What is the copyright law surrounding Ellen's famous Oscars group selfie?

I don’t know, but I think that Liza is goosing him.

Unless, of cours the participants’ admission to the event is subject to contract, likely a contract of adhesion on their ticket, invite, or whatever it is. It is unlikely that what went down here was unanticipated by the lawyers working on behalf of the Academy. Your argument presupposes that those lawyers overlooked it. I doubt it. While neither of us have evidence either way in front of us, it is quite possible that there is no hint of controversy over who would own the copyright. Btw, the Academy doesn’t need to come forward with anything for a purely hypothetical media cluster discussion about rights nobody is actually asserting against it.

I believe that’s Channing Tatum in an unflattering pose.

Heh. His “unflattering” pose still looks miles better than anything I’ve ever achieved.

Interestingly, I know people who work for the Academy and people who have gone to the Oscars. I have seen their tickets. They talk about image rights a lot but nothing about copyright ownership. If you would like I can make polite inquiries about this year specifically but I doubt it has changed.

The question isn’t just about who owns the copyright, but also about who has the right to authorize AP to use it. AP asked Ellen for permission, but she may not own the copyright at all, and if she does, legally she likely is a co-author, not the sole author. Either way, legally it is unlikely that Ellen had the full right to give AP permission to use the photo.

That is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s worth bothering over unless an actual dispute pops up, in which case, that would be fun to know, and pass the popcorn!

Yeah, but it’s a promotion, at an event televised worldwide, and more positive exposure for all involved and additional publicity is not likely to rile any of the participants to litigation. The full consequence is who wins the argument on internet discussion boards. I declare you the winner. Acceptance speech?

1 Like

I’ve never had a camera agreement that said the camera was mine. I’m responsible for it, but it has to be returned to the owner - the rental shop. And regardless, if I take the photos, the photos are mine.

This is a great example of how run away legislators get us all in to trouble via convolution of the legal system. It becomes increasingly difficult to remain within the law when the law is so complex, the question of who owns the photo you just snapped isn’t easily answered.

That’s Channing Tatum?

I always assume Channing Tatum is one of these two:

OMG! I win an Internets!!! Oh, you really li - hey, wait just a darn minute… (゜.゜)

2 Likes

I don’t care who owns it. But since it has been broadcast on network TV, someone please tell me that selfies have jumped the shark and that they will die a rapid death.

3 Likes

You bet. One of these days we’ll get people to stop.

Real soon now.
http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/4/2/1/Norman-Rockwell-Triple-Self-Portrait-1960.jpg

Any second.
http://uploads6.wikipaintings.org/images/magdalena-carmen-frieda-kahlo-y-calderón-de-rivera/self-portrait-with-bonito-1941.jpg

9 Likes

All law is inherently complex. The bible breaks has a list of 10 major rules. One of which is Thou shall not kill/murder, which is a pretty simple and clearly stated rule. Humanity in general has agreed that killing people is not in humanity’s best interest. And yet, when people are killed we still need to have the legal system step in and talk about it.

The legal system exists because life is filled with shades of grey, sometimes murders are legally permitted. Sometimes someone else owns a photo. I’d much prefer the disagreements to be via sitting at a desk arguing in front of a guy in black robes over a few weeks instead of “Meet me outside at noon and we’ll figger out who’s right.” It’s the price of civilization like taxes for roads or fire departments.

Much different.

Copyright transfers may have to be written, but if it is truly work made for hire then there is no copyright to transfer. Typically an employer would state both that it is work for hire and additionally stipulate that any copyright is transferred, but this is just covering of asses in case a court finds it’s not actually work for hire. Spiegelman’s argument is that Copper would have assumed that this was a work-for-hire arrangement, and that he thus never had copyright, in which case there is no copyright to assign or transfer.

Work for hire as it applies to copyright ownership is a vastly misunderstood concept. People are fooled by the intuitive sounding title of “work for hire” and think it applies to any work you hire someone to do. It doesn’t. It generally only applies to actual employees, such as those who get a W-2, and not to contractors or vendors. There is nothing about the circumstances with the selfie that resembles an actual employee relationship, nor does the vastly speculative claim of “would have assumed” rise to the level of a valid legal argument, in my not actually a lawyer opinion. For contractors and other vendors, you need a contract, otherwise the copyright generally belongs to the contractor or vendor.

1 Like
2 Likes

The wiki has a pretty good discussion of the issue, but note that the movie industry has a specific provision in the law deeming contributions to them to be work for hire (though this provision does require a written document).

The selfie argument is admittedly a stretch, but you might be able to argue that motion picture actors working on films are actually employees, given the unusual amount of control that the movie companies exert over their working conditions (when, where, for how long, what you do, how you do it, etc.) in a way that independent contractors aren’t normally subject to. Of course factors like how, when, and how much they are paid would cut in the opposite direction.

What about this yahoo?

And this fancy hat?

The same as the painters or death to the selfie?

3 Likes