|
A photographer sneaks onto someone's property and takes photographs. The photographs do not directly infringe copyright. Should the photographer own the copyright on those photographs? Should anyone else? I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the law, at least in the United States, is that the photographer is the sole owner of the copyright. Is this a proper law? |
|
Photographs of what? Is the trespasser merely trying to get a good vantage point for taking pictures of a public street? Or is the trespasser trying to get photos of the property on which he trespassed and its occupants? I am not familiar with the details of current U.S. law on this topic, either, but philosophically I do not see how values obtained by violating someone else's rights can properly belong to the violator, especially if the purpose of the violation was specifically to snoop into the privacy of the victim. Does it matter what the photographs are of? Should a photo taken while trespassing in order to get a good vantage point of a public street be treated differently than a photo taken while trespassing in order to get a photo of the inside of a building? An example of the latter would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hellingly_Hall.JPG But I'm interested in the general principle, so I'm not sure if giving specific examples is helpful. If we accept that the purpose of the law is to protect property rights, then we have to ask ourselves what rights have been breached and what action the law must take to remedy the breach. If the trespasser went inside and took pictures of a new invention or a secret formula than the law must act decisively to prevent them from gaining advantage at the expense of the property owner (i.e. no copyright, forfeit the pictures). If trespassing to take a picture of a public street, perhaps the law says you just pay compensation to the owner . The remedy should be commensurate to the damage. What if your property offers a great scenic vantage point of that public street? Does the damage include your loss of exclusivity over that vantage point? (Maybe you previously charged admission, and now your number of customers are going to go down. Or maybe you gave certain members of the press exclusive access, and now their lack of exclusive access damages them, which in turn damages you.) If a trespasser captures a popular picture of Usain Bolt picking his nose, and the Olympic venue's non-trespassing photographers all agree to assign copyright to the venue, what are the damages? Man as a rational being survives by producing material values. Government protects his rights to the property he creates. Normally, your photographer's production is protected through copyright and ownership of the photos. What if in creating that photo another's rights were violated because he is trespassing? Is there a universal rule as to what happens? Do the photos and copyright get destroyed? This is a destruction of values. Does government get them? No, their role is not to acquire property from citizens. Common Property? Values created by individuals do not belong to the masses. It has to be between the photographer and the property owner. Does the land owner always get the copyright? Not automatically or as a universal principle. A value created by one should not be given to one who has not earned it. The legal system must redress the specific harm suffered by the victim, but not undeservedly enrich it. In your above examples a court can assess the economic loss suffered by the victim and order appropriate monetary compensation be paid. In other examples (an explicit photo) compensation is inadequate, and the photographer must surrender the photos to the victim. Welcome to OA Daniel, and thank you for the comments.
showing 2 of 6
show all
|
