(or does he?) Well it depends upon how you define “ownership of” a photograph. The first person to have an interest in the photograph is its owner.
What if he was the only one to own it? Then the person who owned it would have ownership and therefore its subject. You can argue that this would be a different situation.
We say “ownership” but it is actually owned by someone named in the copyright. His name is Robert Meyers, and we assume that he has a copyright in the photograph he has just taken with his camera. He is the one who owns it.
The second person who owned the photograph is the person who took it. That’s an interesting distinction, but that is the legal definition.
The third person is the photographer who took the photograph. If I take a photograph with my camera and put it in my book, I have copyright over it. He has no copyright.
So then what kind of ownership is there that is required in copyright? When we take the picture, we give to the photographer the exclusive right to use the image or photographs of us that we put into a book.
In the case of photography you are giving the owner of a photograph license to reproduce the image. So is photography really a matter of giving away your right to reproduce images from your camera without permission from the photographer?
It’s more like the two are two separate rights.
If this was the case then copyright law might allow photographers to sell rights to their images without payment.
But if this was the case then the owner of an image that was published in a book would be free to edit or modify the image, or to use the image commercially, to distribute it, to print it on paper, or whatever.
No, copyright allows a photographer to only use his images commercially.
If the person who has paid for the rights has not paid, then any use of the image is a “contravention” without the copyright owner’s permission. You’re doing something wrong by taking photos, and the copyright owner cannot enforce compliance.
So copyright law only applies to commercial use. But if my photographs are used in a commercial environment, is this really a matter of copyright law?
In other words, if you are doing something in commercial use, then you are in the wrong business as long as you are not doing something as commercial as commercial photography. So if I take photographs of people and then take
watch video earn paypal cash, google photos earn money, watching youtube videos earn money, make video earn money app, make money selling photos online