Copyright or copywrong?

Copyright law made simple

I was moved to write this piece because total ignorance of how copyright law works with regards to photography seems worryingly widespread and has recently reared its head once more as someone has yet again made the all-too-common mistake of trying to claim they hold the copyright to a photo because they are the owner of the subject matter. The person in question seemed absolutely convinced his understanding is correct, to the ridiculous extent of claiming a government document explaining the law was wrong! He was most put out by the photographer rightfully asserting his copyright, with a rather peeved attitude of "how dare he try to claim copyright to a photo of my property?", so a simple explanation of the law appears to be called for.



I'm not a lawyer but I have studied copyright law as part of the professional, ethical and legal issues module of my computing degree and I'm sure my friends who are studying at the university's law school will confirm my understanding is correct. Copyright law in England and Wales is really quite simple: unless transferred to another party in writing, the copyright to a photograph remains with the photographer throughout their lifetime and for a further seventy years after their death, and the ownership of the subject matter is irrelevant so the owner has no claim to copyright whatsoever. Said person also claimed he was told by his brother, who is supposedly a lawyer, that copyright law applies only to companies and not to private individuals. Again this is totally wrong (as any lawyer would know) as it applies equally to everyone and copyright is automatic and does not have to be asserted in writing to be valid.

Let's take a simple example to illustrate this concept. Suppose I displayed my car at a public show and someone took a photo of it. Just because I own the car doesn't give me any rights over that photo and the copyright belongs to the photographer. If he decides to publish it on his website, I can ask him politely to remove it but he doesn't have to comply with my request and I cannot legally force him to remove it on the grounds of being a breach of my copyright, and if I wanted to use that photo in print or online I would need to ask the photographer's permission, which he is perfectly within his rights to refuse. Conversely, if I take a photo of someone else's car at the same show the copyright belongs to me and I can do as I see fit with that photo, including selling it for profit. The owner of that car has no legal rights to control its use and I don't need his permission to use it in any way, but he does need my permission if he wants to use it.
 

The truck belongs to Steve Swain but that doesn't mean he holds the copyright to this photo of it. My photo. my copyright, simple. The law says if Steve wants to use it he'll have to ask me.

To show why the widely-held but incorrect understanding cannot be true, consider what would happen if, instead of a single car, the photo was a general view of the show containing cars belonging to many different people. If copyright belonged to the owner of the subject, it would somehow have to be shared between the owners of every car shown in the photo, which is completely ridiculous and unworkable. Also, who would own the copyright to a photo of public property that doesn't legally belong to anyone? This scenario would imply there is no copyright at all on photos of public property since there is no 'owner' of the subject, so they can be used by absolutely anyone in any way without any legal protection, which is clearly not the case.

The same principle even applies to photos of people. If my friend was to take a photo of me with my consent, even though I am the subject the copyright would still belong to him. Likewise, if I took a photo of him the copyright would be mine. There are other laws governing how photos of people can be used, such as those concerning invasion of privacy, but the copyright position remains the same regardless of what or who the subject of the photo is and who it was taken by.

Five cars with five different owners. How could the copyright be shared between those five people?

So there you go. Next time someone tries to claim you have breached their copyright by publishing your photo of their property, you can politely point out what the law says about copyright.