A freelance question!!!

[themadcow]

I have a legal question about "freelance" photography..

If I was paid to take photo's at a high school football super bowl.. they have all the images that I took to sell... I kept a copy of the images for myself..
Do I have the right to post those photo's with my water mark on them? If I was paid to take those photo's are they my photo's or there's? Who would retain the copyright? Can I post those phot's anywhere I want as long as I am not compensated?

[Patrick]

What does your contract read?

If you were hired, you weren't freelance.

[themadcow]

was not me .. so I have no idea on the contract... he said he was hired to take the photo's..he gave up the right to sell any images.. but he posted them with his water mark saying that they were his images.. just like freelance..?? Doesn't make any sense to me which is why I am asking.. he didn't answer yet .. so I figured I would just ask.. If you give up the rights to sell an image isn't that like giving up all right's to an image?..I would also assume that because it is a championship that he would not have any rights with the venue or the players ??

[MJPhotos24]

A) Where did this happen as laws differ

B) I just shot an event like this for a site selling the images. They paid me to go shoot, paid some expenses, etc. They do not own the rights to my images - only the right to sell prints and I get most of the money earned from those sales. Just because you're paid to shoot an event freelance does not mean you're handing over all your rights - just the ones that you agreed to, if any. The only way the rights are transferred is if you are a "work for hire" or doing it as a full time job (i.e. a newspaper photographer by contract usually does not own the rights, their paper does). You can also sign over the rights but have to state it's for all rights. Plenty of photographers have a fee just to show up, the actual images are extra.

If you were a work for hire or employee then it depends on what the contract says, but for the most part you'd need their approval as they own the rights under those two categories.

[themadcow]

thank you I see how it can be different depending on the circumstance..

[canonnoob]

okay so he is asking about what i happen to do quite often for a company that covers all of the high school state championships in Missouri. I cover events for them, they pay me, end of deal- no contract, I am not a staffer. The question involved in the conversation was (and I am going to paraphrase) "Isnt it wrong for you to have your watermark on the images if they paid you to shoot the event even though they are selling the images?"

short answer: no.

Long answer: no. as MJ said it all depends on the agreement between the freelancer and the company that you work for. In my case, There is no reason for them to own the rights to the files, other than to sell them. Since They paid me to provide the photos, that is the end of my deal, the file's copyright still lay in my hands, but because I freelanced for them to provide images for them to sell, I can not sell those images. It would be double dipping essentially if I would do that.

[themadcow]

seems to me that if you have no contract with them.. Then you could sell the images yourself.. I hope at the very least they give you the credit for taking the photo's... afterall they are your images not there's!!..

[canonnoob]

seems to me that if you have no contract with them.. Then you could sell the images yourself.. I hope at the very least they give you the credit for taking the photo's... afterall they are your images not there's!!..

me not having a contract with them does not mean i can sell them. it simply means that i dont have a contract.. lol. They have the exclusive rights to sell the photos considering thats what I was paid for. I was paid to provide photos for them to sell.. simple really. now, since they have the exclusive rights to sell (through MSHAA) i cant sell. not saying I would or should, but I cant.

[MJPhotos24]

Some states have an exclusive - for example in CA and NY nobody but MaxPreps.com can sell prints because they paid a pretty penny for that right. If someone else is they are going to be told by the state to remove them immediately (people are busted all the time). This means the photographer is not allowed to sell prints either on their personal site but still owns all the rights and can sell them editorially speaking.

So yea, you can own the rights but not be allowed to sell prints because of other deals in place that really don't have anything to do with you.