cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

`togs n legal eagles

Community Veteran
Posts: 16,834
Thanks: 1,124
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

`togs n legal eagles

OK... so we all have a camera, and we all claim copyright to our own pictrures produced with our own equipment.
That is the easy bit ...
what if I am watching a video on the internet, or video on my computer, and I "freeze frame" or capture a frame from that video.
Who owns the copyright of the image that is saved on my computer?
13 REPLIES
Steve
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 6,683
Thanks: 248
Registered: 13-07-2009

Re: `togs n legal eagles

The person who took It I would Imagine, Meatloaf banned all camera's and  told everyone at his gig's that Photos were strictly  not allowed as our tabloids ( The Sun )spread lies about the man's weight!
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,251
Thanks: 937
Fixes: 56
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Let's make it simpler
Take a photograph of a painting in an exhibition where taking pictures is permitted.
Does the copyright belong to the exhibition organisers, the painter or the photographer.
I think the answer is the photographer
Steve
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 6,683
Thanks: 248
Registered: 13-07-2009

Re: `togs n legal eagles

I would also Imagine that If the said person taking the photo was to then sell this on for profit that It would be breaking the law?
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,834
Thanks: 1,124
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

@ Steve M.... I am inclined to agree.... " the person who took the pic"... has the copyright... and I do understand what you said about concerts where there are (sometimes) notices specifically stating NO PHOTOGRAPHY.... but..(again)... even if that is there... and you do take a photo.... the copyright of that photo belongs to you....
@ old jim... again.. I am inclined to agree...However, is  the "Permission" to do so, "Implied" rather than "given", by the omission of the normal copyright warning on the start of a video/movie regarding copying or whatever ?  ( in other words.... if there is no such warning... it is OK to do it..... ?  )

Although not strictly using a camera in the case I outlined.... the principle is the same.as your scenario of the museum painting... and viewing a video then using the computer (software) to capture the image.... (instead of a camera)...
Any more opinions gratefully received.
@ Steve M... The idea is not to sell ... but for personal use, and maybe, display on sites such as photobucket..... etc.  ( without any claim to actual copyright of the pic appearing on it )
198kHz
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 3,217
Thanks: 253
Fixes: 7
Registered: 30-07-2008

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Quote from: shutter
...and I do understand what you said about concerts where there are (sometimes) notices specifically stating NO PHOTOGRAPHY....

Reminds me of a Steve Harley concert not so long ago.
The venue was liberally adorned with 'NO PHOTOGRAPHY' notices. Sometime around halfway through the gig, a single flash went off, whereupon Steve started posing, saying "When you get to my age you're glad that anyone wants to take a photo! Never mind the '......' signs".
Cue dozens more flashes.  Grin
Not young enough to know everything
x47c
Grafter
Posts: 878
Registered: 14-08-2009

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Quote from: shutter
OK... so we all have a camera, and we all claim copyright to our own pictrures produced with our own equipment.
That is the easy bit ...
what if I am watching a video on the internet, or video on my computer, and I "freeze frame" or capture a frame from that video.
Who owns the copyright of the image that is saved on my computer?

If it was a "professional video" then the  producing company of the video will most likely be the copyright owner rather than the person who took the video/image.
The actual taker of the image/video will have had to sign a release reliquishing copyright in return for payment for the work.
They may also have been required not to re-supply the image/video to anyone else.
In much the same way that any work done by you for your employer is the employing company's copyright/patent and not yours personally.
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,834
Thanks: 1,124
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Sorry. x47c.... your reply totally confuses me....
My OP was a simple situation, clearly described.... regardless of who originally owned/produced etc.....
There was a simple question.....
Who owns the copyright of the image saved on my computer?
David_W
Rising Star
Posts: 2,293
Thanks: 29
Registered: 19-07-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Copyright is tricky, really tricky.  If you look at Wikipedia you'll find lots of photos taken from in soaps (characters from Neighbours for instance) which are used under a fair use rational even though the copyright is still owned by the original owners.  You cannot claim copyright over someone elses work (unless you work for a big tech company and deal with patents, in which case you patent smaller companies works who then can't fight you for it because you have more money and will bankrupt them).
The question you need to ask is are you creating something new and original.  If you were to use your camera to take a photo of the video on your computer then the copyright of that image would belong to you because it's something you created, something new (you would only have copyright of your image though).  If you were to take a screenshot however of the video then you're not creating something new, you're creating an exact copy of the video scene in question so the screenshot you take the copyright holder owns the copyright (the original copyright holder).
As far as I know there is no rationale for fair use in the UK, when I was in school the photocopy room would refuse to photocopy a book due to copyright issues even though the usage of the photocopy could be considered fair use for educational purposes.
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,307
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: 08-01-2008

Re: `togs n legal eagles

'Reproduction' of original works is subject to copyright (wherever applicable), that's a reasonably simple way of looking at it.
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,149
Thanks: 51
Fixes: 2
Registered: 30-08-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

I think it might come down to how you acquired the image you want to use. Did you record the image off-air or use a commercial video/dvd. If the latter it might be a good idea to read those really annoying "small print" terms and conditions that often precede tape/disc main content you may find the answer in there. If a disc/tape doesn't have them (many don't) then I would assume because of the lack of copyright information you could do what you like with it with impunity.
As far as off-air is concerned, newspapers quite regularly print photo stills from TV shows that the content participants often wish they hadn't. Mind you, that might be a "publish and be damned" bravado by the newspaper.
Experience; is something you gain, just after you needed it most.

When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you. But because in that brief moment while the coin is in the air. You suddenly know what you are hoping for.
kmilburn
Grafter
Posts: 902
Thanks: 2
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Quote from: Petlew
I would assume because of the lack of copyright information you could do what you like with it with impunity.

That would be a very bad assumption,  the vast majority of copyrighted material doesn't come with any information about the copyright,  but that doesn't mean it's not protected. Usually, you need to include a copyright notice to make things more open that they otherwise would be by default.
What's annoying these days is companies taking material from the public domain,  and effectively claiming copyright over the original content.
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 16,561
Thanks: 1,801
Fixes: 125
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

Quote from: shutter
@ Steve M... The idea is not to sell ... but for personal use, and maybe, display on sites such as photobucket..... etc.  ( without any claim to actual copyright of the pic appearing on it )

The way I see it if it's purely for personal use and not financial gain (i.e. just friends and family to see it in the privacy of your own homes) then I don't envisage an issue unless you are morally against doing such.
Once you place it on the web where all and sundry can view it then it could, potentially, become a problem.

Forum Moderator and Customer
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear - Mark Twain
He who feared he would not succeed sat still

wisty
Aspiring Pro
Posts: 433
Thanks: 53
Fixes: 3
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: `togs n legal eagles

I am not a lawyer, but in the situation you describe, photographing the screen or a picture in an exhibition would probably be classified as "reproduction of the original image"  or "a derivative work" and copyright would rest with the creator of the original image. Whether you use a camera or a photocopier (actually they are not much different these days) doesn't matter.
If you take a photograph of "reality" then you are considered to have created the image ( framing, lighting etc.) and are the owner of the copyright.
Now if the picture or screen happens to be in the scene you take, then you are probably in the area of  judge(ment)s. If the picture is a minor or incidental component of the scene - you are probably the owner - as its importance to the scene rises it becomes derivative at some point and it  ceases to be your copyright and reverts to the original owner.