Blatant photo theft

[antman]

I came across this on the sumgmug site.

Its looks like a magazine has published as its cover photo (on its launch issue) a photograph without permission of the photographer involved.

http://darkblueworld.smugmug.com/gallery/999601/1/46222374

And the photographers own site:

http://michaelyon-online.com/shockmag.php

It's a great photo by the way.

[Big Red]

there appears to be more to the story as he has also had a dispute with the pentagon.

Just wondering ... if you take a pic while being paid by someone else and on their time .... who owns the pic ?

[Link]

Just wondering ... if you take a pic while being paid by someone else and on their time .... who owns the pic ?

Not sure about this one but I'll try to reply. Unless it's specifically precised in a written contract, I believe the picture and copyright automatically belongs to the photog.

I've heard that the three big world news agencies (AP, Reuters, AFP) have a contract with their staff photographers saying that all images shot on assignment are owned by the news agency.

Link.

[Matt. K]

During the Vietnam war Australian sildiers were forbidden to carry cameras whilst on operations. The reasoning is that if they are captured then the images on the film may provide intelligence to the enemy that could compromise soldiers lives. This is not an unreasonable disposition. Despite that many soldiers did carry small cameras and virtually all of the 'man on the ground' historic record comes from the images made by these troops. Who, in law, owns the images? The negatives clearly belong to the soldiers because they paid for the film. The copyright probably belongs to the Crown because the images were taken whilst the men were in their employ. I don't believe ownership has ever been contested.