Ethical question regarding pictures taken at event

This came up a couple of weeks ago at an event and may come up again this week, and I'd like to be better prepared. I'm hired (by the hour) to shoot a corporate event. There are well-known politicians there. My primary focus is to get shots of certain corporate executives, including those with the politicians. While I'm shooting and have everything covered that I was supposed to get, I grab more shots of the politicians. Some of these are quite good. I was chatting with the PR person for one of the politicians last time, and she said, hey, if you get any good photos of so-and-so, let me know. I didn't. I simply made all the photos available to the client who hired me for the event.

I'm under no contract for these events. I'm just paid by the hour and told what photos to make sure I get. But I'm on their dime while I'm shooting, and it feels wrong to be taking pictures for my own interest, even though there's no stipulation about that. I am likely to get some good shots of a certain senator this week, and I might once again get asked by the PR person about pictures. Are there issues with me providing photos of just the senator to them? Obviously, I wouldn't have this opportunity to shoot these pictures if I wasn't hired to shoot the event. Thanks.

are they paying you enough for you to be satisfied for shooting only for them?

if not, and if there's nothing saying you can't shoot for other clients, then i'd go ahead and do it.

If you are fulfilling all the terms you agreed to with the people who are paying you by the hour, and are delivering everything they want you to deliver, and you have free time available to go after photos for your own interests, then I see no issue.

Now, if you taking photos of stuff that interests you and not what you are being paid for starts impacting on the photos you do deliver to the people paying you, then obviously there is a problem. As long as that isn't the case, then I doubt anyone will mind.

Grab the opportunity as long as it doesn't get in the way of the stuff you are being paid for!

it sounds like your agreement is a little vague. It may not rule out shooting other pictures/subjects, but it also probably doesn't allow for it either.

the professional thing to do is make sure everything is understood and agreed to on the front end.

You could always ask the company who is hiring you (whom you wouldn't be at the event without) to shoot the event if they mind that you provide a couple of shots of the Senator, to him directly.

At the end of the day, if it's not written in contract, you just have to do what you think is best... and right for you. ... as long as you can sleep at night

I can't see any legal reason not to do the extra sales., however you asked for ethical, which I take to mean that you don't want to upset the original client.

Nobody on this forum knows the relationship, or the agreement, between the two of you, or how the client will feel about this. So how can we give you a "correct" answer for your specific case.

Don't ask us if it would be OK with your client, ask THEM. Just contact your original client and tell them the situation and ask if they are OK with you doing the extra work. So long as it doesn't affect the output you do for them, they are probably going to be fine about it. But they are the only one(s) who can answer your question, we don't have enough information.

This should give you some idea for a starting point.
http://asmp.org …als/copyright-primer.html

I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I have no WMFH; I talked with the people that hired me and put in that location. What I submit to them to meet their requirements, they have exclusivity in regard to commercial use, any other use of those images is permissible, any other frame I take beyond that is mine to do as I please.

Of course they still refuse to put together a proper written contract, so every time I hit murky waters it's up and down the chain of command; and the answer in writing. Instead of going into it blindly, I do a little research on the industry standards, then make contact. It helps me to know what ground I have stand on before contacting them. For a truly long term solution, get them to put a contract on paper for you that spells everything out; it makes life so much clearer and more black and white, however depending upon your client, the idea of a written contract may pose an issue.

Oh and if the same people are there, and still express interest, you could always show them what you got, explain why you can't sell them those images, but here is your card and you would be happy to go work another event for them, and build up another client.

If you are getting paid by the hour, I would think that would default to a work for hire agreement even if no contract was signed. All rights could potentially be owned by the company hiring you. Dealing with politicians and people in a high position of power I would make things very clear in writing what you are or are not allowed to do with the photos. Even taking photos of your own personal interest, if on the clock, they may not be your photos to give.

cory1848 wrote in post #16426017
If you are getting paid by the hour, I would think that would default to a work for hire agreement even if no contract was signed. All rights could potentially be owned by the company hiring you. Dealing with politicians and people in a high position of power I would make things very clear in writing what you are or are not allowed to do with the photos. Even taking photos of your own personal interest, if on the clock, they may not be your photos to give.

To use an analage *sp?* when a client hires me for an hour to take pictures, they dont own the copyrights, they then buy what they want, on a picture by picture basis.

For me this applies here to. You are there to take pictures but you only deliver what they paid the rights for. You still own the copyright to all the images, and if the politicians are interested in the pictures and want to pay you for them then that is your right.

Now if you had a contract that said they own everything taken at the event for such and such, then that would be different.

At least that is my basic understanding of the American rules of copyright.

Having spent more years than I care to remember shooting politicians at various events I have to say that the likelihood that they would purchase any of the shots from you is pretty minimal. The staffers (either campaign or regular staff) are always on the lookout for good shots, but they rarely follow through and are even less likely to pay for them. They would probably ask the group you shot for to provide them with prints.

GerryDavid wrote in post #16426261
To use an analage *sp?* when a client hires me for an hour to take pictures, they dont own the copyrights, they then buy what they want, on a picture by picture basis.

In the US, they might own the rights. It depends on a number of different rules one is working by.

GerryDavid wrote in post #16426261
For me this applies here to. You are there to take pictures but you only deliver what they paid the rights for. You still own the copyright to all the images, and if the politicians are interested in the pictures and want to pay you for them then that is your right.

Says who? (in bold) Again this depends on a number of different rules one is working by.

GerryDavid wrote in post #16426261
Now if you had a contract that said they own everything taken at the event for such and such, then that would be different.

Not necessarily. The lack of contract makes a better case for WFH than not.

GerryDavid wrote in post #16426261
At least that is my basic understanding of the American rules of copyright.

I used to think the same way until someone enlightened me and I researched the laws. I confirmed with an intellectual property attorney as well. One would have to research work for hire agreements and how they work. If someone is hired by the hour and given a specific set of parameters to follow, that work "may" be deemed work for hire even in the absence of a contract, written or verbal. If the work is deemed WFH, then the argument could be made that all rights default to the hiring entity. Is this likely to happen? Doubtful but the way the law is written, it could easily sway that way if the issue was pushed. Better to operate under a written agreement that spells things out eliminating the possibility of WFH. It is my understanding that the rules of a WFH agreement trump any written assignment of copyright, or lack there of.

Part of great customer service is communicating clearly and giving the client reasonable control. I also often get 3rd party requests for photos, and I simply tell them they have to get them from the Client. In the case of a possible new business opportunity, I would tell my Client about the request and ask for their decision.

I work hard to keep my Clients happy, and they will only pay me if its clear I am working for them.

-Scott

I think another way to look at this is. If you hire a second shooter and tell him you want him to shoot the bridal party and he fulfills this but along the way he gets some shots of the bride and groom, are they his shoots. After all he has got the shoots you told him to get...but he is still being paid by the hour by you so are they your shoots.

cdiver2 wrote in post #16427844
I think another way to look at this is. If you hire a second shooter and tell him you want him to shoot the bridal party and he fulfills this but along the way he gets some shots of the bride and groom, are they his shoots. After all he has got the shoots you told him to get...but he is still being paid by the hour by you so are they your shoots.

Are they? What's in the contract?

I've seen many instances where second shooters are able to keep copies of the photos they took for their own use as well (i.e. generally for portfolio).

I've been a second shooter where the prime told me they didn't care what I did with the images I took, as long as they received a copy of all of them as well... from which they culled, edited, etc. and provided to the B&G. This particular instance was a unique case where I personally knew the B&G as well, and performed my own edits and provided some of them to the B&G as well.

cory1848 wrote in post #16426017
If you are getting paid by the hour, I would think that would default to a work for hire agreement even if no contract was signed.

I would assume the opposite. To be WMFH the OP would have to be an employee of the company. Paid by the hour implies that the OP is not an employee of the company as defined under the general common law of agency - http://www.copyright.g​ov/circs/circ09.pdf

If you are not an employee but a freelance/independent contractor it would only be WMFH if he had signed a WMFH contract, which he hasn't, AND it fell under one of the 9 categories of work listed in the statute, which it doesn't. The "and" is important because an independent contractor signing a WMFH contract doesn't make something a WMFH if it does not also fit within one of the 9 categories.

OP - can you please clarify if you are an employee of the company or a freelance/independent contractor?