Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Who is the photographer ?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Who is the photographer ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    Let me throw a curve ball ...

    I literally 'ordered' him to shoot since he had my camera in hand, from what angle and told him to zoom in close etc.

    1) Who owns the copyright and 2) who is considered the conceptualiser of that photo? Does the conceptualiser own the creative and copyrights, and the assistant considered to be just a mechanical means used to achieve the results of that photo, since he didn't want to shoot it in the first place, and was 'ordered' to?
    1) this one I will leave it to our copyright expert to answer

    2) IMO, you are the conceptualiser. However, your assistance was the one who actually "compose" the frame. Your instruction to him on the angle and zoom in close might not be = to what he had taken. Just my tots

  2. #42

    Default Re: Who is the photographer ?

    Quote Originally Posted by romeo tango View Post
    1) this one I will leave it to our copyright expert to answer

    2) IMO, you are the conceptualiser. However, your assistance was the one who actually "compose" the frame. Your instruction to him on the angle and zoom in close might not be = to what he had taken. Just my tots
    That's what I thought, which was why I included the photos under his name, and not mine, but the photo wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for my insastance and guidance. Maybe this is one of those cases where it's like a colloboration and should have shared credits?

  3. #43

    Default Re: Who is the photographer ?

    Quote Originally Posted by romeo tango View Post
    I share the same sentiments

    What about other bros / sis here ?
    My feel is that the person who pressed the shutter, while technically 'the photographer', served a mechanical function which could have been fufilled by any number of means, e.g., self-timer, cabel release, remote shutter release or even taking a stick and pushing the button.

    UNLESS the act of pressing the button involved highly developed sets of skills unique to an individual. I believe that in some forms of technical or scientific photography, this may hold true - where the assistant is as important as the main photographer. So we may actually end up having seperate sets of credits - main photographer, 2nd or assistant photographer etc.

  4. #44
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Who is the photographer ?

    I'll attempt to answer based on what I know, although it will be obvious that the answer may not fit what most consider to be the "moral answer".

    1. Under the Copyright Act, copyright in a photograph goes to whoever who took the photograph.

    As far as I am aware, there is no Singapore case law interpreting what is meant by "took the photograph". In my view, it would be the person who pushed the shutter, irrespective of whoever conceptualised the shot, set it up etc. The person who "took the photograph" must be the person who tripped the shutter.

    2. Crediting is a concept which is divorced from copyright, although still somewhat related. Credits are usually a method by which the copyright holder allows a third party, to use his works, provided a credit is in place. The copyright holder therefore gets to stipulate what the credit should state before he gives the license.

    Hence, if the person who pushed the button is the copyright holder, but he feels that other people should be included in the credit, then he can state so to the third party. However, if he feels only he should be in the credit, then that will be the case. This will depend not so much on absolute facts, but his subjective requiremetns and thoughts.

    3. Now, the concept of the "conceptualiser" - this has now nothing to do with legal terms, and anyone can call himself "the conceptualiser". Since it is separate from the concept of "copyright holder", it has no legal consequence who the conceptualiser is.

    4. Commssioned Work - the exception to copyright accuring to the author comes in the form of the commissioned work exception. However, a key factor is that there must be "valuable consideration" given before it satisfies this exception.

    Again, I'm not aware of any Singaporecase law interpreting what "valuable consideration is" (although I'm sure there should be a case somewhere by now since this is a rather basic concept; just that I've not taken the time to find out); but consideration is widely accepted as not just including money. Does the term "valuable" now require that consideration be money?

    What is quite clear however is that if A asks a friend B to do something for free without any benefit, it will fail the consideration ground, much less valuable consideration. Also, is there an intention to create legal relations when A asks B to do something? If not, there is no consideration as there is no contract.

    The case will be more unclear if A pays an assistant B to press the button - in this case, it can arguably fall within the commissioned work exception.

  5. #45
    Moderator Octarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    12,388

    Default Re: Who is the photographer ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    My feel is that the person who pressed the shutter, while technically 'the photographer', served a mechanical function which could have been fufilled by any number of means, e.g., self-timer, cabel release, remote shutter release or even taking a stick and pushing the button.
    That's what Vince mentioned as "commissioned work". The person hired / ordered / asked does not acquire any legal rights on the result / outcome of the activity. Otherwise all air-con units in Singapore would somehow belong to a group of service contractors

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    UNLESS the act of pressing the button involved highly developed sets of skills unique to an individual. I believe that in some forms of technical or scientific photography, this may hold true - where the assistant is as important as the main photographer. So we may actually end up having seperate sets of credits - main photographer, 2nd or assistant photographer etc.
    As can be seen in the credits of many films. There are always credits for 2nd and 3rd teams down to point of "3rd assistant to 3rd camera team" and "well-being officer of Mr / Mrs main actor". But I noticed not many people here see these credits ever
    Those people get credits but they don't have any copyrights about the end result (unless stated in their contract).

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •