Helping Another Photographer Out. Do I have any Copyright "rights"?

[bergenjente]

Hey guys. I'm helping another photographer out with a wedding they are shooting. The photographer has told me that she will retain copyright of any pictures I take, and will used to promote her company. This is a little bit of a favor to her, but she is also paying me a small amount to help her out (I am a photographer myself and have my own business. We typically refer clients to one another when we are booked.). Do I have any rights to the pictures I take? Or is this pretty typical for someone who is payed to help another photographer out? I just want to make sure I do everything correctly. Thanks guys!

[BestVisuals]

The legal truth of the matter is that YOU retain copyright to the image if you are holding the camera and click the shutter. What usually happens is that the primary photographer has the requirement that you assign copyright to them as part of your employment. Should you fail to have a written contract with the primary photographer then YOU have the copyright.

Your behavior at this point is an ethical question. If you are truly "helping out" your friend and they have made it clear that they want the copyright, then you should sign a document assigning copyright to them. The photos you take will not be owned by you and cannot be used to promote your portfolio, sorry. You should make all this clear to your friend before you show up at the event.

For the photographers out there that hire friends to help them, beware. If you don't have a clear contract conveying copyright of your assistant's photos to you, then your assistant has you by the CF cards.

[syntrix]

She might retain legal rights to the images (and usage), as long as that is in the contract. Copyright requires filing with the government.

[dlpasco]

Copyright usually does belong to the person taking the photo unless that person is working as a photographer in the employ of someone. In that case, copyright belongs to the employer.

Also, copyright requires no filing with anyone.

(I am not an attorney. Just search for "photographers rights")

[syntrix]

Copyright usually does belong to the person taking the photo unless that person is working as a photographer in the employ of someone. In that case, copyright belongs to the employer.

Also, copyright requires no filing with anyone.

(I am not an attorney. Just search for "photographers rights")



Research: http://www.copyright.gov/

Please report, yay!

[BscPhoto]

I allow my employee to retain all rights to his photos with the stipulation that I can (if I ever choose to) use his photos to promote my company and any where he displays his work he must credit BSCphoto.com
I've also sat down with him and explained, to what extent the rights we as photographers are. How he can not sell any pictures of people with out a model release.

In your case I would say that you have the rights to use your photos in your portfolio but have no rights to money made off your photos through her company

[BestVisuals]

Absolutely not true...being in the employ of another person does NOT grant you copyright. Doubt me? Call the PPA and ask. Without a contract that specifically assigns copyright to the primary photographer, the actual picture taker owns the image. Anyone attending a Gary Fong seminar has heard the copyright horror stories he has. His famous phrase: "My contract with the bride is one page; my contract with my assitant is seven pages".

You're correct that you do not have to file anything to own the copyright.

If you (the primary photographer) do not have an absolutely accurate way to PROVE which photos you took and which your assistant took, you're in deep doo-doo should the assitant start pulling copyright on you.

Copyright usually does belong to the person taking the photo unless that person is working as a photographer in the employ of someone. In that case, copyright belongs to the employer.

Also, copyright requires no filing with anyone.

(I am not an attorney. Just search for "photographers rights")

[BestVisuals]

Explaining your intent means nothing...a written contract is all that matters. I would also caution you that you should NOT allow your assitant to use the images they take for any purpose.

Be aware that whatever advertising agreement you may have with your client (i.e., the bride) is all-encompassing. That means that if your assistant puts a photo they took at the event on a billboard, or uses it in a magazine, or puts it someplace your bride doesn't like it, YOU are liable. Also be aware that if they take a racy photo (bride getting dressed, adjusting a bra, etc.) and publish it, you're in BIG trouble.

All my assistants turned over their CF cards to me and never saw their photos again. I told them I was sorry, but that's the way it had to be.

I allow my employee to retain all rights to his photos with the stipulation that I can (if I ever choose to) use his photos to promote my company and any where he displays his work he must credit BSCphoto.com
I've also sat down with him and explained, to what extent the rights we as photographers are. How he can not sell any pictures of people with out a model release.

In your case I would say that you have the rights to use your photos in your portfolio but have no rights to money made off your photos through her company

[BscPhoto]

I actually include a model release with my wedding contracts just to cover me for the bride and the groom. So any photo I take with bride, groom or both are mine to publish, print and sell as I please. I do this due the the contributions I make to certain magazines and websites in CT.

[BestVisuals]

Excellent precaution; I, too, have it in my contract that I am allowed to use the images to promote my business. Be aware, however, that it doesn't take much to get yourself sued. For example, one pro photographer sold a wedding image to a frame company that used it as the "dummy" image in a frame (notice how picture frames always have a pre-printed photo in them?) and the bride & groom saw their wedding photo in a frame at Target. They certainly did not intend their wedding photos to be in every Target in the country and sued. I don't know the outcome but I'm betting it wasn't great for the photographer.

The rule is: if you're sued, even if you win, YOU LOSE.
I actually include a model release with my wedding contracts just to cover me for the bride and the groom. So any photo I take with bride, groom or both are mine to publish, print and sell as I please. I do this due the the contributions I make to certain magazines and websites in CT.

[zagiace]

This is very typical.
I have worked with other photographers and as a "Courtesy" I will ASK permission to use any shot I took for portfolio or advertising. There is almost never an issue. Occasionally the other photographer will not want me to use the images and that is fine with me. Keep in mind you do not have an agreement/contract with the couple. Regardless of how you interpret the copyright issue those images are useless to you unless you acquire a model release.
If there is a written agreement for work made for hire the copyright belongs to the contractor of the job.

[dlpasco]

Research: http://www.copyright.gov/

Please report, yay!

Using your link, the primary reason to register a work is:

Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation

Unregistered works are still protected but your ability to collect damages in court will be limited.

[dlpasco]

Absolutely not true...being in the employ of another person does NOT grant you copyright. Doubt me? Call the PPA and ask. Without a contract that specifically assigns copyright to the primary photographer, the actual picture taker owns the image. Anyone attending a Gary Fong seminar has heard the copyright horror stories he has. His famous phrase: "My contract with the bride is one page; my contract with my assitant is seven pages".

You're correct that you do not have to file anything to own the copyright.

If you (the primary photographer) do not have an absolutely accurate way to PROVE which photos you took and which your assistant took, you're in deep doo-doo should the assitant start pulling copyright on you.

I don't know about other countries but in the US:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

Here is a relevant excerpt:

Although the general rule is that the person who creates a work is the author of that work, there is an exception to that principle: the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer, and not the employee, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual.

[amfoto1]

Hi,

It is quite common practice for any 2nd shooter at a wedding (at least in the US) to be doing the job under a 'work for hire' agreement. This means the employer (primary photog) owns the copyright.

This is what several of the previous responses above mean, in essence.

There are other ways to structure this, but the agreement usually allows the 2nd shooter to use their images in portfolios, but not sell them for any reason. The primary shooter retains all rights, which allows them to produce prints, CDs, post them online, etc., on behalf of their clients, or to make any other usages permitted in the contract the primary shooter signed with their clients.

This simply prevents a 2nd shooter from upstaging the primary person who signed the contract with (and has all the responsibility to) the hiring parties, as well as improper usage of the images after the fact (such as commercial usage without signed model releases, etc.).

You really, really, really should have a signed, detailed, written agreement with the primary shooter, spelling all this out in detail. Anything less is unprofessional practice on the part of both photogs and simply asking for trouble, grief and confusion down the road. Sit down over a cup of coffee and hammer something out well before the wedding.

In the case where there's no written agreement signed by both photogs - i.e. a verbal agreement that's for all practical purposes impossible to prove - I suspect most courts would go with common practice, which in the case of 2nd shooters at weddings in the US is 'work for hire' with all rights retained by the employer. So, if you ever hope to display the images in your portfolio, you had better get something in writing.

Oh, and you should also get a copy of the primary photog's contract with the clients. That should have guidelines on photo usage, too. It probably spells out whether or not you are free to use the photos in your portfolio, in print and/or on the Internet, or for purposes of self-promotion.

I'm not a lawyer, just a photographer.

[bergenjente]

okay, you guys have been great. Very good info. I think I will just let this one go, and allow her to retain copyright, as much as I TRULY hate to let any of my pics go. ugh. I just want to make sure I do everything with absolute integrity, so all of your replies were much appreciated. Thanks!

[BestVisuals]

Dan,
You will find that photography is a different matter and copyright ownership of the shooter has been challenged in court, to the success of the shooter. Attend a Gary Fong seminar and listen to his famous celeb photographer story - an assitant under the hire of the photog took his own photos during the gig and ownership of the images was ANYTHING but decided.

It goes without saying that the cost of even a successful defense in court is so prohibitive that you lose regardless of the outcome. Better to make copyright transfer as part of the explicit employment contract rather than HOPE you don't get challenged by your assistant.

I don't know about other countries but in the US:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

Here is a relevant excerpt:

[dlpasco]

I don't want to seem argumentative, I'm just trying to understand myself. And - I'm not an attorney.

I agree with you that an explicit agreement is best.

The distinction seems to be "work for hire". A person is hired to paint cars. During breaks (while the paint is drying) that person takes some photos. The copyright belongs to the photographer because taking photos was not part of his/her normal duties as an employee.

I am a software developer in the employ of a corporation. Any software I write while in the employ of that corporation belongs to that corporation. That seems natural but I had to sign an agreement at the start of my employ. That's just good sense. Any photos I take belong to me ;)

Dan,
You will find that photography is a different matter and copyright ownership of the shooter has been challenged in court, to the success of the shooter. Attend a Gary Fong seminar and listen to his famous celeb photographer story - an assitant under the hire of the photog took his own photos during the gig and ownership of the images was ANYTHING but decided.

It goes without saying that the cost of even a successful defense in court is so prohibitive that you lose regardless of the outcome. Better to make copyright transfer as part of the explicit employment contract rather than HOPE you don't get challenged by your assistant.

[zagiace]

Work for hire only applies in a written agreement. With out a written agreement a court is forced to decide whether the relationship falls under a employee/ employer or Contractor/ Contracted. Considering that there is surely a contract between the original "Hired" photographer and the couple I would hesitate before challenging.
Just because I can take a picture of a great painting I seen at the art show does not give me copyright to the work.
Take a picture of Mickey Mouse and sell a million mugs with the image on it and you are going to here from a few lawyers.
In the analogy of the car painting, If the painting on the car is an original art piece that the employer has commissioned you to create under a work for hire or employee/ employer agreement you cannot photograph and reproduce it unconditionally.
BTW, I would no more take legal advice from Gary Fong then I would some nobody (me included lol) who posted on a forum, check our the copyright website. I

IMO it is better to create a working professional relationship.

[amccomis]

If the 2nd shooter was hired specifically for shooting at the event, the photos are the employer (main shooter's) property and copyright is assigned to the main guy. A written "work for hire" statement will back this up, but even without the agreement (which I don't suggest), the situation is very clear - the 2nd guy, who is a photographer, and doesn't normally shoot with the 1st guy, being hired to work with the 1st guy - that's a clear-cut case of work for hire.

I'm not privvy to the specifics of the situation, but the O/P could ask for shared copyright, or at least the right to include the works in the O/P's portfolio. O/P should NOT expect to have a sit down with the bride/groom though.

[amccomis]

BTW, I would no more take legal advice from Gary Fong then I would some nobody (me included lol) who posted on a forum, check our the copyright website. .

True... but Gary does win most of his cases. (I haven't seen one where he didn't win.) He can't be making all of it up.

[Tixeon]

I don't know about other countries but in the US:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html

"Here is a relevant excerpt: Although the general rule is that the person who creates a work is the author of that work, there is an exception to that principle: the copyright law defines a category of works called “works made for hire.” If a work is “made for hire,” the employer, and not the employee, is considered the author. The employer may be a firm, an organization, or an individual".

Is this possibly why wedding couples thought/think they owned the negatives...and now digital files? Would that make them the employer & us photographers the employee? :confused:

[weezerfan84]

Excellent precaution; I, too, have it in my contract that I am allowed to use the images to promote my business. Be aware, however, that it doesn't take much to get yourself sued. For example, one pro photographer sold a wedding image to a frame company that used it as the "dummy" image in a frame (notice how picture frames always have a pre-printed photo in them?) and the bride & groom saw their wedding photo in a frame at Target. They certainly did not intend their wedding photos to be in every Target in the country and sued. I don't know the outcome but I'm betting it wasn't great for the photographer.

The rule is: if you're sued, even if you win, YOU LOSE.

How would you be able to stop this issue. It sounds more like there's a lot of grey matter than just black and white. I would believe that when the contract is signed between the bride and groom they also get to use which images they want to use and which images they want to throw away. It's almost like they are signing their rights away, until they see that they could have made some money. No different then signing a waiver in a hospital and then suing on behalf of wrongful injury or death. It really seems a catch 22 and yes, the phtographer could and should protect themselves first and foremost, but it seems if your client wants to push the envelope they can. You can only do so much before you don't even want to do the shoot at all, because it feels you have no freedom of composing your images.