The convention is that the person taking the photo is the owner of the image. In many situations that is acceptable, but there are occasions when although it is perfectly legal it does not feel right.
Here are some examples of images where the person behind the camera has a very minor role compared with the scene maker.
A person goes to a lot of trouble setting up items and or people and possibly lighting in order to capture a particular image, and then someone else moves in and takes the image as well. This is very typical situation for a wedding photographer who plans and organises the shots, and the guests then take their own photos of what he has set up. Although that is considered OK, consider this example. One evening in the Lake District when there was the potential for a good sunset I put much thought and effort arranging the furled sails on my boat and positioning it on the lake. You could say I was creating an installation, I was looking at the angles, details like the burgee at the end of the gaff, everything was considered and adjusted to get the desired effect. I got some good images, but someone else came and photographed my installation and sold the images to the National Trust. I felt aggrieved. Yes it was a lovely image, but that image was created by me, not the photographer. And what about the cottage garden, 'pretty as a picture'? The gardener has put in hours of effort and expertise to achieve that effect, yet the photographer can capture it and sell it as his own work.
Next up for my disapproval is Street photography of individuals that is intrusive and done without the consent of the person being photographed. This takes many forms, it can be of the homeless, it can be of attractive women, but the common denominator is that it is voyeuristic.
Aspects of image ownership and associated rights
At one end of the spectrum are the commercial images that cost money to produce, are owned by the producer (who may or may not be the camera operator) and are usually meant to make a profit. A fashion shoot for example may mean several people getting paid for their services. It would seem reasonable in such cases that the producer owns the images up until such time they sell those images to a customer.
Contrast that with the street photographer who captures the image of an unknowing subject and then publishes it. Between these two extremes of subjects being paid and others being filmed without their consent or knowledge, there are endless possibilities and nuances to be explored. What are the criteria that we should use in our considerations? To answer that I will try to categorise different types of image and how they make me think about their "ownership".
That is as far as I have got today! I will continue...
Comments
Post a Comment