Question About Second-Shooting

Thoughts?

C has 2 choices, stand up for his work and probably loose the 2nd shooter gigs....

Or suck it up and keep getting the paid work from A.

Maybe this would've been better placed in The Business of Photography section.

Photog C should branch out on his/her own.

Were I Photog C, I'd be a little annoyed and privately voice my opinion to Photog A. I likely wouldn't stew over it too much, since I got paid. Photog A could at least credit us together as a team.

However: Were I Photog C, I would keep a careful eye on Photog A's rates, and possibly raise my second-shooting rates if Photog A is using my work to command higher prices.

DunnoWhen wrote in post #17519677
Photog C should branch out on his/her own.

Perhaps. Shooting is only a small part of photography. Maybe Photog C is lousy at sales and business, and doesn't want to deal with brides.

Photog A owns the photos and Photog C agreed to the arraingement. Photog C can still use the images as agreed to. Photog C has zero to be upset about since they do not own the images. Suck it up, buttercup.

If I work for a fortune 500 company and take thousand of photos as art of my job and one of them gets used in the AR, am I supposed to get angry because I wasn't given credit?

There is no contract. Photog C owns the photos.

Also, just to spice things up a little, Photog A didn't even pay Photog C for this particular job; Photog A's client did.

96whiteknight wrote in post #17521593
There is no contract. Photog C owns the photos.

Also, just to spice things up a little, Photog A didn't even pay Photog C for this particular job; Photog A's client did.

Now you just come up with more stuff.

In the original statement, the photos should be considered work for hire and the guy no longer owned the photos. Now you say something completely different in that the first guy never hired the second guy. (so why did he hand the cards over?) If the new info is true then I would be contacting the photog A letting him know that if he was going to post MY photos on line then he must give me credit. Then I would be creating a contract to use going forward that outlines the relationship between parties and who owns the photos depending on payment arrangements.

96whiteknight wrote in post #17521593
There is no contract. Photog C owns the photos.

Also, just to spice things up a little, Photog A didn't even pay Photog C for this particular job; Photog A's client did.

If there is no contract, and Photog C handed over the memory cards to photog A without receiving any payment from Photog A, then he gave away the images on the card to Photog A for free with no restrictions as to use. That would be considered implied consent. If Photog C didn't want them to edit and publish their images, why give them the raw images on the card?

Take this out of the digital age and convert your images to actual physical items. A and B are paid to build 3 boxes for a client. A nails one of the boxes together, gives it to B to finish, and goes off to cash his check. B nails the other 2 boxes together, sands and paints all 3, and delivers them to the client. Does B have to tell the client, or anyone else who sees the box, that the first box was nailed together by someone else?

mikeinctown wrote in post #17522369
Now you just come up with more stuff.

In the original statement, the photos should be considered work for hire and the guy no longer owned the photos. Now you say something completely different in that the first guy never hired the second guy. (so why did he hand the cards over?) If the new info is true then I would be contacting the photog A letting him know that if he was going to post MY photos on line then he must give me credit. Then I would be creating a contract to use going forward that outlines the relationship between parties and who owns the photos depending on payment arrangements.

I don't think it's work-for-hire, at least not in the US. In the absence of a written work-for-hire contract or employment contract, this sort of arrangement fits almost none of the criteria to be considered work-for-hire.

Here's a good reference:
http://copyright.gov/c​ircs/circ09.pdf

Photog C is not an employee of Photog A, so (a) does not apply.
There's no written agreement, so (b) does not apply.

Why would C do it without a contract in place explicitly stating who could do what with the photos?

nathancarter wrote in post #17522643
I don't think it's work-for-hire, at least not in the US. In the absence of a written work-for-hire contract or employment contract, this sort of arrangement fits almost none of the criteria to be considered work-for-hire.

Here's a good reference:
http://copyright.gov/c​ircs/circ09.pdf

Photog C is not an employee of Photog A, so (a) does not apply.
There's no written agreement, so (b) does not apply.

I'm not sure how you see it this way. The original post made it seem as though the work could fit into either A or B in the definitions. It does not have to apply to ALL definitions to be considered work for hire. Also, I'm not sure if there has to be a written agreement in place, as photos taken while on the job can be considered the property of the employer, even without a specific separate agreement.

Also, there apparently does not need to be a written contract in place as there is a paragraph later with the statement;

Owner of the Copyright in a Work Made for Hire
If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person
for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the
copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written
agreement to the contrary.

So if it is considered a work for hire, then absent a written agreement, photog C has no rights to the photos.

Then again, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

They didn't give a credit because they didn't want to lose photo C as a second shooter? How lame is that? More likely, they didn't want a new competitor showing up on the scene. It's sounds like this business arrangement has passed its expiration date.

mikeinctown wrote in post #17524786
I'm not sure how you see it this way. The original post made it seem as though the work could fit into either A or B in the definitions. It does not have to apply to ALL definitions to be considered work for hire. Also, I'm not sure if there has to be a written agreement in place, as photos taken while on the job can be considered the property of the employer, even without a specific separate agreement.

Also, there apparently does not need to be a written contract in place as there is a paragraph later with the statement;

Owner of the Copyright in a Work Made for Hire
If a work is made for hire, the employer or other person
for whom the work was prepared is the initial owner of the
copyright unless both parties involved have signed a written
agreement to the contrary.

So if it is considered a work for hire, then absent a written agreement, photog C has no rights to the photos.

Then again, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I would agree - BUT, that all hinges on whether Photog C is an Employee or an independent contractor.

There's a moderately complex set of criteria to determine whether it's an employer-employee relationship, or a independent contractor. The second-shooter picks up occasional assignments from Photog A, there's no employment contract, he doesn't have a regular schedule, he's using his own equipment, isn't being paid a regular salary, isn't being provided healthcare or other benefits.

If it goes to court, it's evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But my opinion is that he's a contractor, not an employee - so the paragraph you quoted doesn't apply.

http://www.lawforcreat​ives.com …ractors-and-your-business
http://www.dmlp.org …us-independent-contractor

There is nothing on paper connecting Photogs A and C. Pretty sure that makes C an independent contractor.