lara6470 wrote in post #8953434
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.