View Full Version : When is the photographer not the photographer?
We had an interclub competition recently, and the winner pointed to herself in the image, saying "That's me!". It transpired that she had orchestrated the shot, conceived it, set it up and constructed the whole scene with the camera on a tripod ready to go. As she wanted to be in the picture, she asked someone to press the shutter button for her.
Now technically, she did not take the picture - yet it was all her work. She could have used a self-timer if she'd thought of it, or a remote control - but the fact remains that she didn't actually, physically take the shot!
The judge said that he would have disqualified her, had he known.
My question is - what do others think? Is it her photograph ? Is she the photographer? Would this be accepted here at Austphotography? Where does that line between skill, artistic ability, knowledge of composition, lighting etc fall?
paulheath
28-04-2014, 5:40pm
hmm id have to say she is NOT the photographer, all be it they she set everything up she didn't capture the moment. a self timer or a remote like you say would have sealed the job, but she didn't. a bit like taking your driving theory test , then letting someone else do the driving part.........so too speak
hmm id have to say she is NOT the photographer, all be it they she set everything up she didn't capture the moment. a self timer or a remote like you say would have sealed the job, but she didn't. a bit like taking your driving theory test , then letting someone else do the driving part.........so too speak
It's interesting really, because if you reverse the situation that would also seem to be "wrong". Consider what you might say of the person who pressed the shutter. That could have been a trained chimp, but would you call it "the photographer" ? It goes to the heart of how we determine what we mean by photographer, and how much leeway there is in that definition. I'm not sure that in this example one could call the shutter presser a photographer and yet clearly if there is a photograph then there must have been a photographer?
michaellxv
28-04-2014, 5:56pm
I'll throw in a recent example.
I was down at the airport viewing area to watch last weeks lunar eclipse, I had the camera all set up on a tripod with cable release taking shots every now and then.
I handed to cable to my daughter while I went off to do something else. She took a few shots including one with a plane taking off underneath the eclipsed moon. I tried to claim it as I had set the camera up, but she would have none of that. I have to concede she was there to time it and press the button. At best it's a joint effort.
paulheath
28-04-2014, 6:01pm
hmm its a good question, so if a pro photographer in his or her studio has an assistant and the " pro" sets up the lighting, arranges the props, poses the model then the assistant takes the shot, could the "pro" claim that as his or her photo as it was by all accounts his or her equipment etc etc.......i think not. now if the assistant had arranged the lighting, put said person into right position then the " pro" clicked the magic button then yes the "pro" is the photographer.. ( not that pro's get an assistant to do everything ;)),
MissionMan
28-04-2014, 7:03pm
I'd be inclined to say they are not the photographer. The pushing of the button is 1% of the photo. Setting up the camera, framing the shot, focus etc is the photographer. Pushing the button is a technicality.
Legally it's the shutter presser in the first instance.
Re: the pro/assistant cases, that would be covered by an employment relationship.
Next time use a wireless remote.
PS: As a camera club judge I would have to DQ the entry as well.
Technicalities are annoying.
If a computer triggered the shutter after exhaustive setup work by a person, is the computer the photographer.
I choose this woman as the photographer, rather than the monkey-like bystander.
MissionMan
28-04-2014, 7:54pm
Legally it's the shutter presser in the first instance.
Re: the pro/assistant cases, that would be covered by an employment relationship.
Next time use a wireless remote.
PS: As a camera club judge I would have to DQ the entry as well.
It would be an interesting test case if it ever went to court.
CandidTown
28-04-2014, 7:57pm
If the person hired to press the button takes the credit for the image, then so should the remote trigger.
Technically he "took" the image, but she MADE it...
She is the artist, he is the voice activated remote trigger.. :)
MissionMan
28-04-2014, 7:59pm
If the monkey tried to take credit, I'd let them take the credit and then sue them for a million for not getting a model release for me being in the photo :D
ameerat42
28-04-2014, 8:33pm
Heck! A real poser! - Or is that the person pirouetting in front of the camera?
:flash: NO, it's me:flowersnap: Hah-ha! Gotchas :tog:
Rather like the film called "The Invisible Man". Anybody see that one?
They stopped the re-make because the main actor disappeared.
Mark L
28-04-2014, 10:31pm
My simple question is who actually took the photo?
In last years AP members challenge I was somehow conned into including me, or part thereof, in each weeks photo. Tripod, self-timer and remote switch became my friends. I had to take these things into account when taking my photos.
Often thought about just asking my better half to press the shutter button to make it easier for me. That would have stifled my photographic imagination as it was up to me to figure out how I could get the photo I wanted. I was always uneasy about the fact that she took the photo if she pressed the button.
And if someone else can press the shutter I probably wouldn't have put the thought into how I could do this single exposure self portrait (from last years members challenge),
108517
:confused013
CandidTown
28-04-2014, 11:07pm
I think this question has broader implications.
Ever since the digital revolution which brought us the instant review and auto settings, the number of "photographers" out there increased exponentially.
A person, a monkey or an automatic trigger mechanism, that pushes the button are NOT photographers.
A camera and a trigger mechanism, human or otherwise are just tools.
The girl had a vision, she understood light, composition and camera settings to create an image.
Giving the person who pressed the button credit for that photograph would be like giving Michelangelo's chisel credit for creating David, because it did all the carving.
A photographer that uses a trap-mechanism to capture wild animals doesn't take the photo? Oh, I guess we'll have to DQ a couple of great shots we've seen in the past winning all kind of photocompetitions!
To me, the one that determines what the image looks like is the photographer. That would be the one that "makes the photo".
To me, the one that determines what the image looks like is the photographer. That would be the one that "makes the photo".
I'm inclined to agree ... although these days I don't even know that we can call it a "photograph" ! I "took" the image below using a remote control and then software, and the result is certainly all my own work even though I'm in the picture. However, you'd be hard pressed to call it a photograph! :D
108520
MissionMan
29-04-2014, 12:20pm
I'm inclined to agree ... although these days I don't even know that we can call it a "photograph" ! I "took" the image below using a remote control and then software, and the result is certainly all my own work even though I'm in the picture. However, you'd be hard pressed to call it a photograph! :D
108520
I think you may be suffering from multiple personality disorder, however, what disturbs me the most about this photo is how few of your personalities are looking at the female walking past...
I think you may be suffering from multiple personality disorder, however, what disturbs me the most about this photo is how few of your personalities are looking at the female walking past...
Yeah ... I did stuff that bit up. It was meant to have me looking at her, but I miscalculated badly! I had a broom standing where I thought she'd be in the photo, but when I got home I'd organised it badly, so only the two up at the back RHS were looking. It was a "one chance" use of the hall, so I had to make do with what I'd captured. The girl was actually taken in Estonia someplace, and has no idea where she ended up!! :lol:
nimrodisease
29-04-2014, 1:05pm
I'd be inclined to say they are not the photographer. The pushing of the button is 1% of the photo. Setting up the camera, framing the shot, focus etc is the photographer. Pushing the button is a technicality.
I agree with this.
I would say that the person who orchestrated the photo is the photographer. If someone has a vision, chooses a composition and exposure settings and has everything ready to go on a tripod, then it doesn't matter who presses the shutter.
Unless, I suppose, it is something that requires impeccable timing. Even still, the person who presses the shutter has little or no creative involvement in the making of the photo.
Just to throw something else into the mix... what about a situation where someone has used a lightning trigger to fire the shutter? Or some cameras now have a feature where if it detects a smile it will take a photo. Does this mean that the person who has set up the camera did not take the photo?!
bcys1961
29-04-2014, 1:57pm
The girl had a vision, she understood light, composition and camera settings to create an image.
I'm sympathetic to this view.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm inclined to agree ... although these days I don't even know that we can call it a "photograph" ! I "took" the image below using a remote control and then software, and the result is certainly all my own work even though I'm in the picture. However, you'd be hard pressed to call it a photograph! :D
Hi Bobt , I guess you would call this photo manipulation , not a photograph , but you might like to exhibit it at the Sydney Biennale Art Festivel next time it is on. This artist has done exactly the same thing.
https://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/19bos/artists/cook/
He obviously pinched your idea! :D
- - - Updated - - -
I'm inclined to agree ... although these days I don't even know that we can call it a "photograph" ! I "took" the image below using a remote control and then software, and the result is certainly all my own work even though I'm in the picture. However, you'd be hard pressed to call it a photograph! :D
Hi Bobt , I guess you would call this photo manipulation , not a photograph , but you might like to exhibit it at the Sydney Biennale Art Festivel next time it is on. This artist has done exactly the same thing.
https://www.biennaleofsydney.com.au/19bos/artists/cook/
He obviously pinched your idea! :D
It would be an interesting test case if it ever went to court.
No it would not, it has been done to death in regards to the © Act 1968 etc.
arthurking83
29-04-2014, 3:59pm
While it may be arguable that the pusher of a button could be labelled 'a photographer', I'd say the owner of the camera and hence the copyrighter of the resultant products (if copyright is clearly set in camera) should be the rightful claimant of image ownership.
Afterall, a simple button pusher could be labelled as a temporary/casual/volunteer assistant, and also come under the assistants clause.
Legally it's the shutter presser in the first instance.
Re: the pro/assistant cases, that would be covered by an employment relationship.
Next time use a wireless remote.
PS: As a camera club judge I would have to DQ the entry as well.
If LuLu set up the scene, owns the camera and has asserted copyright to the images via the camera .... but Betty presses the button, Betty will own LuLu's copyrighted image? :confused013
I wouldn't have DQ'ed the winner.
@ Bob .. should have kept the broom instead.
(great setup tho!)
The conundrum posed by Bob has nothing to do with copyright, it's about 'authorship' - who created 'the work'? You could certainly argue that the club member who conceived and set up the shot is the 'photographer', however if I happened to walk up and take an almost identical image at the same time would I not be the photographer in that case? Is that somehow different to the 'assistant' releasing the shutter? Greg Crewdson (http://youtu.be/RywAfP4KFcY), whose images sell for tens-of-thousands of dollars a pop, doesn't operate the camera. I assume that he's considered to be 'the photographer' in these cases, although his images would probably be DQ'd if he tried to get them into his local camera club comp :). I think most comps have a clause about the image being "your own work" so I guess it comes down to whether someone else releasing the shutter is interpreted as "your own work".
Copyright might also be questionable in the situation posed by Bob (although not part of the original post). My understanding is that where no agreement exists to the contrary, the person who presses the shutter-release is the copyright owner. So copyright ownership would come down to how the 'assistant' was engaged to take the photo.
Cheers.
Hi Bobt , I guess you would call this photo manipulation , not a photograph , but you might like to exhibit it at the Sydney Biennale Art Festivel next time it is on. This artist has done exactly the same thing.
He obviously pinched your idea! :D
You just can't keep a good idea down! I think this image won me something in our club "creative" competition ....... but I think making it was more fun than winning anything. 8*)
geoffsta
29-04-2014, 8:46pm
I tend to agree with the remote shutter being the photographer. During lightning storms I set the camera up, the set the remote to take 10 second shots, with a 2 second space. Then I virtually sit down have a cuppa, and until the storm finishes.
Therefore in all the definitions above. The remote is the Photographer. I as the assistant setup the tripod, setup the settings and the let the remote do the rest.
P.S. In saying that. I have to press the start button on the remote. :confused013
Shane H
29-04-2014, 9:48pm
I'm not a legal expert. Any thing here is a matter of opinion. My opinion? Neither the Act nor the Regulations use the term photographer. The Act refers to authors. Section 10 of the Copyright Act defines the author as "in relation to a photograph, means the person who took the photograph." The person who pressed the button may be considered the copyright holder as usually the 1st copyright holder is the author (exlusions apply). A Copyright Council fact sheet states that in some situations there is provision in the Act for joint copyright.
In regards to a competition, I would not consider it to be her work and as such, I feel she should have been disqualified.
Cheers
Shane
AVALANCHE
29-04-2014, 11:08pm
It is her photo.
Whoever presses the shutter is irrelevent. The person with the vision to create an image that is relevent and says something to the viewer is the photographer. I fail to see how she could be disqualified since she set up the shot and necessary camera settings for whoever she had take the shot.
I wouldn't have DQ'ed the winner.
Yet we are taught at the judging school to DQ in this case, and that is because of the (c) act :D
arthurking83
29-04-2014, 11:43pm
Yet we are taught at the judging school to DQ in this case .....
Remember the first rule of photography!!
Rules are meant to be broken! :lol:
This is one that is dependant on personal opinion for me. There are many cases where I use the automated shooting capabilities of my camera, does this than make me not the photographer? As someone earlier said I had to start the shots being taken atleast?
As for this case, I can see why judges are required to disqualify a photographer based on the fact that technically the shutter was pressed by another person (not an automated system). Based on this, I would agree with judges disqualifying on this basis.
Lesson learnt, remote shutter is your third hand? :confused013
IMHO, the person pushing the shutter-button is just a (living) remote control in this case :tog:
bcys1961
01-05-2014, 11:55pm
Yet we are taught at the judging school to DQ in this case, and that is because of the (c) act :D
So , just remember , if YOU feature in the photo YOU submit to the upcoming Family photo ( Quarterly Competition) , you used a remote or self timer , you did not have someone press the button for you ! :tog:
Everybody interested in this conversation ... please invest in a very inexpensive remote (or learn how to operate your cameras timer) to avoid disappointment and disqualification. :D;)
This is a very interesting discussion, thanks BobT!
bcys1961
02-05-2014, 1:21am
It's getting a bit zen!
"If a photographer in a forest doesn't press the button , but no judge is there to see them not press the button , did they not press the button?"
arthurking83
02-05-2014, 7:15am
It's getting a bit zen!
"If a photographer in a forest doesn't press the button , but no judge is there to see them not press the button , did they not press the button?"
I think this conundrum depends on one thing .. did the button willingly agree to not be pressed .. or was it somehow coerced into not being pressed.
I think the button knows it's place in the world and by it's very description has accepted it's role in life that it must be pressed.
Almost to the point where it demands to be pressed.
But if the situation arises where it might not be pressed for any reason, the button's purpose comes into question.
Therefore an existentialist conundrum may arise for the button if it's purpose has been nullified. What will be it's purpose now.
How will the button react once it realises that it may not have to be pressed. Will it rebel against it's regular subjugator? Will it seek a new subjugator(s). Will it completely refuse to be pressed ever again.
It may even wait until a judge passes by to allow it's operator access again.
Alternatively, while the photographer may have not pressed the button (in the non judgmental forest situation above), there exists the situations whereby a randomly accessed thirdparty may have been sequestered to perform the duties of button pressing.
Also, is this topical enigma restricted to only forest areas, or may be it be transferable to other places of photographic importance(ie. seascapes, deserts, etc) and ... does a single lone tree standing in a clear felled plain come under the descriptive umbrella of a forest, or is it a totally new genre of paradox.
I ask these questions simply as a contingency plan if the situation ever arises where my inexpensive remotes(all 5 of them) ever fail concurrently whilst I'm out and about AND I stumble across a judge doing their job.
Now that I know how ruthless these judges are, I'd like to be better prepared :p
bcys1961
02-05-2014, 7:19am
I think this conundrum depends on one thing .. did the button willingly agree to not be pressed .. or was it somehow coerced into not being pressed.
I think the button knows it's place in the world and by it's very description has accepted it's role in life that it must be pressed.
Almost to the point where it demands to be pressed.
But if the situation arises where it might not be pressed for any reason, the button's purpose comes into question.
Therefore an existentialist conundrum may arise for the button if it's purpose has been nullified. What will be it's purpose now.
How will the button react once it realises that it may not have to be pressed. Will it rebel against it's regular subjugator? Will it seek a new subjugator(s). Will it completely refuse to be pressed ever again.
It may even wait until a judge passes by to allow it's operator access again.
Alternatively, while the photographer may have not pressed the button (in the non judgmental forest situation above), there exists the situations whereby a randomly accessed thirdparty may have been sequestered to perform the duties of button pressing.
Also, is this topical enigma restricted to only forest areas, or may be it be transferable to other places of photographic importance(ie. seascapes, deserts, etc) and ... does a single lone tree standing in a clear felled plain come under the descriptive umbrella of a forest, or is it a totally new genre of paradox.
I ask these questions simply as a contingency plan if the situation ever arises where my inexpensive remotes(all 5 of them) ever fail concurrently whilst I'm out and about AND I stumble across a judge doing their job.
Now that I know how ruthless these judges are, I'd like to be better prepared :p
You have learnt well grasshopper!
I guess this question is a bit like the line of digital processing v photo manipulation.... it's quite blurry at times. How often do we hear "that's photoshopped" and it's a negative connotation? Yes, it's been processed through photoshop (or similar) otherwise we would have nothing to show of RAW shots, that doesn't necessarily mean it is not a true representation of what we photographed.
Back to the original question, I think it could come down to the settings. If the camera was on auto settings, the person who presses the shutter would be the photographer capturing someone else's idea for composition, as there has been no personal input to control the image. One would assume this was not the case in this particular instance. We all know that 'photograph' pretty much translates to painting with light - so in my mind the photographer is the one who arranges the settings to capture the light. It is their knowledge and understanding of light and their equipment that has dictated what will be captured. The idea for the composition would possibly come under intellectual property and looked at as a separate issue.
In the example michaellvx gives, that is harder again. Yes, you set up the camera for the shot you wanted - of the lunar eclipse. The shots your daughter actually captured were different as they contained the planes, therefore she judged the timing to get her own take on the composition, albeit one of chance to some degree.
Ultimately, if this were tested under law it would probably boil down to who had the more convincing lawyer, or who had the most money to drag it out :confused013
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.