Register to reply

Who owns the copyright to content generated with stolen equipment

by Pythagorean
Tags: content, copyright, generated, owns, stolen
Share this thread:
Pythagorean
#1
Aug6-14, 03:44 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,292
In light of the recent monkey photographer controversy, if a humam steals a camera from another person and takes a picture, who owns the copyright?


Related story:

http://mobile.theverge.com/2014/8/6/5974601/wikimedia-releases-first-transparency-report-monkey-selfie-story

That's not to say that such litigation would apply to the monkey incident, since humans assign different rights to monkeys than they do to humans.
Phys.Org News Partner Social sciences news on Phys.org
Violence rates can be halved in just 30 years, say leading experts
Power isn't enough: Study reveals the missing link for effective leadership
Persian Gulf states have new role to play in Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution
jedishrfu
#2
Aug6-14, 04:23 PM
P: 3,097
I should think the camera owner since this is the way corporations assert ownership of work done by employees:

Its the company's if done on company equipment, on company time or with company knowhow...

but if its illegal then you can keep it, lose your job and go to jail as the company will not want the liability...
256bits
#3
Aug6-14, 08:42 PM
P: 1,499
I am sure there is a tort law that if someone stole a camera, took a picture and attempted financial gain from the sale of the picture, the owner of the camera could claim recompensation for suffering loss, possibly in the amount of renumeration from sale of said picture. In other words, you should not be able to benefit from unfairly causing another person injury in whatever form.

B0b-A
#4
Aug6-14, 11:14 PM
P: 74
Who owns the copyright to content generated with stolen equipment

In the UK the person who took the photograph owns the copyright.
[ unless they were being employed as a photographer , then their employment contract will transfer the copyright to their employer ].


Quote Quote by wikipedia.org
The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer the person who creates it, by default.
However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment,
the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogr..._law#Copyright


That the camera used was stolen / borrowed / hired / on tick , does not change that copyright law.
Ryan_m_b
#5
Aug7-14, 06:53 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,490
The wiki article on UK photography copyright doesn't seem to say anything about stolen cameras. What makes you think that the law still applies?
B0b-A
#6
Aug7-14, 10:39 PM
P: 74
Owning copyright does not rely on ownership of the physical media it is on :

If I stole the stationary on which I wrote my magnum opus, the legal owner of the paper and pens would not own copyright to that work.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/worl...icle-1.1163466
Pythagorean
#7
Aug7-14, 10:46 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,292
Quote Quote by B0b-A View Post
Owning copyright does not rely on ownership of the physical media it is on :

If I stole the stationary on which I wrote my magnum opus, the legal owner of the paper and pens would not own copyright to that work.
But would you? Or would it be given to the public domain?
B0b-A
#8
Aug7-14, 10:55 PM
P: 74
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
But would you? Or would it be given to the public domain?
Only the copyright-holder can put their work in to the public-domain whist the copyright is still valid , ( it runs out after about a century , then automatically goes into the public domain ).

If legal owner of the stationary repossessed the manuscript , they would not have the right to reproduce what I had written on it without my agreement : they don't have the right to copy it.

There are exemptions where you can reproduce copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner called "fair use" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
PAllen
#9
Aug8-14, 08:58 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,086
I am not a lawyer, but I wonder weather the "clean hands" doctrine [US law] would come into play if a camera thief tried to assert copyright:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=211
AlephZero
#10
Aug8-14, 10:08 AM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,285
In the UK, this is probably covered by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, though that was created primarily to address activities like money laundering. There were similar fragmented provisions for the general principle of "recovering profits from illegal activities" in earlier UK acts of parliament.

The UK legislation includes provision for civil recovery of proceeds of crime when there has been no actual prosecution and conviction for the crime itself. (In other words, if a serial robber is convicted of one offense, the Assets Recovery Agency could take action to recover other "unexplained" assets that he/she possessed, without having to prove exactly which assets came from which other unsolved crimes.)
B0b-A
#11
Aug8-14, 09:20 PM
P: 74
Quote Quote by AlephZero View Post
In the UK, this is probably covered by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, though that was created primarily to address activities like money laundering. There were similar fragmented provisions for the general principle of "recovering profits from illegal activities" in earlier UK acts of parliament.
But in my stolen-stationary-scenario I have not made any money from my crime of nicking the paper & pens.

So "proceeds of crime" won't apply as there are no "proceeds"...

proceeds (ˈprəʊsiːdz)
pl n
1. (Commerce) the profit or return derived from a commercial transaction, investment, etc
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proceeds

i.e. the legal owners of the paper & pens, who have repossessed the manuscript, still wouldn't have the right to reproduce what I've written on it , beyond "fair use", without my permission as I own the intangible thing that is copyright to that work.
zoobyshoe
#12
Aug11-14, 02:08 AM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,641
I think whoever took the picture automatically owns the copyright.

However, I think a judge might look favorably on a lawsuit by the camera's real owner to collect some or all of the proceeds from the photo merely in recompense for depriving the rightful owner of the use of his camera while it was in the thief's possession.

The monkey selfie is an entirely different issue. Say a photographer had his camera set up on a tripod under a tree. A branch falls off the tree, trips the shutter, and takes a fantastic photo. Does the tree own the copyright? I'd say in cases of accidental photos the copyright defaults to the camera owner. And I'd say the monkey photos were essentially accidents.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Who owns your genes? Current Events 16
Who owns PF? Forum Feedback & Announcements 7
Who owns PF.com? Forum Feedback & Announcements 16
Who owns everything? General Physics 5
Who owns the fish? Fun, Photos & Games 2