Who has the rights to my commissioned shots?

not sure how to even word this...

architect hires me to shoot this house for him:

what rights exactly did you give the architect in your contract? Copyright or usage rights?

once I shoot for Party A, can I sell them to Party B (assume they're the owners or builder)?

Depends on what your contract says, if they allow you to keep rights then you can sell to who you want editorially. Commercially (like a company using it for promo) you can still sell it to them but should make sure the wording of your agreement with them says THEY have to get any permissions needed to use the photos (property releases). My guess is they're paying a typical fee so they get limited usage rights.

can I give them to party B?

Same question, but just never GIVE away anything, it's pointless!

Should I rework my contract so party A can't give/sell them to party B?

My contracts say they can not give to third parties and all inquiries have to be sent to me for proper handling. Some clients I allow to use the stuff in third party, like press releases, because it's part of the deal. Your contract should benefit you and your business.

Should I approach party A and B together, and see if they're interesting on shooting more projects, but CO FUNDING the projects (I get my normal rate, they both pay half, I get more jobs)?

I don't get this, why would you have the same rate for two places using the images? They should be paying more because it's more usage, especially if commercial usage. Should be a new, higher, rate.

The way I see it is the architect paid me to shoot these shots and w/o him I couldn't have shot them. So they're his to do with as he pleases.

NO! This mentality is not good, they shouldn't have free reign unless they paid you and have the rights. A typical day fee does not mean they get to do anything they want and could be costing you a lot of money. Maybe not for this type of photography, but others for sure.

I might have an issue with him SELLING them, but giving to the builder is fine (it's lead to them calling me to shoot for them anyway as a new client). But can I track down the builder on some of our other projects (where it's different) and sell them the shots he commissioned? Should I try to approach both parties and get them to co-fund more shoots together?

It's going to depend on usage and your original agreement. If you're going to let this company have free reign to give them away then why would company B start shelling out money for something they're getting for free? Company A would love it because they cut costs, but B won't be too happy.

If I am not mistaken, and you did indeed give full copyright rights to the the architect he owns the photos and can do with them as he pleases. He can even sell them to the builder to use on the website and you would not see a penny. Also, since he has full rights, you no longer have the rights to them so you can't sell them. They are no longer your images to do with as you please, they are his. I'm pretty sure that you may not even be able to legally use these images for a portfolio now because they aren't yours.

I would make a new contract that states that the client can only use the photos for specific purposes for a certain price. If he wants to use the photos for anything else or wants to distribute them elsewhere, the price goes up. If he wants full rights to the photos, the price goes even higher since you can no longer use those photos.

If I were you I would spend a lot more time studying contracts, rights, usage, and prices before I would go selling anymore of your work. There are plenty of books on this or classes that go over proper ways to make contracts and releases so you don't screw anyone over (yourself or client) and end up in any legal trouble.

renegadeoffunk wrote in post #10038696
If I am not mistaken, and you did indeed give full copyright rights to the the architect he owns the photos and can do with them as he pleases. He can even sell them to the builder to use on the website and you would not see a penny. Also, since he has full rights, you no longer have the rights to them so you can't sell them. They are no longer your images to do with as you please, they are his. I'm pretty sure that you may not even be able to legally use these images for a portfolio now because they aren't yours.

This depends if he signed over all copyrights, if he did not and has shared he can do what he wants as well with the images. If he gave him full usage rights that does not transfer copyright. Still missing that part of the story as he just said "full rights" which could be usage rights, or copyright.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #10038658
It's going to depend on usage and your original agreement. If you're going to let this company have free reign to give them away then why would company B start shelling out money for something they're getting for free? Company A would love it because they cut costs, but B won't be too happy.

A has full usage rights. He has the right to give them to B as far as I'm concerned. B now has might images (with my credit on them) on their site because A gave them to B. B has now called me so I will shoot MORE projects for them that were drawn by C. C will have had houses built by B but also D E AND F...

Basically, I don't care if one party shares with the other half of the party involved with the building/drawing of a house, and I give my clients full usage rights because I don't think it's appropriate to charge them for the images AGAIN when they paid me a day rate to shoot them. My shoots are weather dependent as well, so once I get the shot I need in a good weather window, the odds of being able to get it again aren't good. Not in a time frame they'll be happy with.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #10038838
This depends if he signed over all copyrights, if he did not and has shared he can do what he wants as well with the images. If he gave him full usage rights that does not transfer copyright. Still missing that part of the story as he just said "full rights" which could be usage rights, or copyright.

yeah, sorry, they get full usage rights, I maintain the copyright.
because I maintain the copyright, I'm allowed to sell (or give) the shots to someone else if I want, correct? Because I give the party A full usage rights, they can also give it to anyone they want and possibly sell, this would depend on the wording in my contract.

Right now I don't have that part of my contract locked up. I think I need to change that to reflect them being able to share with other vendors from the same project for free, but only if done so with my knowledge/permission?

I see this transaction as water under the bridge and it's now complete. I would however, rework your usage terms so you can maximize your sales from a job. You can develop whatever terms you want, getting the other party(ies) to agree to them is another matter.

You shoot for an architect, sell/include non-exclusive usage rights so they can use the images to promote their business, but commercial or third party rights are not included. This prevents them from selling the images or giving them to any associates or trades people.

You then have the rights to sell usage to the individual builder, owner or any other party given you have appropriate releases. I'd expect you need a property release from the owner and probably a release from the architect as the house was their design and intellectual property.

Obviously there's the potential for usage terms to be negotiated with each job but if you have an architect as a regular client there's opportunity to leverage them in them recommending the builders buy your images for their portfolio. You could even offer a finder's fee back to the architect for promoting you. I'd expect the architect might have a print framed for the home owners as a thank you, and the home owner might want to use a few images on an open house invitation. There's lot of potential uses, establishing who will use the image & how can be tricky. If the home owner has to pay to use an image on an invitation they might snap one of their own (yikes) or ask the architect to send out the invites. I'd be inclined to offer images to the home owner in return to an invite to any open house...chance to smooze with potential clients

Just some thoughts....

Basically, I don't care if one party shares with the other half of the party involved with the building/drawing of a house, and I give my clients full usage rights because I don't think it's appropriate to charge them for the images AGAIN when they paid me a day rate to shoot them. My shoots are weather dependent as well, so once I get the shot I need in a good weather window, the odds of being able to get it again aren't good. Not in a time frame they'll be happy with.

I'm going to compare this to sports, because it's what I do. I have colleges, teams, card companies, etc. pay me day fees all the time and they get usage rights to do what they want internally. Only one has the rights to send it to a third party because they pay for the right. Not sure what your day fee is but it shouldn't be much different set up wise. You're not charging the client who hired you for the day fee for a second time, you are though charging OTHER parties for usage. Now this may be a case where the architect/builder work together, share things, etc. so no real issue there. In my world though, say I shoot for a minor league team and the major league team wants photos. The MLB team is paying me even though the MiLB already has as well. It's based off usage and what licensing an image is all about. That's UNLESS I give them the right to send them images for nothing, in which I don't because they don't pay enough.

You really have to be clear in the contract beforehand, and the whole put it in the invoice thing without mentioning it I find shady in all honesty. I have a client who does this so I deleted that part of the invoice and sent it in. A friend never saw it, sent it in, got paid, and they claimed ownership. They gave up after not being able to produce a signed contract so not sure the legalities of the invoice thing but they just stopped going after it so maybe that's not official unless you have a signed agreement. Or at least tougher to prove.

yeah, sorry, they get full usage rights, I maintain the copyright.
because I maintain the copyright, I'm allowed to sell (or give) the shots to someone else if I want, correct? Because I give the party A full usage rights, they can also give it to anyone they want and possibly sell, this would depend on the wording in my contract.

Unless you signed a contract stating you can't or give up all copyrights then yes you can. Since you gave away all usage rights they can to, which again though just doesn't seem all that smart business wise. This where you use language like "directly affiliated" so they can give it to parties they work with, not those they don't on a regular basis.

Right now I don't have that part of my contract locked up. I think I need to change that to reflect them being able to share with other vendors from the same project for free, but only if done so with my knowledge/permission?

The one agreement I have where the client can give to third parties is a shake of the hand agreement, not smart on my part, but it's they can do it if it's OK with me. In other words are supposed to run it by me first. If they don't, oh well not a big deal because they paid for the right. What I don't want happening is them giving it away to B company and B company giving it to C giving it to D, etc...or just plain out doing something stupid with the photos. So I like to know what's happening with my images. They may pay for the right to give it in press releases and such but they do NOT pay enough to just do anything with it. That'd be THOUSANDS of dollars.

If you gave him "full rights" as you said, he owns the pictures and can do with them as he pleases

Many architectural photographers give a package of rights that does not include print advertising but includes project sheets, proposals, in-house displays, portfolios, design awards, Powerpoint, public relations releases, and internet home site. Transfer to third parties is not allowed as you can often make more licensing the images to the third parties than you can off the originating client. Sometimes you can bring the third parties in on the front end to include them in the shoot.

This is a world of its own and quite complex. I highly suggest you do some research before you get in any deeper. There is lots of information on the www.asmp.org web site in the paperwork share section and the Working with an Architectural Photographer white paper.

i would say copy and paste your contract here - removing names ect...

without seeing the wording - we cant say for sure -

and just because you gave him rights to use the photo unless you say what those rights are he cant let others use the photo - using it on a builders website is commercial which is very difrent to rights to print or rights to use - hes basically giving your image away to some one else who is now making profit from it

it would be like you selling a photo to a book company and then they give it to the printers and the printers use it to advertise there printing service -
use on a website is advertising

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10038476
Who has the rights to my commissioned shots?

In short, whom ever you gave those specific rights to!

LONDON808 wrote in post #10041216
i would say copy and paste your contract here - removing names ect...

without seeing the wording - we cant say for sure -

and just because you gave him rights to use the photo unless you say what those rights are.....

Exactly right. It all comes down to the wording of the agreement you have with the client. Even if you stated he has full rights, that doesn't necessarily mean he has all the same rights the copyright holder has. It will all come down to the actual wording. One of the main reasons its very important to get everything in writing. Full rights can mean anything from them having full rights for their purposes, full rights including third party sales, or having all rights so that the photographer can't even show the work himself because he doesn't have the right to do so.

Regarding licensing, how would you feel if the client starts selling the images on Getty or Corbis and it shows up in a national advertising piece where the client collects the $5K fee and not you. If you give them all the rights, its a real possibility something like this can happen, and it has happened to other photographers in the past much to their chagrin.

Its entirely up to you to charge whatever you wish, but do keep in mind that the commercial industry, which includes architectural, use the licensing model and as such you're leaving money on the table that should be yours. There are many secondary uses for architectural images that pay usage fees back to the photographer. If the client is giving them away to magazines, builders, usage for re-print rights, etc, you aren't making that income. If the builder or architect is experienced, I can almost guarantee that when someone asks them to use the image for marketing, they will be asking for a fee to do so, and will probably get it. Why should they profit on your work? Re-prints rights for say 1,000 reprints could bring the photographer $300 to $700. 10 or 15 of these a year can add up and help fund future growth, retirement, or whatever.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your policies, but only to make sure you understand how the industry works and give it suitable thought before adopting a policy that goes against the industry and is detrimental to the photographer himself.