Print without copyright release?

[laurenfitz]

I need some quick help. I had a couple come to me for photos and the gentleman asked me to do a few quick business head shots while he was here. His company now wants to use one of the photos in two major newspapers in their business sections to announce this man's promotion to a major position in the company.

I told him I was not sure if the papers would print the photos without some sort of copyright release from me. The company the man works for is being really pissy about it and claim they don't need a release from me and why does it matter anyway because I wouldn't make money off the photo (meanwhile, the company did not hire me, the employee did, so I have no agreement with them whatsoever.)

I'm just trying to do things legally. I don't know if this would be considered a photo for editorial purposes (which may not need a release) or something else, and I cannot get the editors of the publications to respond to my e-mails.

Any ideas of what I should do?

[eigga]

talk to a lawyer...

[NYC2BGI]

It sounds like no big deal to me. Just let them print the picture and save a few copies of
the newspapers. You can show all potential clients that you shot pictures that the newspapers used.

[RDKirk]

Unless you specifically and in writing transferred copyright to the client, you still own it. You still have the right to dictate how the image is used--the client owns no usage license beyond what you sold him.

Moreover, the newspaper very well understands that fact; they may print the pictures on the word of the client that he owns the right to use it, but in fact, he doesn't unless you have given it to him. BTW, the term "release" does not apply to copyright. Usage is "licensed," copyright is "owned" or "transferred."

All of what I've said is true of any nation that is a signatory of the Berne Convention. If you are in the US, you should to register your copyright with the government right away to defend it in court. It's not difficult or expensive. See www.copyright.gov. Other countries have different rules about whether and how your copyright must be registered to be defended in court.

Canada is a bit different--by Canadian law, the client owns the copyright unless it is specifically transferred to the photographer.

Copyright is not the same thing as a model release. While you own the copyright, you do not have the permission of the model to use the image commercially without the model's release. That's not at issue here, though.

[jblaschke]

What was your agreement with the gentleman originally? Seems like if he was getting business head shots made, then it would be for this specific purpose--to have a file photo on hand for news releases, use on the company website, etc.

Ideally, a limited license for this kind of use should've been included in your original contract. From an ethical standpoint, I'm inclined to allow the gentleman the use of the image for this, since that usage seems implied by virtue of the original photo shoot. However, I'm DISinclined to allow the company use of the image, since they seem to be bullying jerks that know good and well you own the copyright and are trying to browbeat you into giving them something for free that they know they should pay for.