Who Owns the Photos That I took at a casino tournament?

[andrewaaa5]

Hi,
I took about 1000 pictures at an international casino tournement.
I was paid a small fee to do the work and knew that there were likely to be used in several magazines the world over.

Nothing was agreed before hand as to who owns the pictures that I would take. So who owns them? I always thought the photographer owned them, but the organisers are saying that they should own the pictures as they paid me to do the work.

Any advise please greatly appreciated.

Andrew

[IndyJeff]

Work for hire, you lose, sorry about your luck but this is why you get things straight before you shoot, not after the fact. They will claim that you were hired as an employee to take the photos.

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Congratulations you have been taken by a casino, at more than just the blackjack table.

[Digital Prophet]

I don't agree. According to the copyright laws, as I understand them, photographers employeed on a contract basis mus have a contract that clearly states that the product is a "work for hire" product.

Now this is a very grey area.

• In reality there was a verbal understanding that you were operating as thier contract employee which does imply that you were under a work for hire agreement.
• But nothing was signed or agreed to before hand.

In reality I think there is one mitigating issue here. Did they get you access to areas you would have otherwise not had access to? By which I mean:

• Were you allowed up close to the table, more so than a normal spectator?
• Were you allowed behind the velvet ropes?
• Did you take shots that required personal interaction with the players that the normal spectator did not get?
• Were you given free admission?

If any of these things are true then you could say that you do not want to sell the photos, deny payment of services rendered and walk away. But you can't sell the shots anywhere else. The reason being that the organizers facilitated access you would have otherwise been denied. Ergo the shots, if not work for hire, would not exist.

But if NONE of the above is true, then you could deny payment and walk away. They could sue you, but it's not likely since it would have to be a federal lawsuit and those are very expensive. However, if they DID sue, you would be screwed because it would be expensive to defend. But the real factor in this situation is that you are going to be making a HORRID name for yourself in that market. And you had better believe that it will spread fast among professional even organizers.

I think you should try and negotiate North American First Print rights with them. That way you can enter these shots into your stock and portfolio library after a certain time. Otherwise, take the hit. Cash the check and chalk it up to life's little lessons. And be certain, ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, when you work for these people or similar groups to spell out who owns what.

- Digital Prophet -

[jgbeam]

Originally Posted by IndyJeff

So now lets see what kind of revenue did you miss out on? Cover shot? Maybe, full page shots? Possible, at least 1/4 page of several shots I am sure. Easy to figure you may have missed out on a low six figure pay day when it is all said and done.

Six figures!!!!? More than $100,000? Please break this down I'm ready for a career change if this is possible. 8)

Jim

[Vegas Poboy]

Everyone has a good point on thier views, but Jeff is correct on what ws agreed on the point of hire and remember Camera's is not allowed in Casino's unless authorized by the casino. You may have photos of areas they do not wish to be made public. They have alot more legal claim than you realize & more money to go to court. Try checking with the PPA & see if they will pass on any info to you.
Good Luck

[Digital Prophet]

Originally Posted by Vegas Poboy

... remember Camera's is not allowed in Casino's unless authorized by the casino.

I think that really sums it up. I hadn't even thought of that.

Looks like if you weren't thier employee that you would not have had access to take the shots. So the only market you have is to sell to them.

Tough one. But like I said. Sell now and work the better deal later. Also, maybe you can work it so that they retain copyright on the shots used and you can have the extras. But I doubt it.

- Digital Prophet -

[Belmondo]

If they really like you and your work, they'll ask you back. Hopefully then you'll be able to work out a better agreement in advance.

[timmyquest]

Originally Posted by belmondo

If they really like you and your work, they'll ask you back. Hopefully then you'll be able to work out a better agreement in advance.

I think it's best to just let this one go and learn from it.

[IndyJeff]

Originally Posted by jgbeam

Six figures!!!!? More than $100,000? Please break this down I'm ready for a career change if this is possible. 8)

Jim

Jim, I can't count. It should have been 5 figures. A job like that with multiple exposures in publications could bring in $12-15,000 easily.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Take the small fee,. and do it with a smile.

And re-negotiate next time



If you want to kick yourself.. do it out of site of your "employer".


The last thing you should do is burn any bridges so early on.

[defordphoto]

Originally Posted by IndyJeff

Jim, I can't count. It should have been 5 figures. A job like that with multiple exposures in publications could bring in $12-15,000 easily.

In a major publication yes, but in the Poker Quarterly? (made up name) No way.

And I do agree that more than likely the casino will own limited rights to the photos. The photographer will own the copyrights, but will also have limited rights of publication.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You could get $5K from one major casino's brochure photos... Don't you think?

It obviously would depend on how many photos they use and for what purposes.. circultion etc.. but around here the casinos post billboards on the highways etc... all for marketing.

Advertising pays big.

[IndyJeff]

And I do agree that more than likely the casino will own limited rights to the photos. The photographer will own the copyrights, but will also have limited rights of publication.

Not if it is a work for hire deal, which this seems to be. The casino owns the images outright.

Remember the fireman carrying the little girl after the Oklahoma City bombing? The gas company claimed the rights to the photos because the guy who took the picture was on the clock for the gas company at the time. I don't remember ever hearing how that came out but last I did hear, the gas company was winning in the courts and appeals.

[defordphoto]

Originally Posted by CyberDyneSystems

You could get $5K from one major casino's brochure photos... Don't you think?

It obviously would depend on how many photos they use and for what purposes.. circultion etc.. but around here the casinos post billboards on the highways etc... all for marketing.

Advertising pays big.

Maybe...Negotiating plays such a huge, huge part. In my early days I just dabbled for pay. Nothing worth mentioning.

However, since going digital and basically reinventing myself, the player has to pay or there is no play. I have negotiated hard and have not lost a one yet.

But, we always must remember to price our photos to the market. Las Vegas is huge potential, obviously, but you're also dealing (pun intended) with the best dealers (pun AGAIN intended) so the market may be flushed (last intended pun), and you'll again have to settle with the seller.

The advantage is that photos are one-of-a-kind. No one else has shot the exact photo that you have. I always say that if I lose that deal, they know I still have The Photo. I will always have The Photo.

It's an ownership thing...

[defordphoto]

Originally Posted by IndyJeff

Not if it is a work for hire deal, which this seems to be. The casino owns the images outright.

Remember the fireman carrying the little girl after the Oklahoma City bombing? The gas company claimed the rights to the photos because the guy who took the picture was on the clock for the gas company at the time. I don't remember ever hearing how that came out but last I did hear, the gas company was winning in the courts and appeals.

Yes, Jeff, you are correct, depending on the contract signed.

I have a similar contract with the company I work for that pretty much anything I create while under their employ, they own.

So, if Mount Saint Helens erupts while I am working, I'll "clock out" before shooting the photos.