Who Owns the Copyright??

Quick question folks.

If i book a wedding and hire an assistant to shoot with me, working for me, using my memory cards but his own camera, who ultimately owns the Copyright to the images shot by the assistant?

Good question. I'm assuming that the assistant owns the copyright since that person is the artist.

I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong though ...

I'm sure to be followed with better info, but from what I have read here and elsewhere, the copyright would be yours since it's a work for hire situation.

Of course you would need paperwork verifying that the assistant was in fact your employee during that time.

Unless you have the assistant sign a contract stating that you own the copyright, the assistant owns the copyright to the photos. This is muddied a bit for the posed shots, where you do the posing and set up the shots. Shots where you set up strobes that the assistant used also muddies the water a bit.


The bottom line is, you need to have a contract with the assistant stating that you hold the copyright to any of their photos taken at the wedding. Then there is no question about who owns the copyright.

^^^ That ^^^

Draw up a contract that spells out duties, responsiblities, rights, rate (if applicable) and who can do what with images.

Isn't payment (the assistant fee) a contract?

30Der wrote in post #8732318
=30D'er;8732318]Isn't payment (the assistant fee) a contract?

No.

damn.

Is it the fact that he used his own camera?

DDCSD wrote in post #8732292
Unless you have the assistant sign a contract stating that you own the copyright, the assistant owns the copyright to the photos. This is muddied a bit for the posed shots, where you do the posing and set up the shots. Shots where you set up strobes that the assistant used also muddies the water a bit.


The bottom line is, you need to have a contract with the assistant stating that you hold the copyright to any of their photos taken at the wedding. Then there is no question about who owns the copyright.

That's how i thought it should be. The artist owns the copyright unless it's passed on to someone else via a contract.

EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SIGNED IN WRITING. (CYA = cover your arse)

30Der wrote in post #8732357
=30D'er;8732357]damn.

Is it the fact that he used his own camera?

I don't think so. I believe it's because they captured the image.

I wasnt really expecting this answer. Wow. I just realized I shot for someone else for 2 years without a thing to show for it and really should have had a full porfolio based on what i just learned.

You live you learn

30Der wrote in post #8732357
=30D'er;8732357]damn.

Is it the fact that he used his own camera?

No.

The bottom line is that it is very complicated. Whoever "designs" the shot technically holds the copyright. If the main photographer sets up a formal shot and all the assistant does is push the button, the main photographer likely holds the copyright to that shot.

Now let's say the assistant sees a nice moment from the flower girl and turns and snaps a quick shot. The assistant would likely hold the copyright to that shot.

Work for hire (what this mostly is) really muddies the water. You never know how a court will rule. They could say that you had some kind of verbal contract and rule that the main photog holds the copyrights or they could say that the assistant does.

It also matters how the assistant is defined. Are they an actual employee (salaried worker)? Are they only helping out on the occasional job (contractor)?


Here is what the US Copyright Office has to say about "Work made for hire".
http://www.copyright.g​ov/circs/circ09.pdf


The only way to avoid any confusion in a situation like this is to have a written contract spelling everything out.

30Der wrote in post #8732248
=30D'er;8732248]Quick question folks.

If i book a wedding and hire an assistant to shoot with me, working for me, using my memory cards but his own camera, who ultimately owns the Copyright to the images shot by the assistant?

There was a situation a few years ago where a photography teacher provided cameras to kids, had them take pictures in the neighborhood at his direction, then processed the pictures himself and graded the kids for their work.

Later, he published the photographs and discovered unpleasantly that he did not own the copyrights, despite the fact that he had provided the cameras, the film, assignment, the direction, the context, and the processing. The kids owned the copyrights to the photographs.

If you do not have something positive in writing to the contrary, US courts will presume the person pressing the shutter release has copyright.

If you hired the person to take photographs, and the courts (and IRS) agree that person is a bona fide employee, that would be a "for hire" situation that gives you as the employer copyright. That is not, however, the normal "second shooter" situation--you'd darn well better be meeting IRS requirements as an employer.

I debate this issue frequently with my studio colleagues who tend to accuse me of being a traitor to the ranks. But the copyright law is pretty clear in this area. If you don't have something in writing specifically to the contrary, you will have an uphill court battle to prove the person who clicked the shutter release does not have the copyright.