Oh dear!

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:53 pm

Although I'm neither a lawyer nor a barrister I do have some knowledge of copyright.
If there's a copyrightholder it is the photographer not the scammer depicted. The person depicted has some personal rights but it wouldn't be too smart to make a claim. It wouldn't be too smart of the photographer to make a claim either if we work on the assumption that the photographer knows more or less about the scammers business (and that's rather likely).
The interesting point in legal terms however is whether the baiter is not to be considered the real copyrightholder as the original idea for this portrait is based on the baiter's instructions. Both the photographer and the scammer simply do what they were told to do.
The second interesting question is whether it is smart if bankrobbers who are just about to open the safe press the alarm button when they watch somebody spraying a graffito at the bank's fa�ade.

Guest

Quote:

The interesting point in legal terms however is whether he baiter is not to be considered the real copyrightholder as the original idea for this portrait is based on the baiter's instructions. The photographer simply does what he was told to do.

I don't know about international law, but I was a professional photographer for a good part of my life and in the US, the photographer owns the copyright the instant the shutter release is pressed, the ONLY exceptions being if he signed a "Work for Hire" agreement beforehand (sometimes after) giving the rights to his client or if he expressly signs the rights away in a separate agreement. I've done hundreds of assignments for advertising agencies, following layouts dreamed up by their art directors, fine-tuning each shot by shooting Polaroids first and only shooting film after the art director signed off on it, and the copyright still belonged to me.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:11 pm

Things get tricky now. I know that you are right in strict legal terms. There are however interesting opinions by copyright people in different countries. There's an ongoing discusssion for example about pictures of "exotic" cultures published in travel guides. Who contributes more to a picture, the person performing a dance during carneval in Rio de Janeiro or the photographer snapping the scene? I tend to the dancer's point of view. Wouldn't it be fair if the dancers collect part of the fee?

419Eater is my life Joined: 30 Nov 2003 Posts: 277

gorgonzola wrote:

... and in the US, the photographer owns the copyright the instant the shutter release is pressed, the ONLY exceptions being if he signed a "Work for Hire" agreement beforehand (sometimes after) giving the rights to his client or if he expressly signs the rights away in a separate agreement. I've done hundreds of assignments for advertising agencies, following layouts dreamed up by their art directors, fine-tuning each shot by shooting Polaroids first and only shooting film after the art director signed off on it, and the copyright still belonged to me.

This is because you as a photographer were also part of the creative work with your artistic and technical knowledge. Even if the art director has given you exact directions, there is an assumption that the result would have been significantly different if another photograph has had the job. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm sure you still had the copyright even if you have asked one of your assistants or any bystanders to press the shutter release, if that was the final thing to be done.

In our case Shiver has asked the lad to pose with that sign. That's it from his part. We know very little about how the photograph was actually taken. It is also possible that it was done by automatic (delayed) shutter release, or that it was our lad who had his concrete artistic vision and arranged himself into the frame, only asking the person behind the camera to "press the button... now!". This would make him the copyright holder. (But this is just BS.)

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:18 pm

Well I think it is time that Lionel Hutz, or some equivalent ambulence chasing law-talking guy, contacted this mugu and explained that he could make a mint if he sued Shiver (real name Ken Oath) and allowed the company Blagget, Billem and Scarper to represent him on a no-win, no-fee,no-way basis. (obvously a few admin charges may crop up from time to time but that can he discussed later.)

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:19 pm

I am a licensed California attorney. My advice to you Shiver is to tell him verbatim: "Kiss my ass"

Guest

Quote:

Well I think it is time that Lionel Hutz, or some equivalent ambulence chasing law-talking guy, contacted this mugu and explained that he could make a mint if he sued Shiver

LMAO!

It would be interesting to find out what the real, on-the-books copyright laws are in Nigeria, and go from there.

Actually, it would be interesting to find out anyway, don't you think?

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

gorgonzola wrote:

It would be interesting to find out what the real, on-the-books copyright laws are in Nigeria, and go from there.

Actually, it would be interesting to find out anyway, don't you think?

Do they have such a word in Nigeria?!

Guest

Quote:

Do they have such a word in Nigeria?!

Good question... but if they do (even if they don't!), you could make up a fake document from a Nigerian attorney stating that, since he sent the image to you, it now belongs to you and he's being sued in Nigerian court for attempted extortion.

Your fake documents will look a lot more official than his.

419Eater Admin Joined: 30 Sep 2003 Posts: 7469

gorgonzola wrote:

Quote:

Do they have such a word in Nigeria?!

Good question... but if they do (even if they don't!), you could make up a fake document from a Nigerian attorney stating that, since he sent the image to you, it now belongs to you and he's being sued in Nigerian court for attempted extortion.

Your fake documents will look a lot more official than his.

Actualy, that's a pretty damn good idea!

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 03 Nov 2003 Posts: 334

Shiver if you need a good Nigerian lawyer, ask the BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS from F.A WILLIAMS & CO !!!

A lad has recommended them to a fellow baiter and - best of all - they do accept payments via WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER Very Happy

PS: Herewith your mugushot is nominated for the best photo award 2004 Smile

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:29 am

I will post of copy of the "credentials" of a Nigerian laywer later!

I know he is 100% trustworthy.... because he told me he is !

Guest

You may have to ask him for full proof of his licensure. I mean never can be too careful. See if the lad will send you a copy of his license.

Tell him for your consideration to accept his services you must have a fee via Western Union In good faith . LOL

Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:17 pm

Some old school for you:

Fuck the legalities, when we gonna get to see this bait Shiver?