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.
answered Jul 29 '12 at 02:16
Ideas for Life ♦