Who is the Photographer?

[dusty montgomery]

If I make the adjustments, do all the settings according to what I want, then give the camera to my wife or fishing buddy to take the “grip and grin,” or whatever other picture of me fishing or some attempt at a landscape with me in it, who is the Photographer? What constitutes the creation of the image: setting up the camera and pic or pushing the button, or both?

Is this why when I see photos by the Becks both their names are printed?
Thanks,
Dusty

[kurt budliger]

I would say whoever trips the shutter.

[mike j]

Yep….

[Carter Simcoe]

From an artistic standpoint I actually think that’s an interesting question, Dusty.

[david king]

I would think whoever drives the creation of the content would be the author of the photograph. If a photographer sets their equipment up, defines parameters and places themselves in a scene and asks a bystander or helper to trip the shutter the photographer would still be the author of the photograph. Like in kind to a writer dictating to a assistant if they were to weak or incapacitated. The words recorded are still theirs. The mechanical act of recording content created by another should not confer ownership.

Working as collaborators or business partners Barry & Cathy, and Zach & Lauren use both their names in the photo credit. This seems to be a decent thing to do. I guess if the harmony of their relationships were to dissolve the issue of who actually owned the pictures would be up to a judge. Its a pretty interesting question that I think has more than one correct answer based on the circumstances and parties involved.

Maybe some of the Lawyers on the board could weigh in with considered opinions.

[John Bennett]

If it mounted on a tripod where person B litteraly does nothing but press the shutter I might say person A, but thats a might say. If its not mounted on a tripod than person B is the potographer as they ulitmately are the person composing the shot and deciding when to release the shutter ( in some photos a split second can make a difference). Despite the fact person A has made all the settings.

Is a camera in full auto mode the “photogrpaher” when someone picks it up and presses the button?

[Zach Matthews]

We use “Zach and Lauren Matthews” for the same reasons David pointed out; it is just easier than trying to separate our respective contributions.  Lauren has been somewhat inactive in the last year and a half due to graduate studies slamming her free time, but it will pick back up and in the mean time we have built a brand.

I will claim credit for a shot in the situation Carter describes (and I have done so when he pressed the trigger for me).  If the photographer set the shot up, framed it, focused it, twiddled the dials, etc. then simply stepped into the frame to also be a subject while someone else pushed the trigger, then I think that’s the photgrapher’s creative content and thus his or her image.

Conversely, where I hand a camera to someone and ask them to use it as they see fit, I would credit that person even if it was my or “the company’s” camera.  If an image taken in such a situation got sold in a package article-photos deal, I’d still want to compensate the temporary photographer either by cutting him in on the payment, cutting him in on the credit, or where possible, helping him place some of his own images elsewhere for a separate payment (which would be worth a lot more).

For the purposes of my Photoblog, I always try to run a “photo by” credit where someone else has pushed the trigger just by way of appreciation.

Examples:

I have credited Carter in the photoblog, but this was set up by me on a tripod and I coached everything I needed; I placed this photo in a Macauley Lord casting article in AA.

This is Carter’s own image, taken with my camera.

[Carter Simcoe]

That’s funny, I forgot about those casting shots I helped you with that one time.

[dusty montgomery]

Guys,
Thanks for the input. And Zach, you hit on an invaluable point: If two of us, both being photogs and fishermen, go out, and we both plan on tweaking said photos and sending them to Phil, where does ownership come into play?

I agree that the composing is where the art lives, and I also think that once all of that is done, anyone could ask a spouse, buddy, or bystander to pull the trigger, w/o concerns of ownership. That being said, the literal “pulling the trigger” analogy is valid as well. The only difference with the two scenarios, however, is that I hope two hunters would not be arguing over artistic rights, or Zach, is it not referred to as “intellectual property?” But I do suppose they could very well be arguing over who gets the mount or the full freezer!

Dusty

[Zach Matthews]

Dusty, just remember the #1 rule in magazine photography/writing: the editor only wants to pay once.

[dusty montgomery]

One more thing…and anyone who has Esq. after their name, please feel free to correct me. Not knowing whether this is federal or state, I have been told the very act of doing carries with it ownership, and thereby copyright. If we scribble something on a napkin, if we take any picture or paint anything with any medium, does the act of creating not inherently give birth to copyright?

Dusty

[mike j]

Throw this into the mix… what about the processing and post processing…

[dusty montgomery]

Labrati,
Respectfully, I am inclined to disagree. I also recognize that almost everyone assembled here knows a lot more than I do about photo composition and creation. I do not claim to be a pro. photog., But I do have some limited knowledge, pending agreement from the Esquires assembled here, of artistic creation. If it were all about “depressing the shutter,” how would one differentiate between the weekend warrior with a point and shoot from the pro. w/ a DSLR? I have never seen amateurs add a watermark or mask to their collected on-line albums.

For your consideration. And please keep in mind, back when I was “processing” often, it included stop-bath, rinse, etc., etc., Now, trying to break into the digital world as I am, I wonder if the same rules exist. So, given the digital revolution, should credit be given to the guy/gal running CS3 or Aperture after the photo is taken? Perhaps we are discussing two different aspects of creation: pulling the trigger and photo manipulation. Should said person be one and the same, il n’y a pas de problem, mais…..?

Dusty

[John Bennett]

Processing doesnt change it.

Ive been told on more than one occasion of a  famous photographer photogrpaher ( most of you have probably heard of him)  that employs a graphic artist to process all his images.

The magazine Im contributing  to wants my raw files so they can process how they see fit. The images are still mine to do what ever I want with including selling to direct competitors. The only exception are images that come as a result of paid assignments where they get 1 year (not perpetual) exclusive rights.

The only hurdle to me in this to me in deciding technically who has claim ( say it goes to court)

[kurt budliger]

This has become a very interesting discussion with lots of great points and points of view.

[david king]

I think the most important point is who is the creator/author. I’m sure that a Lawyer could argue either point but it probably is a matter of settled Law now! We just don’t have a Copyright Lawyer/Fly Fisherman on the board. If the cover of American Angler went for 100K and a picture that was taken under the supposed conditions was in question I can see someone if inclined trying to sue for a piece of the action.

[Zach Matthews]

Guys I just don’t know enough about copyright to tell you what the “law” is, but I do know enough about lawsuits to be able to tell you that whatever the “law” says, it’s always debatable.

[Author]

Posts