Working for another photography business?

[dawssvt]

I currently shoot weddings as a part time gig. There is a photography studio in town that mostly shoots portraits and does some weddings. I'm looking for a job just to be able to pay the bills right now.

I think working for this studio could be good experience for me, but also think it could be counter-productive because they will have copyright of the pictures I take. I just love the idea of getting to work with a camera with both my day job and doing weddings on my own. What do you guys think of this?

[shooter mcgavin]

I'm sort of in the same boat as you right now, but I would say go for it. I shoot for a few wedding photographers as an occasional second, and I shoot for free for a local ministry regularly. I do this cheap/free work because I need experience, and it's definitely paying off. There is no better way to get into a business than to get involved with others who are in it. The one thing I would check on would be to see if they will allow you to use the pictures you take for your personal portfolio.

[dawssvt]

I'm sort of in the same boat as you right now, but I would say go for it. I shoot for a few wedding photographers as an occasional second, and I shoot for free for a local ministry regularly. I do this cheap/free work because I need experience, and it's definitely paying off. There is no better way to get into a business than to get involved with others who are in it. The one thing I would check on would be to see if they will allow you to use the pictures you take for your personal portfolio.

Thanks! I think I'm going to go talk to them tomorrow :D

[lara6470]

I thought that the actual person who took the image has the copyright.

[jen19806]

Mostly yes, but being an employee of someone else, barring some provision in your employment agreement, it would usually go to the employer, ie the studio.

[scobols]

I've heard of studios which don't allow you to work on the side if you work for them - sort of a non-compete agreement. You can imagine how easy it would be to steal their clients and offer them cheaper service.

Scott

[amfoto1]

I thought that the actual person who took the image has the copyright.

...Unless they are in the employ of someone else while taking the photos.

Then the employer generally owns the copyright. That would be when working as a "regular" employee whose duties include photography... and might also be the case for someone hired for a specific assignment, such as a second shooter at a wedding.

It will likely be spelled out in an agreement with them. Very few employers would hire in this manner without putting everything in writing. Look for terms like "work made for hire".

Usually you do have rights to display in your portfolio.

This is quite typical of newspaper/magazine staff photographers, wedding & portrait photogs, stringers for Associated Press, actually a very wide variety of situations where people are hired to do photography.

In many commercial types of photography, also expect to see some sort of "non compete" clause, which means you can't do the same type work on your own time in competition with your employer, within some defined market area, and for some set period of time after you leave their employ. This is another common sense protection that most business will want to have in place, for obvious reasons.

Usually the ownership of copyright doesn't apply to work made on your own time and the non-compete clause won't try to prevent you from picking up side jobs for other types of work, different from what the employer provides.

As to the original questions, there's a lot to be said about learning the business this way. It will give you a distinct advantage when you eventually go out on your own and you'll make a lot fewer expensive mistakes.

[lara6470]

What if I've never singned anything. I've shot for a few studios here in NYC and none of them have had me sign any agreements. Do I have the copyright?