DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Whos the photograher?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/03/2011 04:08:16 PM · #1
You are on a shoot at a local park, you spend the best part of the day working with the models, costume designers, MUA's and get the set and models just how you want them. You set your camera up on a tripod set the aperture, shutter and everything else when just as you press the shutter button to take the first shot, you realise you forgot to put the memory card in the camera.
You walk back to your car to get them whils't everyone waits, still in pose. (There pros :])
When you are gone Toby walks past your set while walking his dog Felix. Toby has always thought of himself as a bit of a photographer and just last month he took pictures of his neighbours tea set for an ebay listing. Toby never leaves the house without a memory card but has forgot his camera today which is a shame because it was the biggest one they had in the shop.
He notices your set and realises there is no photographer about.. Toby thinks this is his time to shine, he has a decisive moment.. he places his 512mb card into your camera and simply presses the shutter once takes out the card and returns to walking felix.
You come back 5 minutes later and the models and the rest of the team have gone and taken all your stuff so you go home and weep..

Meanwhile Toby uploads his new picture to a freestudy and scores an average of 9.4 his last entry scored 2.1 but as i've told you before he had that ebay shoot and learnt alot from that.

So the question I ask here, is Toby the photographer here? After all he actually did take the picture. Its kind of like raising the child of a broken home. The child might not of been born to you but you raised it as your own aka set the picture up and done all the hard work whils't all the other guy done was take the picture/make the baby.

/mirth

ETA: Photographer*

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 16:12:15.
01/03/2011 04:13:47 PM · #2
Rule #1: Never leave your stuff unattended.
Rule #2: Never leave any of your gear in the car as you may need it.
Rule #3: Answer the question posed to you in the thread ;o)

I would say Toby is not the photographer.
01/03/2011 04:15:52 PM · #3
Sooo, I gather that you've just had this happen to you?

Sorry about the loss of your equipment.

I would say there was no photographer.
01/03/2011 04:16:47 PM · #4
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Sooo, I gather that you've just had this happen to you?

Sorry about the loss of your equipment.

I would say there was no photographer.


Happens every week, I am the rightful owner of every blue ribbon.

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 16:17:08.
01/03/2011 04:19:50 PM · #5
Originally posted by JamesA:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Sooo, I gather that you've just had this happen to you?

Sorry about the loss of your equipment.

I would say there was no photographer.


Happens every week, I am the rightful owner of every blue ribbon.


My only questions are these:

How do you afford all that gear?

Where are you shooting next weekend?

;)
01/03/2011 04:22:38 PM · #6
Originally posted by coryboehne:


My only questions are these:

How do you afford all that gear?

Where are you shooting next weekend?

;)


I rent, trouble is I can only use each company once as I never return the stuff. Part of the reason i'm in a different country each ribbon..
01/03/2011 04:23:10 PM · #7
The set up is only part of the photographic equation. There's also timing, peak moment, processing, and more.

In fact, everything you described that you did is what most assistants do for the big time model agency photographers. They get there early, set up the lights, make sure the models are there and ready, oversee the MUA, do the test shots, then when all that is done, the photographer shows up and takes the photos.

So, in a sense, you could be credited as Toby's assistant. ;-)

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 16:23:44.
01/03/2011 04:24:35 PM · #8
impossible.
no one scores a 9.4
or a 2.1

EDIT:
- oops, just realized 2.1 scores happen all the time =)

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 16:25:37.
01/03/2011 04:27:16 PM · #9
Well you could claim to be a big shot photographer. Who has time to press shutter buttons when you're too busy being a director?
01/03/2011 04:30:20 PM · #10
In all seriousness though I think about this a lot. Is photography a standalone form of art. Or are you just showing something that already exsists or creating the idea of something that doesn't by showing several different artforms collaborated.

Of course I just made the whole scenario up just then but I cant be the photographer because I didn't take any pictures and he did. Its cant be an authorless peice of work because it exsists and if I am in fact the photographer that rules out the need for a camera thus destroying the photography leaving Tobys image nothing more than a piece of documentation demonstrating my set creating skills..
01/03/2011 05:01:16 PM · #11
Ha! I knew it. A dog named Felix, how patently ridiculous.
01/03/2011 05:08:14 PM · #12
LOL, this reminds me of an argument on here (argument? DPC? Never!) where a guy entered a photo of himself laying in a hospital bed hooked up to machines and drips (he was actually quite ill in hospital) and he was DQ`d as he didnt take the photo. He argued that it was in fact his photo as he asked his wife to take the photo and told her how best to compose it. It fell on deaf ears I believe but he was adamant that it was his photo and his wife was just being his hands and eyes.

I can`t remember who it was or when it was, but the principle is the same.. I personally feel his wife was the photographer and he was rightfully DQ`d - the swine!

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 17:08:40.
01/03/2011 05:09:04 PM · #13
I think you could approach this with an analysis based on the concept of the constructive trust.

Trusts arise in situations where the legal ownership of a thing and the ownership of its value are vested in different people (or groups of people). trusts can be created deliberately (eg in wills) but they can also be imposed by courts in circumstances where none of the parties intended a trust. Because it is an equitable matter it is capable of greaty flexibility and will be used by courts to remedy injustices especially unjust enrichment.

In this case I think that Toby is the photographer, for what it's worth. However I think he hold his ribbon on constructive trusts for you.

Although this is somewhat fanciful I think if he took the picture with your camera and set up and made money from it you would have a cause of action alojng these lines.
01/03/2011 05:17:01 PM · #14
Toby is the photographer, but you own the copyright as he could only be acting as your agent when he took possession of your camera; if he was not acting as your agent he's a thief, and may not profit as a result of his illegal action ...
01/03/2011 05:18:49 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Toby is the photographer, but you own the copyright as he could only be acting as your agent when he took possession of your camera; if he was not acting as your agent he's a thief, and may not profit as a result of his illegal action ...


Okay, what if he walked past with a point and shoot camera and took a picture of your scene?
01/03/2011 05:25:59 PM · #16
Originally posted by JamesA:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Toby is the photographer, but you own the copyright as he could only be acting as your agent when he took possession of your camera; if he was not acting as your agent he's a thief, and may not profit as a result of his illegal action ...


Okay, what if he walked past with a point and shoot camera and took a picture of your scene?

If you're set up in a public place there's not much you can do about that, though he couldn't really profit from those pictures without model releases. He could certainly submit (as editorial content) a picture to the local newspaper showing "Professional Photographers Using Parks For Location Shots Without Permits" and get you in trouble ... ;-)
01/03/2011 05:43:22 PM · #17
Originally posted by Simms:

LOL, this reminds me of an argument on here (argument? DPC? Never!) where a guy entered a photo of himself laying in a hospital bed hooked up to machines and drips (he was actually quite ill in hospital) and he was DQ`d as he didnt take the photo. He argued that it was in fact his photo as he asked his wife to take the photo and told her how best to compose it. It fell on deaf ears I believe but he was adamant that it was his photo and his wife was just being his hands and eyes.

I can`t remember who it was or when it was, but the principle is the same.. I personally feel his wife was the photographer and he was rightfully DQ`d - the swine!


I remember that. If I recall people tried to argue that he couldn't possibly have instructed her on the exact composition chosen because the camera was handheld by the wife. Of course it wouldn't be that difficult to own the process and to instruct someone else on what to include/exclude in the composition or whether you want a low or high POV. People do that all the time on the street when they ask a stranger to take a picture of them, but that didn't seem to matter in the thread if I recalled. No, any differences in the composition, no matter how inconsequential, means the photo is the owner of the person causing those differences even if it was just the result of camera shake.

I can't blame people for arguing that way because in this day and age when so much of the process is automated or done by someone else composition becomes one of the few remaining things you can take ownership of - and in many cases the only thing if you're imagination or creativity is bankrupt.

Message edited by author 2011-01-03 17:45:27.
01/03/2011 05:45:33 PM · #18
I came to the conclusion ..Even a contrived scene changes, in my opinion, the photographer is the person who times the picture and decides the right time to press the shutter. Everything else whether done by yourself or an assistant is simply creating your idea that forms part of the final peice.

01/03/2011 05:50:26 PM · #19
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Simms:

LOL, this reminds me of an argument on here (argument? DPC? Never!) where a guy entered a photo of himself laying in a hospital bed hooked up to machines and drips (he was actually quite ill in hospital) and he was DQ`d as he didnt take the photo. He argued that it was in fact his photo as he asked his wife to take the photo and told her how best to compose it. It fell on deaf ears I believe but he was adamant that it was his photo and his wife was just being his hands and eyes.

I can`t remember who it was or when it was, but the principle is the same.. I personally feel his wife was the photographer and he was rightfully DQ`d - the swine!


I remember that. If I recall people tried to argue that he couldn't possibly have instructed her on the exact composition chosen because the camera was handheld by the wife. Of course it wouldn't be that difficult to own the process and to instruct someone else on what to include/exclude in the composition or whether you want a low or high POV. People do that all the time on the street when they ask a stranger to take a picture of them, but that didn't seem to matter in the thread if I recalled. No, any differences in the composition, no matter how inconsequential, means the photo is the owner of the person causing those differences even if it was just the result of camera shake.

I can't blame people for arguing that way because in this day and age when so much of the process is automated or done by someone else composition becomes one of the few remaining things you can take ownership of - and in many cases the only thing if you're imagination or creativity is bankrupt.


The thing was, I think his input into the actual photo was scrawling the word "Photo" on a piece of paper and handing it to her..
01/03/2011 05:51:56 PM · #20
Unfortunately there has been no theft here - and even if Toby did not have permission to use the camera no crime has been committed.

Analysis based on Toby's culpabilty in personam is doomed to failure here - the proper course would be to pursue the ribbon or the money made from the picture. Restitutionary remedies do not depend on criminality - they depend on unjust enrichment.
01/03/2011 06:09:50 PM · #21
Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Simms:

LOL, this reminds me of an argument on here (argument? DPC? Never!) where a guy entered a photo of himself laying in a hospital bed hooked up to machines and drips (he was actually quite ill in hospital) and he was DQ`d as he didnt take the photo. He argued that it was in fact his photo as he asked his wife to take the photo and told her how best to compose it. It fell on deaf ears I believe but he was adamant that it was his photo and his wife was just being his hands and eyes.

I can`t remember who it was or when it was, but the principle is the same.. I personally feel his wife was the photographer and he was rightfully DQ`d - the swine!


I remember that. If I recall people tried to argue that he couldn't possibly have instructed her on the exact composition chosen because the camera was handheld by the wife. Of course it wouldn't be that difficult to own the process and to instruct someone else on what to include/exclude in the composition or whether you want a low or high POV. People do that all the time on the street when they ask a stranger to take a picture of them, but that didn't seem to matter in the thread if I recalled. No, any differences in the composition, no matter how inconsequential, means the photo is the owner of the person causing those differences even if it was just the result of camera shake.

I can't blame people for arguing that way because in this day and age when so much of the process is automated or done by someone else composition becomes one of the few remaining things you can take ownership of - and in many cases the only thing if you're imagination or creativity is bankrupt.


The thing was, I think his input into the actual photo was scrawling the word "Photo" on a piece of paper and handing it to her..


Could that have meant, Point High Overhead Toward Oscar? :P Ok maybe not. I'm guessing he just wanted a shot of him in his condition and that's what he got. The other details are more important to tech heads.
01/03/2011 06:18:31 PM · #22
this is a little bit off track, but when I was doing this senior portrait session:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1032/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_794968.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1032/120/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_794968.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
It was at a public japanese garden, and when we would stop somwhere along the trail to shoot, people coming up behind us would always stop and start taking pictured of her, funny thing is, it didn't really bother me cuz it kept them from walking thru my shot but her mom was NOT happy about strangers taking her picture.
01/03/2011 06:22:13 PM · #23
I wouls be more concerned that the models stole my gear!!!
01/03/2011 06:23:34 PM · #24
Originally posted by JamesA:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Toby is the photographer, but you own the copyright as he could only be acting as your agent when he took possession of your camera; if he was not acting as your agent he's a thief, and may not profit as a result of his illegal action ...


Okay, what if he walked past with a point and shoot camera and took a picture of your scene?


Isn't that what wedding photographers are for? They set up all the shots for the aunties with their point and shoots. That way nobody wastes money on expensive prints, right?
01/03/2011 06:28:17 PM · #25
I had a lady at Rocky Mountain National Park ask me to watch her gear while she walked back to her car, she was parked so far away I could have easily put my card in, taken a few shots, then ran off with the gear and the images would have been mine all mine.....

I was trust worthy and did not run off with the gear but I did drool over the 400 MM prime lens, I'm sure she wondered why her lens was all wet.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 09:30:20 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 07/30/2021 09:30:20 PM EDT.