In just five clicks!

Walking in an Indian bazaar, my Nikon dangling on my shoulder, this boy quickly clicked five times. I really liked the creative result when I later saw these images! Don’t know who owns the copyright though! See the other four images here and please note there is a very interesting discussion here, related to this post.


Even in Chinese the discussion is followed…

15 Responses to “In just five clicks!”

  1. Anu zegt:

    ha, ha, ha, very funny! I guess he owns the copyright

  2. [...] she notes that while walking through an Indian bazaar with her camera dangling on her shoulder, a kid grabbed the camera and took five quick photos, some of which are pretty nice. Here's just one, but click through to Letsch's site to see the [...]

  3. mike allen zegt:

    I understand your dilemma you could try to contact the kid again one question. Why did you not get his details at the time? That apart I guess he owns copyright. Interesting results from this sort of experience.

  4. [...] and takes a photograph, who owns the copyright to that photograph? Photographer Mirjam Letsch writes,Walking in an Indian bazaar, my Nikon dangling on my shoulder, this boy quickly clicked five times. [...]

  5. What’s the problem here – Copyright should be of the person clicking with a motive of clicking. If there is no motive then the camera owner should have the rights unless he/she has lent the camera for shooting.

  6. Mark J P zegt:

    As far as I’m aware the copyright belongs to the person who pressed the shutter button rather than the owner of the camera. So if I borrowed your camera while we were on a photowalk together and took a couple of shots, then technically the copyright on those particular shots would belong to me, but this is seldom enforced.

    I think there are some exceptions but if the shot was taken by a ‘natural person’ or ‘juridical person’ then the copyright rests with them.

    This reminded me of an interesting article with a whole bunch of comments about a similar kind of thing here:

  7. Mustie zegt:

    I represent all African Photo Youth. Please send 1 $ to UNICEF found for every published photo.

    Thank you,
    Very Serious Kiddo

  8. Gracey zegt:

    I’d guess that the kid owns the copyright too. Generally people don’t get that close to my camera, so I haven’t had that happen.

    I very much like the second last photo – it has a wonderful sense of movement and artistry, even though it was accidental.

  9. Thank you all for contributing to the discussion. The chance that I will ever meet this kid again is small, a publication not in the planning. Just thought it is an interesting discussion, like the copyright issute with the monkeys…

  10. Ken Clunk zegt:

    Everyone is thinking too small.

    Does the camera operator on a studio movie own the footage? No! Does no one remember Andy Warhol’s factory? It seems he wasn’t always the one to click the shutter, or make the screen print, but that’s not to say those images aren’t his.

    If I’m the enabling factor, and don’t note otherwise, then I would own the copyright. If I hire a second shooter it’s not that I’m buying the copyrights from them, it’s simply that I own them. If you enabled the photographs to be taken (conceptually, literally, or simply because you had the camera at that time) then I would suggest you own the copyright regardless of who clicked the shutter.

  11. Justin zegt:

    I agree with Ken Clunk.

    I’ve had similar thoughts whether or not I own a couple of copyrights;
    For example during my service in Afghanistan I asked one of my soldiers to take a documentary photo of a accident-site, and I set up my camera with the right settings (zoom etc) and gave it to him (he was standing on a vehicle and had a better vantage point of the site and I was sitting inside of it thus having a limited field of vision). I told him where to point the camera and what to get in the picture. I afterwards checked the pictures to make sure that he got what I wanted.
    I’n my point of view I own the copyright to the photos, since it was my camera, my settings, my orders to take the picture being specific of what to photo. But when I read about this kid and the previous story about the monkey I start to wonder…

  12. [...] en India, con su cámara Nikon colgada en su hombro cuando un niño rápidamente se le acercó y disparó cinco rápidas fotos, para luego alejarse. El tema es que utilizó la cámara de Mirjam, probablemente apretando el [...]

  13. [...] Mirjam Letsch era într-o piață aglomerată din India, cu aparatul pe umăr, iar la un moment dat, un copil a pus mâna pe aparatul ei și a făcut 5 poze. După ce a văzut pozele (și i-au și plăcut), a realizat că este într-o situație destul de ciudată. Are niște poze pe cardul aparatului, dar nu știe dacă, din punct de vedere legal, sunt ale ei. [...]

  14. David Rich zegt:

    I suspect that the photos vest in you – not because you own the equipment, but because the photos were taken without though or intent to capture any particular event, emotion etc. and without any effort to compose – this is clear from the results: used like this, your camera is a “mechanical recording device” with little or no creative input from a human agency – a monkey can’t own copyright even if it takes a beautiful photo (no, I am NOT equating this young person with a chimp).
    The issue of “second shooter” doesn’t apply (just as well – freelance second shooters, as opposed to employees) DO own the rights to photos they take for a principal photographer in the USA, throughout Europe, Canada, Australia,,,,)

Leave a Reply