Who "owns" my image?

[clicky]

A national newspaper asked me if I could be most kind and shoot some images, wich they printed over 2 pages for a pretty large case (at least from their perspective).

On the set/location the man I photographed became very interested in the images I shot. The newspaper hired me, and will pay me reasonably eventually. Are the images I shot "mine" (and free to sell again, so to speak) or do they belong to the newspaper?

If so - what about the images I shoot at the same place/event and did not send to the newspaper, are these images mine, and my alone? What's wrong or right, both etichally and morally? (no written agreement was signed in this case...)

Any input apprechiated!! I'm just a "pressphotographer-newbie" wondering...

[vwpilot]

Depends on what the contract you agreed to with the newspaper is.

Most of the time, when you shoot for a newspaper its "work for hire" and that means that everything you shoot is theirs and you have no rights to it.

However, sometimes as a freelancer you can retain your rights, especially for those that do not get published. But generally you will have some kind of exclusivity for the paper for some period of time.

Figure out what your contract states and if you dont have one (shame on you) discuss it with the photo editor so you know exactly what you are dealing with.

[clicky]

This "job" was based on a telephonecall - so no written agreement exists. Anyhow - I guess that <b>IF</b> I (re-)sell any of these images that was either bought, used, declined or printed by the newspaper - probably would exclude me for a longer period of time.

I guess the only morally right thing to do must be a re-shoot...!?

[cmM]

hmm... interesting question. as VWPilot mentioned, read the contract and see if the copyright is being transferred (not very common practice), or it's just a commercial use license agreement (more common practice). If it's the latter, then the copyright belogns to you and you can do anything you want with the images.
It's really important to read what you sign! I learned that the hard way.

[cmM]

After reading your reply,... if nothing has been signed, then the copyright belongs to you.

[clicky]

Thanks for your input - as no paper/agreement was signed I presume the pictures are leagally mine. But then again, I don't think this is the time to play bargain with the newpaper, guess their PhotoEditor would be somewhat concerned if "his" image was displayed somewhere else, in any way or form - am I right, freelancebased-wannabe-pressphotographer-speaking?

[cmM]

Thanks for your input - as no paper/agreement was signed I presume the pictures are leagally mine. But then again, I don't think this is the time to play bargain with the newpaper, guess their PhotoEditor would be somewhat concerned if "his" image was displayed somewhere else, in any way or form - am I right, freelancebased-wannabe-pressphotographer-speaking?
It's not "his" image. It's "your" image that you are allowing the newspaper to use.

[IndyJeff]

A lot is going to depend on how the newspaper views you. Are you a freelancer? An employee? A stringer? Maybe a sneaky way to find out would be to call the editor and ask him. Say you are putting together a resume and you want to know, am I your employee, a freelancer you hired or a stringer? This might also be a good time to ask him about the copyrights and who owns them. If he says they do then I would tell him your prices just went up.

Usually if you are a freelancer or a stringer, they have the first right of refusal to your images. Anything they didn't use, they didn't want and they are yours free and clear. Now if your considered an employee, it is theirs. Work For Hire is the phrase that no photographer wants to hear.

Find out where you stand in the eyes of the editor. If you aren't considered as an employee, register the images from the entire shoot ASAP. Contact the the subject of the shoot and sell him as much as he wants to buy.

[KennyG]

It also depends on the country you are in - reminding people to add it to their profile - PLEASE.

[Avalonthas]

Id u didnt sign anything in writing, sell away.

[GerryDavid]

Why not just get some papers drawn up and get the paper to sign it. This way you know where you stand. And if it states you own the picturs and they see/sign it, your in the clear.

[Jon]

Did the paper pay you? If they did, since they approached you about doing the shoot, it sounds more like "work for hire", in which case they own the photo even if you own the copyright. Was the understanding that you'd provide all shots, or that you'd edit and submit only your preferred shots? If the latter, you sell the "out-takes", and word gets back to them, they may (understandably) feel that you held back publishable material and, at a minimum, drop you from any further consideration. Did they offer you a flat rate for the shoot or so much per published shot? I think you need to go to them and get a (written) clarification of who they thought they were getting: stringer, staff (part-time), one-time outside shooter, commission work?

[clicky]

Seems as though there are several opinions out there. Since this is one of my first "big" job for a national newspaper I contacted their PhotoEditor personally. He replied that the pictures are indeed mine. In this case I've sold them the right to use MY picture, and nothing more. He even encouraged me to sell, sell and sell...

Thanks everyone for your input!

[clicky]

Did the paper pay you? If they did, since they approached you about doing the shoot, it sounds more like "work for hire", in which case they own the photo even if you own the copyright. Was the understanding that you'd provide all shots, or that you'd edit and submit only your preferred shots? If the latter, you sell the "out-takes", and word gets back to them, they may (understandably) feel that you held back publishable material and, at a minimum, drop you from any further consideration. Did they offer you a flat rate for the shoot or so much per published shot? I think you need to go to them and get a (written) clarification of who they thought they were getting: stringer, staff (part-time), one-time outside shooter, commission work?

Sorry, I forgot...

YES - they contacted me. I shot several images, some became a bit off topic regarding the "case" they wanted. I sorted out the best images (in my opinion) which where relevant to the case and sent them away to their photodesk by mail. In my mail I stated that if none of my images where "up to it" and unusable for them/their story - then they should call me back for new/other images (thus hinting that I had other pictures...) The next day my image was printed. My fee is based on the "assaignment" - and yes I will be payed fairly well.

[Jon]

As they said you own the rights, go for it!

[elkootcho]

Did the paper pay you? If they did, since they approached you about doing the shoot, it sounds more like "work for hire"

Actually, according to Circular 9 of the U.S. Copyright Act a "Work for Hire" requires that the photo be made "within the scope of his or her employment" OR there is a "written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire." Or course there are other factors at work but they specifically require a written agreement.

For those who don't have it, I highly suggest bookmarking http://www.copyright.gov and the Work For Hire circular can be found at this link. (http://search.loc.gov:8765/query.html?style=Copyright&col=loc&cn=Copyright&charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=url%3Awww.copyright.gov+url%3Alcweb.loc.gov%2Fc opyright&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=20&lk=1&rf=2&oq=&rq=0&si=0&qt=work+for+hire&go.x=11&go.y=11) It's the first "result" on the page.

Needless to say I am not a attorney so take the above with a grain of salt. Do your own research and speak with a lawyer, if needed.