Who "owns" a photograph?

Flash In The Pan

Flash In The Pan

Messages
27,793
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting one here, this woman took a photo of an incident she witnessed during a football match (on Sky) which she was watching on her tv and posted the pic to Twitter.

The Times (also owned by News Corp) then came along and lifted the pic and used it on their website....

I emailed the picture editor at Times on Tuesday 24th April, with links and screenshot, asking for attribution and payment for use. There has been no response as of 12 noon today. This morning I have also mailed a specific person in The Times sport department.

The irony, of course, is that The Times are charging for content they've stolen
Click to expand...

Does she actually own the content? My opinion is that she doesn't, but what do others think?
 
She tweeted it with twitpic. It isn't hers anyway as that effectively says they own everything you stick on there and can redistribute and earn from it. The editorial comment is interesting as it does show part of her tv screen so it's not a direct copy of the actual footage. I wonder what would happen if she'd done a drawing of same?! You'd have to know what sky's terms and conditions are for taking photos of content displayed on their service. If you had taken the photo through a shop window would their terms apply to you as you hadn't signed up for them?

Times is murdoch too so they're not going to give a hoot.

An interesting minefield I reckon :)
 
So if I take a photo of a book page the copyright isn't mine it belongs to the book author/publisher?
 
srichards said:
So if I take a photo of a book page the copyright isn't mine it belongs to the book author/publisher?
Click to expand...

If the subject of the photograph is the text of the book, then yes.

The situation described is no different to photocopying a book and passing off the text as your own.
 
It's an image of her telly and she wasn't looking to make money when she took it.
 
If the tv had been off it would have been hers... because it is showing sky is it automatically theirs? Does the bbc own copyright of my cat photo because the tv is in the background showing something he's interested in?!
 
srichards said:
If the tv had been off it would have been hers... because it is showing sky is it automatically theirs? Does the bbc own copyright of my cat photo because the tv is in the background showing something he's interested in?!
Click to expand...

In the picture in question the tv isn't in the background (incidental inclusion), the image on the tv screen (broadcast by SKY) is the subject of the photo, the redistribution of which is implicitly forbidden in SKY's Terms and Conditions -

Copying and Copyright
(a) You must not do (or allow to be done) any of the following:
(i) copy (except as permitted under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("Act"), as amended from time to time), redistribute or relay any of the Channels or any Additional TV Services or any part of them
Click to expand...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
In the picture in question the tv isn't in the background (incidental inclusion), the image on the tv screen (broadcast by SKY) is the subject of the photo, the redistribution of which is implicitly forbidden in SKY's Terms and Conditions -
Click to expand...

I see. If she'd seen it in a shop window/in a pub and wasn't a sky subscriber would those terms still apply to her as she had never agreed to them?

She's still onto a complete loser anyway as she's a sky subscriber so those terms would apply as it was at home.
 
srichards said:
If the tv had been off it would have been hers... because it is showing sky is it automatically theirs? Does the bbc own copyright of my cat photo because the tv is in the background showing something he's interested in?!
Click to expand...

:bang:

I must remember not to feed the trolls.
 
srichards said:
I see. If she'd seen it in a shop window/in a pub and wasn't a sky subscriber would those terms still apply to her as she had never agreed to them?
Click to expand...

I reckon that would then be the same of taking a picture of (taking it to a silly extreme), say, the Mona Lisa and then selling copies of it and passing it off as your own work.
 
Alastair said:
:bang:

I must remember not to feed the trolls.
Click to expand...

I'm not trolling. Just asking for clarification on where the line is drawn. :shrug: If there is a legal difference depending on photographic content as well as intent when taking the original photo then it isn't straight forward is it?

With stock images you cannot show any branding whatsoever for commercial use. With editorial use there seems to be fewer restrictions. She's arguing editorial use.
 
srichards said:
I'm not trolling. Just asking for clarification on where the line is drawn. :shrug: If there is a legal difference depending on photographic content as well as intent when taking the original photo then it isn't straight forward is it?

With stock images you cannot show any branding whatsoever for commercial use. With editorial use there seems to be fewer restrictions. She's arguing editorial use.
Click to expand...

The difference is she didn't technically take the original image, that was done by the SKY cameraman, what she is claiming payment for is, in effect, a photograph of a photograph.
 
Copyright belongs to Sky, assuming they own the original footage rights.

If you take a picture and the main part of the overall image is copyright, then you run the risk of infringement. Seems quite clear in this case.

If it had been a picture of people in her living room and the tv just happened to be on, and it could be argued that what was on the screen was irrelevant and incidental to the overall image, then that's different.

Commercial or editorial use makes no difference, it's only when money becomes invloved that feathers get ruffled. Stock libraries are just playing safe with the logos thing, to guard against obscure claims from unusal usage that they cannot control. It's not a copyright issue per se, but could potentially become one of derogatory use or something.

If you photograph pages and illustrations in a book (or make a photocopy) then that's clear infringement. But if you photograph a sculpture, that is hard to 'copy' as a 2D image, so it gets more complicated. You'd be sure to get a solicitor's letter if you tried to sell prints of it though.

The main thrust of copyright law is to protect the financial interests of the original intellectual property owner, though that fine upstanding principle often gets lost along the way.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The difference is she didn't technically take the original image, that was done by the SKY cameraman, what she is claiming payment for is, in effect, a photograph of a photograph.
Click to expand...

I agree i simply cannot believe she has even asked for payment, in an ideal world the times newspaper would give her £20 and say sorry then Sky tv come in and ask her for £20.000 just to put her in her place, she cannot lift a picture then ask for payment when its gets lifted from her.

Worlds gone:bang: mad
 
OK, from memory this is roughly how it goes ( I can't quote the exact parts of the CDPA 1988 or the relevant case law from my IPad)...

Screen Caps from broadcast media are allowed in print media as fair dealing.

The copyright & IP of the screen cap remains with the broadcaster.

However a photograph taken of a broadcast means that the photographer has copyright, however the IP of the content belongs to the broadcaster.

Therefore...


She can take a photograph of the broadcast, The Times can publish the photograph, but the photographer can't profit from that publication.

She could of course charge a library management or administration fee for providing the screen cap, but she hasn't been intelligent enough to suss that out!


It's probably best to swerve the Twitpic issue, as there's a £120m+ law suit filed in the US at the moment revolving around a similar pic grab by Getty and AFP (AFP grab, but Getty involved in syndication).
 
neil_g said:
hmm, technically the content is owned by sky (etc) i guess and maybe that would fall under the reproduction of copyrighted work?
Click to expand...

Not owned by sky - the recent case with the pub landlord the EU said sky does not have copyright to the football match only anything they produce like the commentary, title screens etc.

You would be able to argue on that precident that she owns the photo as an original piece.


Edit didn't know she took a picture of the tv.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
Not owned by sky - the recent case with the pub landlord the EU said sky does not have copyright to the football match only anything they produce like the commentary, title screens etc.

You would be able to argue on that precident that she owns the photo as an original piece.

Edit didn't know she took a picture of the tv.
Click to expand...

That's the ever so slightly important part! :D
 
POAH said:
is the maker of the TV going to sue her as well for copyright breach :lol:
Click to expand...

Probably not because it depends on intention...



From what she says, she took the photo to 'report' the V sign on Twitter, which therefore falls under the following subsection of the CDPA:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30

Her demand for attribution from The Times under Sect 77 is pointless, because no is no moral right from reporting media (Sect 79, 5 & 6), it's purely courtesy when done.

As for payment for 'her copyright' in the photograph, I'm assuming that it would be dealt with in the same way as a collect; ie you charge a library, rather than a usage, fee.
 
srichards said:
If the tv had been off it would have been hers... because it is showing sky is it automatically theirs? Does the bbc own copyright of my cat photo because the tv is in the background showing something he's interested in?!
Click to expand...

I would say no.... However (my opinion of course) they do have the rights to use a crop of your photo (part of your work) that contains their copyrighted material. If they had used the entire picture of said cat which happened to have a tv behind it or in the background the situation would possibly be different as the subject wasn't directly used.

Personally the fact that she has taken a photo of what was arguably copyrighted material and trying to demand money for it is laughable. It would be like me taking a picture of the Mona Lisa blowing it up and attempting to sell said photo.
 
unplugged said:
It would be like me taking a picture of the Mona Lisa blowing it up and attempting to sell said photo.
Click to expand...

Seriously bad example.

a) The Mona Lisa is way, way, way, out of copyright.

b) Photos of artwork are taken, published and sold all the time.

How else do you think that Christie's, Southeby's etc get their publicity?
 
At the risk of being accused of trolling, if Sky dont actually own the football images, as Poah points to the recent High Court case, then what copyright has been broken exactly?

Steve
 
DemiLion said:
Seriously bad example.

a) The Mona Lisa is way, way, way, out of copyright.

b) Photos of artwork are taken, published and sold all the time.

How else do you think that Christie's, Southeby's etc get their publicity?
Click to expand...

The Mona Lisa is about image property rights, not coyright. It still isn't clear, but the Louvre have a claim to own all image rights (and they have enforced it in various places). There is an interesting Academic paper discussing just that point - here.

It isn't that clear cut, either way.
 
ianjmatt said:
The Mona Lisa is about image property rights, not coyright. It still isn't clear, but the Louvre have a claim to own all image rights (and they have enforced it in various places). There is an interesting Academic paper discussing just that point - here.

It isn't that clear cut, either way.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's about reproduction rights. The Louvre controls access to the painting, and therefore who can reproduce/copy/photograph it. The copyright in that case rests in the reproduction, not in the original artwork.
 
steve_v said:
At the risk of being accused of trolling, if Sky dont actually own the football images, as Poah points to the recent High Court case, then what copyright has been broken exactly?

Steve
Click to expand...

Sky own the copyright of their own broadcast, not the moving images of the football itself if it were legitimately publicly broadcast via another means; which is what the case referred to was about.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you photograph pages and illustrations in a book (or make a photocopy) then that's clear infringement. But if you photograph a sculpture, that is hard to 'copy' as a 2D image, so it gets more complicated. You'd be sure to get a solicitor's letter if you tried to sell prints of it though.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but would like to understand better.

If the sculpture is photographed from public land, then the photograph and all rights are mine surely? I'm not reproducing the sculpture (my camera isn't capable of that), I'm creating a photograph that didn't exist before. The Sculptor obviously had no intention of benefiting financially from photo's of his work (arguably he benefits from the free publicity if photos ARE taken), because he placed it in public view.

If this wasn't true, I could claim rights to photo's you take of me on the street, as I may want to sell my image. As I understand it, even models, who DO sell their image, can't claim rights to a photo I manage to grab of them from a public place, so why would it be any different if I photographed a sculpture?

If on the other hand the sculpture is only visible in a gallery, and the terms of entry to that gallery retain all rights on photo's taken there for the gallery owner/artist, then yes, maybe I don't have any rights. This is similar to venues not allowing photo's at concerts; they can only prevent you from taking the image because you are on their land, not because anyone has an inherent right to images of their work?

Surely also intent comes into it? If you could show that the text depicted in an image of a book is irrelevant to the value of the photo; i.e. that it could be ANY text, then you are not passing off the work as your own? more complicated I guess.
 
Last edited:
Southdowns said:
Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but would like to understand better.

If the sculpture is photographed from public land, then the photograph and all rights are mine surely? I'm not reproducing the sculpture (my camera isn't capable of that), I'm creating a photograph that didn't exist before. The Sculptor obviously had no intention of benefiting financially from photo's of his work (arguably he benefits from the free publicity if photos ARE taken), because he placed it in public view.

If this wasn't true, I could claim rights to photo's you take of me on the street, as I may want to sell my image. As I understand it, even models, who DO sell their image, can't claim rights to a photo I manage to grab of them from a public place, so why would it be any different if I photographed a sculpture?

If on the other hand the sculpture is only visible in a gallery, and the terms of entry to that gallery retain all rights on photo's taken there for the gallery owner/artist, then yes, maybe I don't have any rights. This is similar to venues not allowing photo's at concerts; they can only prevent you from taking the image because you are on their land, not because anyone has an inherent right to images of their work?

Surely also intent comes into it? If you could show that the text depicted in an image of a book is irrelevant to the value of the photo; i.e. that it could be ANY text, then you are not passing off the work as your own? more complicated I guess.
Click to expand...

Much of what you're saying there are not copyright issues.

In the example of a sculpture, it's a 3D object and therefore impossible to copy exactly in a 2D photograph. But if you take a picture of a sculpture, and only of a sculpure so that it is the only subject of interest in the shot, if you then try and sell that image you are clearly trading on the sculptor's intellectual property.
 
HoppyUK said:
Much of what you're saying there are not copyright issues.

In the example of a sculpture, it's a 3D object and therefore impossible to copy exactly in a 2D photograph. But if you take a picture of a sculpture, and only of a sculpure so that it is the only subject of interest in the shot, if you then try and sell that image you are clearly trading on the sculptor's intellectual property.
Click to expand...

In the US, yes you are, but not over here. There is no 2D protection for publicly displayed works of art:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
 
HoppyUK said:
….if you then try and sell that image you are clearly trading on the sculptor's intellectual property.
Click to expand...
Why? If that were true, photographers left right and centre would be being sued day in day out by architects, fashion designers, interior decorators, town planners, gardeners, car and bus designers, etc etc etc.

If the sculptor made his own photo of the sculpture, and I then made a similar one and tried to sell it, you'd be right that I'm breaching his rights to his photo (NOT to the sculpture), but I'm not breaching ANY of his intellectual property if I take a picture of his work, any more than you'd be breaching mine if you took a picture of this AC design I'm working on at the moment.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
In the US, yes you are, but not over here. There is no 2D protection for publicly displayed works of art:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/62
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean publicly displayed.

I was actually thinking about some sculpures I saw in a shop window in Bath, with a notice saying don't take photos as the works are copyright.

Clearly nonsense in that context, but I can see how a rights infringement might arise.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sorry, I didn't mean publicly displayed.
Click to expand...

Yes, but my whole post was about exactly that distinction. And even in a private place, there are still no rights of this type other than those specifically asserted. So the landowner can make it a condition of entry that any photo's you take are "his", but doesn't have that right unless he does so.

HoppyUK said:
I was actually thinking about some sculpures I saw in a shop window in Bath, with a notice saying don't take photos as the works are copyright.

Clearly nonsense in that context, but I can see how a rights infringement might arise.
Click to expand...

That notice has no legal authority. If they don't want them photographed from a public place, they shouldn't display them in view of a public place.
 
steve_v said:
At the risk of being accused of trolling, if Sky dont actually own the football images, as Poah points to the recent High Court case, then what copyright has been broken exactly?

Steve
Click to expand...

Sky own their broadcast material e.g you can't upload sky footage but you can upload your own of the same match. I didn't realise she had taken a pic of the tv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top