Who Owns the Photos That I took at a casino tournament?

[andrewaaa5]

Hi,
I took about 1000 pictures at an international casino tournement.
I was paid a small fee to do the work and knew that there were likely to be used in several magazines the world over.

Nothing was agreed before hand as to who owns the pictures that I would take. So who owns them? I always thought the photographer owned them, but the organisers are saying that they should own the pictures as they paid me to do the work.

Any advise please greatly appreciated.

Andrew

[IndyJeff]

Work for hire, you lose, sorry about your luck but this is why you get things straight before you shoot, not after the fact. They will claim that you were hired as an employee to take the photos.

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Congratulations you have been taken by a casino, at more than just the blackjack table.

[Digital Prophet]

I don't agree. According to the copyright laws, as I understand them, photographers employeed on a contract basis mus have a contract that clearly states that the product is a "work for hire" product.

Now this is a very grey area. In reality there was a verbal understanding that you were operating as thier contract employee which does imply that you were under a work for hire agreement.
But nothing was signed or agreed to before hand.
In reality I think there is one mitigating issue here. Did they get you access to areas you would have otherwise not had access to? By which I mean: Were you allowed up close to the table, more so than a normal spectator?
Were you allowed behind the velvet ropes?
Did you take shots that required personal interaction with the players that the normal spectator did not get?
Were you given free admission?
If any of these things are true then you could say that you do not want to sell the photos, deny payment of services rendered and walk away. But you can't sell the shots anywhere else. The reason being that the organizers facilitated access you would have otherwise been denied. Ergo the shots, if not work for hire, would not exist.

But if NONE of the above is true, then you could deny payment and walk away. They could sue you, but it's not likely since it would have to be a federal lawsuit and those are very expensive. However, if they DID sue, you would be screwed because it would be expensive to defend. But the real factor in this situation is that you are going to be making a HORRID name for yourself in that market. And you had better believe that it will spread fast among professional even organizers.

I think you should try and negotiate North American First Print rights with them. That way you can enter these shots into your stock and portfolio library after a certain time. Otherwise, take the hit. Cash the check and chalk it up to life's little lessons. And be certain, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, when you work for these people or similar groups to spell out who owns what.

- Digital Prophet -

[jgbeam]

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Six figures!!!!???? :shock: :shock: More than $100,000? :shock: :shock: Please break this down I'm ready for a career change if this is possible. 8)

Jim

[Vegas Poboy]

Everyone has a good point on thier views, but Jeff is correct on what ws agreed on the point of hire and remember Camera's is not allowed in Casino's unless authorized by the casino. You may have photos of areas they do not wish to be made public. They have alot more legal claim than you realize & more money to go to court. Try checking with the PPA & see if they will pass on any info to you.
Good Luck

[Digital Prophet]

... remember Camera's is not allowed in Casino's unless authorized by the casino.

I think that really sums it up. I hadn't even thought of that.

Looks like if you weren't thier employee that you would not have had access to take the shots. So the only market you have is to sell to them.

Tough one. But like I said. Sell now and work the better deal later. Also, maybe you can work it so that they retain copyright on the shots used and you can have the extras. But I doubt it.

- Digital Prophet -

[belmondo]

If they really like you and your work, they'll ask you back. Hopefully then you'll be able to work out a better agreement in advance.

[timmyquest]

If they really like you and your work, they'll ask you back. Hopefully then you'll be able to work out a better agreement in advance.

I think it's best to just let this one go and learn from it.

[IndyJeff]

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Six figures!!!!???? :shock: :shock: More than $100,000? :shock: :shock: Please break this down I'm ready for a career change if this is possible. 8)

Jim

Jim, I can't count. It should have been 5 figures. A job like that with multiple exposures in publications could bring in $12-15,000 easily.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Take the small fee,. and do it with a smile. :)

And re-negotiate next time :wink:



If you want to kick yourself.. do it out of site of your "employer".


The last thing you should do is burn any bridges so early on.

[defordphoto]

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Six figures!!!!???? :shock: :shock: More than $100,000? :shock: :shock: Please break this down I'm ready for a career change if this is possible. 8)

Jim

Jim, I can't count. It should have been 5 figures. A job like that with multiple exposures in publications could bring in $12-15,000 easily.

In a major publication yes, but in the Poker Quarterly? (made up name) No way.

And I do agree that more than likely the casino will own limited rights to the photos. The photographer will own the copyrights, but will also have limited rights of publication.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You could get $5K from one major casino's brochure photos... Don't you think?

It obviously would depend on how many photos they use and for what purposes.. circultion etc.. but around here the casinos post billboards on the highways etc... all for marketing.

Advertising pays big.

[IndyJeff]

And I do agree that more than likely the casino will own limited rights to the photos. The photographer will own the copyrights, but will also have limited rights of publication.


Not if it is a work for hire deal, which this seems to be. The casino owns the images outright.

Remember the fireman carrying the little girl after the Oklahoma City bombing? The gas company claimed the rights to the photos because the guy who took the picture was on the clock for the gas company at the time. I don't remember ever hearing how that came out but last I did hear, the gas company was winning in the courts and appeals.

[defordphoto]

You could get $5K from one major casino's brochure photos... Don't you think?

It obviously would depend on how many photos they use and for what purposes.. circultion etc.. but around here the casinos post billboards on the highways etc... all for marketing.

Advertising pays big.

Maybe...Negotiating plays such a huge, huge part. In my early days I just dabbled for pay. Nothing worth mentioning.

However, since going digital and basically reinventing myself, the player has to pay or there is no play. I have negotiated hard and have not lost a one yet.

But, we always must remember to price our photos to the market. Las Vegas is huge potential, obviously, but you're also dealing (pun intended) with the best dealers (pun AGAIN intended) so the market may be flushed (last intended pun), and you'll again have to settle with the seller.

The advantage is that photos are one-of-a-kind. No one else has shot the exact photo that you have. I always say that if I lose that deal, they know I still have The Photo. I will always have The Photo.

It's an ownership thing...:)

[defordphoto]

And I do agree that more than likely the casino will own limited rights to the photos. The photographer will own the copyrights, but will also have limited rights of publication.


Not if it is a work for hire deal, which this seems to be. The casino owns the images outright.

Remember the fireman carrying the little girl after the Oklahoma City bombing? The gas company claimed the rights to the photos because the guy who took the picture was on the clock for the gas company at the time. I don't remember ever hearing how that came out but last I did hear, the gas company was winning in the courts and appeals.

Yes, Jeff, you are correct, depending on the contract signed.

I have a similar contract with the company I work for that pretty much anything I create while under their employ, they own.

So, if Mount Saint Helens erupts while I am working, I'll "clock out" before shooting the photos.

[IndyJeff]

Jim did you ever hear anymore about the fireman shot? Last I heard it was up before an appeals court. The lower court had found in favor of the gas company. Anything different?

[andrewaaa5]

ok, to give you more information, it was not in America, it was an international game in the Baltics (North East Europe), however there were a lot of American players there, as well as Russian, Dutch, UK, Ireland, Swedish, Nerweigan etc..

I was paid small fee of less than 141.078 EUR (about 173.780 USD) for 4 days work (approx 3hrs 30mins per day). I spend my own time rotating and editing the pictures in software.

I was supposed to take the pictures at set times (i.e 2pm - 6pm Weds, 4pm - 7pm Saturday etc.) however I did turn up a lot in my own spare time, including showing up for a whole day when I was not meant to be there, or worked after the suggested time, and I took a lot of pictures in this extra 'personal' time. Surely I own the pictures that were taken then!?

It just so happened that the final day was rescheduled so that I worked between 2pm and 6pm instead of the agreed 6pm to 10pm.

The 'final' game finished at 5.55pm. Ok - so did I take all the pictures of the final game in my own time??? In which case do I own the pictures???

I am totally new to this, and it would have been great to have organised and negotiated a contract before hand, but the organisers were so busy organising accomodation for the players and runway times at the local airports for private jets, etc. etc. that nothing was agreed.

Hmm...

Confused Andrew
(thanks for all the response so far!)

[defordphoto]

Jim did you ever hear anymore about the fireman shot? Last I heard it was up before an appeals court. The lower court had found in favor of the gas company. Anything different?

That's the last I heard of it too.

[defordphoto]

andrewaaa5: Being that it was not in the USA changes things dramatically. Different countries have wide versions of copyright laws. You'll have to research that one.

[IndyJeff]

Figure out how much time you spent, shooting, editting, traveling. Now divide by how much you were paid and see how much you made per hour. Not much huh? That is why you have to figure out these things ahead of the job and negotiate a price to do it. I would think that what you were paid in total would be a low cost just for one day of the event but, that is water under the bridge.
For the current situation, i.e.who owns the images, I would kiss this one good bye and try not to burn any bridges just to keep the contacts. Next time they call explain top them that for the amount of hours you worked last time and what they paid worked out to $2 an hour just isn't enough. Now you can negoatiate with them and get a better rate of pay. As for the ownership of the images, that too will have to be negotiated. Unfortunately for you, they will probaby not budge on price or ownership at which point it would be wise to simply say, "Thanks but I believe I will pass." They will find someone who has a Rebel and a couple of lenses to come in and think he is making money now.
If your stuff was good enough and they get someone who totally blows it, then someone will have his ass in hot water with the powers that be for going cheap on the photography end.

Personally, I walk away from about 30% of the work that is offered to me. I quit working in the $2-3 hour range back in the mid 70's. I have had people call me back after some clod came in and totally blew it and now they need it done ASAP and are willing to pay my price. Once a guy was very arrogant about my price being too high. When he hired a friend of someone who worked for him and they went to the printer, the printer simply stated he couldn't use what they had. Color was off and had been manipulated to the point he couldn't recover it, the images were soft and under exposed. He called me back and now had to have this work done by noon the next day. I just told him I was already booked and can't get it done. I thanked him and said that now my pricing didn't seem quite so outrageous did it? He agreed. Personally, I wouldn't work for him now if he called and doubled my rate.