Assistants – should you use their photos under your name?

I understand the premise of setting up a shot and wanting credit – but, especially in sports photography, pictures are about timing as much as anything else. I’m with KGB, “If you didn’t press the shutter, you didn’t shoot the picture, simple.”

KGB’s comment is not quite on target. If I set up the camera on a tripod, set all the camera/lens parameters, and then ask someone to press the button for me once I get in position, I still own the copyright on the picture even though someone else actually pressed the button. In that case, the someone else is simply acting as a remote control.

That very specific edge-case instance aside, I totally agree. How can a photographer claim someone else’s work as their own? Sure, you can give direction as to what you want (shoot from here, try to frame that way), but in the end, the result is up to the skill and luck of the person who actually carries out those instructions.

It may be common practice, but it seems totally slimy to me.

(Vincent, I loved your blog posts throughout the Olympics, whether you wrote them or your assistant 🙂

I agree with KGB.

I can’t say I would be willing to work as an assistant, no matter who they were or what they told me, if they were to take credit when I pressed the shutter.

One more thought:

My work is at least equal parts post processing, as planning plus pressing the shutter. Pressing the shutter is easy the least work of them all. I’ve shot aerials of fighter jets, planning and controlling the formation in air over radio, bringing an assistant, who gets similar pictures because of all the above fixed parameters. If I also post process his images, I’ve done most of the work.

Legally, still it’s his images, and I won’t take credit for them or his work. Part of the idea of having an assistant is giving him or her an opportunity to get some help with his/hers career, apart from the education.

Thanks Vince, once again; nice blog.

/Peter

This is a great topic, thanks for posting on it.

Some successful photographers, directors, architects, surgeons, researchers, inventors, etc. will rarely credit the folks who they work with, wanting to use their name alone to push their brand. From one perspective this makes sense and it no doubt helps their brand become more popular (providing they’re good at what they do).

But, other equally successful practitioners of the same trades remain humble and give credit to those who helped, influenced, or supported them. They seem to be just as successful without worrying about name recognition and brand.

In my eyes the latter group are even more successful because they got the shot, made the movie, built the building, etc. while continuing to be generous, supportive, and in some cases, humble.

I don’t look down on successful people who push their names (within reason), but I absolutely look up to successful people who don’t.

@KGB, Do you think the same thing if a timer is used? or a remote shutter? if it’s the act of pressing the shutter button at the right moment, how about burst mode?

In the interview with Richard Deitsch, Kluetmeier says, “Give complete credit to Jeff Kavanaugh.” And yet the photo credits on the website make no mention of Kavanaugh, not does your clip oh the photo credit Kavanaugh. It’s unclear to me why Kavanaugh shouldn’t have sole credit for the photo. He designed the equipment, placed the equipment in the pool, and quite possibly shot the photo. How was Kluetmeier’s role any different than that of an editor on a shoot? Should editor’s get full credits for a photo taken under their direction?

This would seem to be what you advocate. After all, you write, “If s/he tells the assistant what lens to shoot with, at what settings, where to point the lens, how to frame the shot and when to fire off the frame – one can arguably state that is indeed his/her image…” So shouldn’t a photo editor get full credit for a fashion shoot, especially if they are responsible for setting up the lighting, hiring a stylist, etc.?

I think not. I believe photographers who give their assistants such significant latitude to make a photo owe it to their assistants to give them credit when credit is due. For editorial assignments, this means publishing an accurate photo credit.

You also write, “Legally though – unless the two have a signed contract where the assistant relinquishes all rights to those images to the photographer – that assistant technically owns the copyright btw[…]”

It’s possible that Kavanaugh signed a contract directly with Kluetmeier, and who knows what the contact between Kluetmeier and SI looks like these days. However, generally both the photographer and assistant would have signed contracts with Sports Illustrated. I noticed you added the copyright symbol to your photo credit above. I wouldn’t be shocked if Kluetmeier did not own a copyright to the photo. For staff photographers, Sports Illustrated generally owns the copyright to photos taken on assignment. Can you elaborate on where you found the copyright information?

And this leads to an interesting question about the photo. If SI makes a commercial sale of the photo, I believe proceeds from that sale would be shared with Kluetmeier. Would any be shared with Kavanaugh? (Jeff makes a similar point in a comment above.)

There are some photographers who do make sure that their assistants receive credit when they shoot a photo under their tutelage. For example, Rich Clarkson has always been very good about this–I have seen many assignments where the folks he works with are simply called “photographers.” He found a clever way to give both them and him credit; credits shot by photographers who work with him read “/Rich Clarkson and Associates”

Frankly, the idea that pressing the shutter equates to taking the picture, and thus that not pressing the shutter equates to not taking it, is TOO simple. Binary rules make things much easier to assign, and they might give lawyers less to do, but they don’t really answer the question.

Just one person’s opinion, of course.

Good day. May I take off from the sentence “So back to taking credit for an image that your “assistant” took. It’s actually been pretty common practice throughout photographic history.”

Yes, I agree, it’s been pretty common practice throughout photographic history. And that has been a screwed practice. There are descendants of Mathew Brady, the American Civil War photographer, who is into controversies over his claiming of sole copyright to images taken by photographers who worked with him. That is the reason why Mr. Brady, with all due respect for him, was not included in the book “Photojournalism: The World’s Greatest News Photographers”, 2nd Edition, Reuel Golden, Carlton Books, ISBN 978-1-84732116-9.

I think it is unfair and unjust to conclude that an assistant never think, or think less than the master.

As a serious hobbyist, a tangent to this which really interests me is the issue of someone else using my camera for a few shots in the middle of me taking a lot of photos. Later, I can’t always tell which photos were taken by me vs my friend, and I may end up taking credit for a photo that I didn’t actually take.

I wish that cameras had fingerprint-recognition on the shutter button (the technology appears that it might be viable now), and stored something in the EXIF to denote who released the shutter (know person A, known person B, unknown person C, timer, cable release, etc).

This issue is the chicken or the egg of copyright. On the one side, if the photographer didn’t hire the assistant, the assistant couldn’t “assist” the photographer in creating images. On the other, the concept of apprentice and master is fading away in a sea of individualism. Regardless of your point of view, I applaud you Vincent for defining the double credit as classy. It was a move of such class as to bring the word into esteem again. With luck, your praise will encourage others to recognize the work of those upon whose shoulders they stand.

“If you didn’t press the shutter, you didn’t shoot the picture, simple.
-KGB”

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. By that reckoning I’ve never taken a photo in my life. I’ve only signaled to my shutter release that it should open X seconds and hoped the mechanics take a good picture. On my new camera I’m even one more step removed– I just signal an electronic computer that I want it to take a picture.

I agree with the original article that assistants deserver credit but if I setup a camera on a tripod. Properly exposed it and then set it to a timer did the timer take the picture? The timer pressed the shutter not me. What if I setup a computer to take the picture when the luminance reached XYZ. Was the computer the photographer?

In the not too distant future photographers will probably be taking 1/shutterspeed frames per second of video in full quality. So capturing the ‘magic moment’ will be considerably more trivial and the assitant’s responsibility to capture it will be diminished.

We’re very rapidly approach the technological point in photography where you could shoot a 180 degree 100megapixel image with post adjustable focus. In that day in age the assistant’s job will be to ensure the camera is working and recording. The “photography” will happen later in a computer.

Credit should be given where credit is due but “pushing the button” is an incredibly imperfect means of determing who deserves acknowledgement.

I totally agree with your position, and it is a very tricky question. It doesn’t only happen in photography either. I’m a scientist, just finished my PhD a few months ago. In science (or research in general) it’s PhD students, technicians and undergrads who do “all the work”, while most of the great ideas come from their big shot supervisors. Who should get credit for the results is always being discussed.

I’m fine with the supervisors / main photographers taking most of the credit, after all without their idea the result wouldn’t exist. But the person who did all the work should also be acknowledged for it somehow.

Thank you for blogging such insightful posts. These and your amazing photographs are really mind-blowing (and addictive ;).

You know for all the times I was hired as an assistant to: Produce the shoot from lights to film & cameras, creat the lighting because the famous photographer didn’t know how to light or work his equipment, set up compose and take the picture by “Pushing the button” I guess that in all those instances I should have been credited and paid accordingly right?
I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Instead 1 day i’ll write a book and name names and we can all have a big laugh.

Wow! This is a very nice post…..