Strange Copyright question

I've had a disagreement regarding a copyright law. A person who is a "professional" photographer, is also on the board of directors for our non-profit animal shelter, as am I. He took pictures of work being done at the shelter and the animals. None of which can be sold or a profit made from. They are only to a record of the sanctuary. He took them for the Sanctuary and was reimbursed by the non profit organization. He also said he would make copies for me on more than 5 occassions. When I discovered that he had not, I took them from the office and made copies and returned them to him with the negatives. Now he's claiming I've violated copy right laws.

Can someone clarify this?

We are both on the Board of Directors. The pictures were taken as a record of the progress being made at the shelter. We had also promised these to the investigator at the SPCA to whom I need to turn these over to. I need to check the reciepts but I know for a fact the film developing was paid for by the Sanctuary, I do not know if there are reciepts for the film. I'll have to check those.

Let me stress again, NONE of these pictures are for sale, profit, or to be used as advertising. These are only for our internal records.

Maybe it's just me but I think this is completely PETTY, CHILDISH and STUPID! No one is making any money off this! It's supposed to be about helping the animals.

I did appologize and said I would never take photo's again to be copied. I'm just usually too busy working out there to be shutter happy so I was relying on him (since he's 75 and doesn't like to really work) to take pictures for us all. My mistake! I guess the animals will suffer so we can have two photographers.

Thanks!

since this obviously isn't going to court over the matter, it sounds more like something you just need to talk about. You should never ever just take someones things, regardless if they were promised to you. He's not out any money it doesn't sound like, so just explain that you needed the photos that were promised and that IT WON"T HAPPEN AGAIN.

Who owns the pictures? The photographer or the animal shelter? If the animal shelter, did someone give you permission to make the copies? You say he was reimbursed; do you mean for the film and developing or for his time? If for the film, then it sounds like the shelter owns the pictures.

removed

There are too many things we dont know to give a good answer here.

IF he was "Hired" by the shelter as a Photographer to take the photos then the copyrite belongs to him unless there was a contract stating otherwise.

IF he was working as an "Employe" of the shelter and took the photos while working for the shelter the photos belong to the shelter, unless his employe agreement states other wise.

We are both on the Board of Directors. The pictures were taken as a record of the progress being made at the shelter. We had also promised these to the investigator at the SPCA to whom I need to turn these over to. I need to check the reciepts but I know for a fact the film developing was paid for by the Sanctuary, I do not know if there are reciepts for the film. I'll have to check those.

Let me stress again, NONE of these pictures are for sale, profit, or to be used as advertising. These are only for our internal records.

removed

That's what I don't know. He claims to since he took the picture but it was paid for and taken for the shelter.

Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

I'm not sure this applies because he's not an "employee" he's a board member and no one was "hired" it was all volunteer.

No one is going to court over this. I just courious about the truth and the law. It was just funny what a fit he threw over something that seemed so inconsequential to me since we're supposed to be on the same team.

from what i understand, if a company asks you to take pictures for them, then THEY (the company) own the pictures, not the individual who snapped the pictures.

so ya, you should have asked the company if you could reproduce these pictures for yourself. this man who snapped the pictures doesn't own them.

SmuckerS2 wrote in post #3057693
from what i understand, if a company asks you to take pictures for them, then THEY (the company) own the pictures, not the individual who snapped the pictures.

so ya, you should have asked the company if you could reproduce these pictures for yourself. this man who snapped the pictures doesn't own them.

then everyphoto that wasn't freelance that got paid would be owned by multinationals

its all about the contract the photographer signs.

In this case, its more misunderstanding/hurt feelings than something to worry about legally.

I just posted this link on another thread about copyright but it might be worth putting it here too. Better to get an informed opinion. http://www.photoattorn​ey.com/