Who owns the copyright to content generated with stolen equipment

  • Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Equipment
In summary, if a human steals a camera and takes a picture, the camera's owner owns the copyright, but if the camera is taken by an employee in the course of their job, the first owner of the copyright is the employer.
  • #1
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,400
311
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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...
 
  • #3
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
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 ].


wikipedia.org said:
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/Photography_and_the_law#Copyright


That the camera used was stolen / borrowed / hired / on tick , does not change that copyright law.
 
  • #5
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?
 
  • #7
B0b-A said:
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?
 
  • #8
Pythagorean said:
But would you? Or would it be given to the public domain?

Only the copyright-holder can put their work into 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
 
Last edited:
  • #10
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.)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
AlephZero said:
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.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
Monkey selfie aside, I think the thief would have the copyright but would, obviously, be subject to penalties for theft of the camera. It's difficult for me to treat copyright in this case as analogous to the IP rights of employers (which is related to a voluntary association on the part of the employee).

Here's a question (with an obvious answer, imho): if I steal a firearm from you and then rob a bank, do you, as the firearm owner, have any culpability?

What, if any, is the logical or moral difference?
 
  • #14
flowerdave said:
Here's a question (with an obvious answer, imho): if I steal a firearm from you and then rob a bank, do you, as the firearm owner, have any culpability?

It depends on the situation. If uzi's are often stolen by people and used in a society where it's the only way criminals can get guns, then I might place some obligation on the owner of an uzi to secure their weapons. But it wouldn't be a 50/50 split. Maybe 80/20 in favor of the murderer. Or maybe something like felony for the murderer, misdemeanor with fine and/or community service for the owner.

If you're in a community of hunters and for decades and everybody has rifles laying around and one time, one guy goes crazy and kills somebody with a rifle, it's a lot weaker case for fault going to the owner of the firearm.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of grey area between those two extremes.
 
  • #15
256bits said:
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.
Yes, I agree, isn't that also something to do with the "clean hands" doctrine ? In this case how could you claim copyright on something if you do not yourself have 'clean hands' as for a monkey I doubt they have clean hands !
 

1. What is considered "stolen equipment" when referring to content ownership?

Stolen equipment refers to any tools or devices used to create content that were obtained through illegal means, such as theft or fraud.

2. Does the person who stole the equipment automatically own the copyright to the content created with it?

No, ownership of intellectual property is determined by the creator of the content, not the owner of the equipment used to create it.

3. Can the original owner of the stolen equipment claim ownership of the content created with it?

No, the original owner of the equipment has no legal claim to the content created with it. However, they may have a civil case against the person who stole their equipment.

4. What happens if the content created with stolen equipment is sold or distributed for profit?

The creator of the content may still hold the copyright, but the person who stole the equipment may also be liable for any profits made from the sale or distribution of the content.

5. Is there any way to legally claim ownership of content created with stolen equipment?

No, content ownership is determined by the creator and cannot be transferred to another party without their consent. Using stolen equipment to create content does not grant ownership rights.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
494K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top