Who has the rights?

[LeesaB]

I basically know the answer to this question, but I'm anxious to see your take on it.

Recently I did a gym event for Company X, this was the second time I've shot for them and I've never signed a paper agreement.

Last time I asked to keep a few of my images, just to blog about the event and to just keep. This time I did the same thing, on the 2nd day I was told Company X did not allow the togs to take them home.

I said why? X responded... I don't want you to sell them... I responded Of course I would not. I blog about it and I even link to you and talk about you. X responded.where and proceeded to look it up.

Long story shorter, he sees my watermark and says "see this is the problem" I said why? I took the images and I don't want people to steal them from the web. X responded again, well, in that case, I'll have to hold all the images. I responded, fine, then I won't blog about you (my blog has high traffic). He basically said he did not care about that and earlier said he did not care about marketing (this is obvious to his horrid attempt at these events)

He said I did not understand ethics, I said he did not understand business!

What say ye?

So, who has the rights? Company X or myself.

[John the Geek]

Were you paid? If so he might (by a very long stretch) have grounds to claim a verbal contract.

Otherwise, they're yours.

[MJPhotos24]

He said/she said in verbal "contracts".

You have no written contract stating who owns the images, so you own them until signing them over. However, you have no proof of this because you don't have the originals which was a big mistake. Honestly, sounds like very poor planning on both ends.

[John the Geek]

He said/she said in verbal "contracts".

You have no written contract stating who owns the images, so you own them until signing them over. However, you have no proof of this because you don't have the originals which was a big mistake. Honestly, sounds like very poor planning on both ends.

I took care of that by embedding my name and copyright into the camera. Places it into every digital file it outputs. As long as we're arguing over the original data files, I'll have the edge.

[RDKirk]

Recently I did a gym event for Company X, this was the second time I've shot for them and I've never signed a paper agreement.

If you are in the US, then terms of copyright, you own the copyright, period. There is zero debate on that. There are only three ways anyone else can own the copyright and all of them require paperwork. No verbal agreement can transfer copyright from the creator. You can check here for some more information. It's a very easy to read document: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

The only other people who have any legal rights are the subjects in the images, whose permission you must have to use the images in any commercial manner, including a website or blog that advertises your services as a photographer.

Nobody else has any legal right to ownership or usage of the images. I said "legal" right. You may or may not need to maintain good working relations with this person, and that will guide you in how seriously you want to press the issue. If he has physical possession of all copies of the images, then you do have a tactical problem. Otherwise, he has no cards in his hand.

[LeesaB]

Were you paid? If so he might (by a very long stretch) have grounds to claim a verbal contract.

Otherwise, they're yours.

Yes I was paid. but, there was never a verbal agreement as to who was what or anything.

[LeesaB]

He said/she said in verbal "contracts".

You have no written contract stating who owns the images, so you own them until signing them over. However, you have no proof of this because you don't have the originals which was a big mistake. Honestly, sounds like very poor planning on both ends.

For me, it does not matter, I was helping out a friend who works for X, I won't be using them for anything just like to see my work and how I did. But when it came down to it, I did not think ethics won over business. It was my last time shooting for him, I did what I said I would do and we shook hands and ended it there. I'm not a sports tog, I dabble because of my son and helping out a friend.

I posted just to see others responses, it's interesting that so many have opinions but no one really knows. I include myself in that as well.

since, I've found the answer.... but wanted to see everyone's responses since we all need to be more educated in exacts and not opinions. Opinions and Ethics mean nothing, law and business do.

[LeesaB]

If you are in the US, then terms of copyright, you own the copyright, period. There is zero debate on that. There are only three ways anyone else can own the copyright and all of them require paperwork. No verbal agreement can transfer copyright from the creator. You can check here for some more information. It's a very easy to read document: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

The only other people who have any legal rights are the subjects in the images, whose permission you must have to use the images in any commercial manner, including a website or blog that advertises your services as a photographer.

Nobody else has any legal right to ownership or usage of the images. I said "legal" right. You may or may not need to maintain good working relations with this person, and that will guide you in how seriously you want to press the issue. If he has physical possession of all copies of the images, then you do have a tactical problem. Otherwise, he has no cards in his hand.


Ahhhh and I spoke too soon....DING DING DING... this is it. Thank you!

[asysin2leads]

There are only a few states that accept verbal agreements, but it is VERY hard to prove either side in those incidences. Legally, you own the images, PERIOD. You have the right to do with them what you will. Blog about them if you want. You're well within your rights to do so. This is another reason I embed a crap-load of copyright information into my images.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Lest us not forget work for hire. It's an easier thing (than a verbal agreement ) for the event organizer to prove in court and if he/she does, he/she is the copyrighter owner.

[Tommy]

Lest us not forget work for hire. It's an easier thing (than a verbal agreement ) for the event organizer to prove in court and if he/she does, he/she is the copyrighter owner.

First of all, I'm not a lawyer... lol... But from my understanding, if it were work for hire, there would either need to be a contract stating so, or she would need to have been paid through the normal payroll as an employee.... Otherwise, there is nothing stating the she is EMPLOYED by Company X, but rather an independent contractor.

And I second RDKirk's post...

Lastly, anyone that wants to question my ethics would get an ear full!!! lol... :D They obviously don't understand ownership and copyrights... haha...

[asysin2leads]

Lest us not forget work for hire. It's an easier thing (than a verbal agreement ) for the event organizer to prove in court and if he/she does, he/she is the copyrighter owner.

Work for hire agreements must be in writing.

[IUnknown]

I took care of that by embedding my name and copyright into the camera. Places it into every digital file it outputs. As long as we're arguing over the original data files, I'll have the edge.

How does this work? Can't you just delete the exif information? There is no way to password protect/lock the copyright field is there?

[spikeystitch]

How does this work? Can't you just delete the exif information? There is no way to password protect/lock the copyright field is there?

This may be correct but how many non-photog's would know how to change it?

[dmp-potn]

Hi,

...since, I've found the answer.... but wanted to see everyone's responses since we all need to be more educated in exacts and not opinions. Opinions and Ethics mean nothing, law and business do.

Is there anything more to the answer that you found than the fact that law and business trump opinions and ethics?

[asysin2leads]

This may be correct but how many non-photog's would know how to change it?

Yes, there are programs out there that strips the EXIF data from an image. You're right, most people wouldn't know how to use it.

[IUnknown]

Yes, there are programs out there that strips the EXIF data from an image. You're right, most people wouldn't know how to use it.

Can't you just open it up in lightroom and change it there?

[dovaka]

there yours and you can do whatever you want with them. i have a feeling you wont do much work for them anymore but if you do i would highly recommend getting everything in writing from now on

[dovaka]

Can't you just open it up in lightroom and change it there?

yea but as he said most people wouldnt have that program or even know what exif is in the first place for that matter

[Naturalist]

Unless you signed rights away, or are working by the hour for the company as their employee, then all rights remain with the photographer. You need to clarify this ASAP.

[strmrdr]

careful here, while you own the images you may also not own any rights to use them.
The event owners can claim copyright on anything that occurs there blocking you from doing anything with the images which you own.
(NFL and other pro sports use this)

[asysin2leads]

careful here, while you own the images you may also not own any rights to use them.
The event owners can claim copyright on anything that occurs there blocking you from doing anything with the images which you own.
(NFL and other pro sports use this)

Chances are if Company X (as the OP put it) didn't put a "contract" in writing w/ the photographer, then they wouldn't have a clause like that in place.

[Andrushka]

Chances are if Company X (as the OP put it) didn't put a "contract" in writing w/ the photographer, then they wouldn't have a clause like that in place.

haha - Leesa, were you shooting the Super Bowl?? :D

[asysin2leads]

haha - Leesa, were you shooting the Super Bowl?? :D

Dangit! I miss all the opportunities.:D

[MJPhotos24]

I took care of that by embedding my name and copyright into the camera. Places it into every digital file it outputs. As long as we're arguing over the original data files, I'll have the edge.
They can delete that with one click.

[RDKirk]

The event owners can claim copyright on anything that occurs there blocking you from doing anything with the images which you own.
(NFL and other pro sports use this)

They can't copyright an event that hasn't happened--only works that have been put into a tangible form can be copyrighted...after the fact of the recording.

They can closely guard access to the event, they can require contracts that closely restrict use of recordings, they can require contracts that give them copyright of any recordings, they can force contracts that give them exclusive rights, they can enforce trademark restrictions for every corporate symbol that appears on every player.

But they can't copyright an event that hasn't happened.

[John the Geek]

They can delete that with one click.

You can delete EXIF data from a CR2 file without it appearing to be modified since it was created?

No, not just anyone can do that.

[MJPhotos24]

You can delete EXIF data from a CR2 file without it appearing to be modified since it was created?

No, not just anyone can do that.

EXIF can be deleted easy - the date it says it was modified would appear so you'd need the absolute originals. If they copied them and threw out the CD they'd be modified. So you'd need the exact originals. VERRRRY rarely will I give out originals, even the ones I do go through a batch that changes them ever so slightly.

[AEImages]

I took care of that by embedding my name and copyright into the camera. Places it into every digital file it outputs. As long as we're arguing over the original data files, I'll have the edge.

How exactly can I do that? I have a 40D. Thanks in advance.

[John the Geek]

If your camera supports it, you can do it through the EOS Utility while the camera is attached to the computer. It's been a while since I did it, so Google may offer you more info.

[AEImages]

If your camera supports it, you can do it through the EOS Utility while the camera is attached to the computer. It's been a while since I did it, so Google may offer you more info.

Thank you, I will see if it supports it.

[sfaust]

VERRRRY rarely will I give out originals, even the ones I do go through a batch that changes them ever so slightly.

Whats the purpose of changing them slightly? I.e., what does that accomplish?

[Alleh]

How do they have the original images? Were you paid?

Someone else already stated the law so no need to go into it.

[EveryMilesAMemory]

So you're saying you gave them the originals? Did the guy hand you the CF Cards to use? How does he have them and you dont even have a copy of them?

I shot an event for someone one time and they handed us photographers the CF Cards to use and we had to hand them right to one of their representatives out of our camera.

Normally I carry my Epson P-5000 with me to make a quick copy, but this time the second you were done shooting, you had to hand one of their reps the CF card and they handed you a clean one.

Other wise, I dont see how you dont have a copy of them or at least the originals

[LeesaB]

haha - Leesa, were you shooting the Super Bowl?? :D

:-) nope, just an gym event!

[LeesaB]

So you're saying you gave them the originals? Did the guy hand you the CF Cards to use? How does he have them and you dont even have a copy of them?

I shot an event for someone one time and they handed us photographers the CF Cards to use and we had to hand them right to one of their representatives out of our camera.

Normally I carry my Epson P-5000 with me to make a quick copy, but this time the second you were done shooting, you had to hand one of their reps the CF card and they handed you a clean one.

Other wise, I dont see how you dont have a copy of them or at least the originals

I had no idea people were even responding to this, so, my bad. I apologize for not responding.

It was a gymnastics event, we shot, handed our cards during the event (8 rotations) every rotation he took and card and deleted them after he uploaded them. When he saw me taking the last card and uploading them, that is when push came to shove and as he put it "handle everything like adults" I did, and I won't be working for him again, but that was already decided before this event. The sad things is.. he has no idea what my blogging about him could have done for him, or even mentioning his name here, in good terms. He's not a good business man and to be honest I doubt highly his business will be around next year.

I could go on, but no need, I do agree with most in this thread the images were mine and the other shooters and business and ethics are not one in the same.

I'm not hurt or wounded about the event, trust me I walked away with images *carried a card in my pocket* I do plan on blogging about it but more on my business side of the blog not the one my clients read!

Thanks for responding......

[sfaust]

Regardless of who has physical possession of the originals, it doesn't change who owns the copyright in the least.

[RDKirk]

Regardless of who has physical possession of the originals, it doesn't change who owns the copyright in the least.

No, it does not. Back in "the film days," commercial photographers commonly delivered their original transparencies to the client, yet the photographer still had the copyright.

If any of those images are available to you in any format, such as on their website, you have the right to download the image and submit it to the copyright office (you can do it completely online for $35 a bunch).

[sfaust]

No, it does not. Back in "the film days," commercial photographers commonly delivered their original transparencies to the client, yet the photographer still had the copyright.

If any of those images are available to you in any format, such as on their website, you have the right to download the image and submit it to the copyright office (you can do it completely online for $35 a bunch).

I believe that's exactly what I said? By law the photographer owns the copyright the moment he takes the image. Who has possession of the digital images, negatives, etc, doesn't change that ownership.

I've spend many years in the "film days", far more than I care to mention ;)

[RDKirk]

I believe that's exactly what I said? By law the photographer owns the copyright the moment he takes the image. Who has possession of the digital images, negatives, etc, doesn't change that ownership.

I've spend many years in the "film days", far more than I care to mention ;)

I was agreeing with you. I guess I should have said, "Yes, it does not."

[sfaust]

Ah yea, reading it again its one of those statements that goes both ways doesn't it?

[HappySnapper90]

I took care of that by embedding my name and copyright into the camera. Places it into every digital file it outputs. As long as we're arguing over the original data files, I'll have the edge.

EXIF data can easily be stripped out, which means no traces of your copyright. :oops:

[LeesaB]

I tend to agree... photographer holds the rights until they are given away.

just nice to know. He was a moron anyways... won't get into that.. but one day I might LOL