varigb707 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 957 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 561 times:
Here's the deal:
I took various photos using someone else's camera. The photos (real estate stuff), will be posted on a website. It is a major Real Estate Corporation and said photos may be shown worldwide. I'm hoping.
Does the camera owner, have some rights, by default?
BTW. I won't mention the site nor the Real Estate Agency.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 1060 posts, RR: 24 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 535 times:
Assuming you're talking about US.
Did they owner tell you to take the pictures? If so they may have implied ownership. If you borrowed the camera and then went out by yourself snapping pictures as you walked along they are all yours.
Of course this is just from my experience as I am not a judge or even an IP lawyer. Just having been in similar circumstances though I was the one owning the camera and telling them to take the pictures.
Don’t repeat earlier generations’ mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4854 posts, RR: 45 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 437 times:
This is one of the reasons why a contract is always used in situations like this - it's a bit of a gray area, and varies between countries and states.
Copyright automatically belongs to the creator of the work - in this case the person who took the photo (you). Who owns the camera is irrelevant.
However, as cmf pointed out, if someone employed you to take the photos, they may have implied ownership under "work for hire" laws. In such a case, this probably wont be the owner of the camera, but rather the real estate company who hired you to take the photos (if they did indeed do so, and were not the owner of the camera).
To muddy the waters even further, work for hire laws vary a lot between states and countries. i.e in most cases, the above is true, however in California (and probably other states), copyright is not transferred under work for hire, and remains with you.
So basically as no contract is in place, there could be a lot of arguing over who owns the rights to the images. By default you own the copyright, but if you were asked or paid to take them by either the real estate agent or the camera owner (or any other party), they would have a claim to them. Unless you, they or the house reside in California...
varigb707 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 957 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 389 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 1):
Assuming you're talking about US.
- You bet.
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 2): Copyright automatically belongs to the creator of the work - in this case the person who took the photo (you). Who owns the camera is irrelevant.
That's what i was under the impression...
Well, thank you all. Looks like this matter will need a major sit down, between the parties and possibly a mediator.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 957 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4854 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
