matter -- underage of consent and porno, are a different matter. Especially in commercial usage (sale or rental) and in such websites that may be subject to 2257 rules.

But ownership of any of creative work of art (doesn't have to be "art" per se, is still vested within its creator.

[Bigh1955]

Originally Posted by Stag

Hate to disagree, Jorge, but it doesn't matter where the picture was taken -- in public or "in private" -- the "ownership" of the photo is always with the creator unless and until the owner gives away, sells, releases, abandons or otherwise "alienates" his or her copyrights in the photo. The place where the photo was taken does not affect the "ownership" question in any way. It may, however, have some impact on whether publishing the photo that the photographer "owns" otherwise subjects the owner/photographer to liability for something else, like defamation, false light, or other invasion of privacy rights. That's what the model release is for.

Exactly correct!