i just shot for a magazine, who has rights to the pics

[DonJuanMair]

I just had 4 days in Chicago paid for by a magazine. No contracts were signed and I was told what to shoot. Now the shoot is finished I took a shot that a few people want to buy, although it will be featured inthe magazine I can still sell it right?

[DennisW1]

I just had 4 days in Chicago paid for by a magazine. No contracts were signed and I was told what to shoot. Now the shoot is finished I took a shot that a few people want to buy, although it will be featured inthe magazine I can still sell it right?

I shoot for a couple of motorsports magazines. I have a verbal "handshake" agreement with them that I'm shooting on spec., sending them a disk of images, and they pay me an agreed upon price per image per use. The rates per image depend on its size in the magazine, it it's a cover shot or a whole series for a feature article. I still retain the rights to the images and sell them to interested parties, and everyone is just fine with that arrangement.

I guess in your case it depends on what your agreement with the magazine is. If they're paying you up front to deliver a specific set of images that sounds more like they're expecting to be given rights to them, but without some sort of agreement between you and them I'm only guessing.

[Nightstalker]

The following may be helpful:


"Understanding Work for Hire

One of the most important copyright concepts for photographers is “work made for hire” and it’s one that many photographers do not fully understand.

A fundamental copyright principle is that copyright ownership originally belongs to the creator -- the person who fixes the work in tangible form. Generally, the person who clicks the camera shutter owns the initial copyright in the resulting photograph.

The major exception is if the photograph is a “work made for hire,” which can happen in two ways. First, if the person shooting the photograph is working within the scope of employment -- for example a newspaper’s employed staff photographer – the work will be a “work made for hire” owned by the corporation.

Second, a work may be a “work made for hire” if the photographer and the person ordering the work expressly agree in writing that that the photograph is a “work made for hire.” In such case, the photograph must also be “specially ordered or commissioned,” and must fit within one of the categories listed in Section 101 of the Copyright Act (a common category involving photographs is a contribution to a collective work such a magazine or newspaper). Because a court may find a work not to be a “work made for hire” even if that’s what the parties intended, a good “work made for hire” agreement will state that if the work is deemed not to be a “work made for hire,” the agreement will create an assignment of ownership from the photographer to the person ordering the work.

A trap may occur if a photographer does business through a corporation. In such case, the photographer must make sure that any copyright registration is consistent with how the business operates. For example, if a photographer takes “work made for hire” photographs as an employee of his/her corporation, the copyright registrations for such photos should indicate that the copyright is owned by the corporation. A court recently dismissed a photographer’s copyright infringement case because the copyright registration listed the photographer as owner when the work was a “work made for hire” and the corporation should have been listed. Morgan, Inc. v White Rock Distilleries, Inc., 230 F. Supp.2d 104 (D. Maine, 2002).

For more information on “work made for hire,” see United States Code, 17 United States Code Section 101, 201(b), Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 490 US 730, 104 "


I guess that from the above if you had nothing in writing then you still own the copyright although the magazine may also believe that they did if 6that was their intention.

[DonJuanMair]

good reading guys

thank you!

[chakalakasp]

I just had 4 days in Chicago paid for by a magazine. No contracts were signed and I was told what to shoot. Now the shoot is finished I took a shot that a few people want to buy, although it will be featured inthe magazine I can still sell it right?

How is it you do a four day shoot without a contract or agreement of any kind?

If the agreement was that they own the images, then they do. If it wasn't, then they don't. If you don't know what you agreed to, then you should have asked waaaay more questions before taking the job.

[ErikM]

Very cool website Ryan!

How is it you do a four day shoot without a contract or agreement of any kind?

If the agreement was that they own the images, then they do. If it wasn't, then they don't. If you don't know what you agreed to, then you should have asked waaaay more questions before taking the job.