Was told as second shooter I cant use my images

Nice job on the research RDKirk!

That should be very useful to all of us.

However, despite where the copyright lies, the second shooter may be entangled by state laws if his verbal agreement included an encumberment against his use of the images. The studio may be able to sue in state courts for breach of contract.
However, copyright is federal case, and the result of the state case cannot change copyright--it's already been proven in federal court that even a written contract has to meet the federal requirements to be considered valid to transfer the copyright.

The end result there would be that nobody could use the images...the studio would not even be able to sell them to the client.

one of two things is likely true;

1.) He thinks you may try to sell these images directly to his client

2.) He knows your images are better than his and he doesnt want clients thinking that "his" best work is actually the work of someone else.

RDKirk wrote in post #11254367
However, despite where the copyright lies, the second shooter may be entangled by state laws if his verbal agreement included an encumberment against his use of the images. The studio may be able to sue in state courts for breach of contract.
However, copyright is federal case, and the result of the state case cannot change copyright--it's already been proven in federal court that even a written contract has to meet the federal requirements to be considered valid to transfer the copyright.

The end result there would be that nobody could use the images...the studio would not even be able to sell them to the client.

From the OP's originial comment
"I worked as a second shooter with a friend for my first wedding and was told I could use my images for portfolio"

A he said/she said in court...with no written contract..

digirebelva wrote in post #11254418
From the OP's originial comment
"I worked as a second shooter with a friend for my first wedding and was told I could use my images for portfolio"

A he said/she said in court...with no written contract..

Please notice that when I said "The studio may be able to sue in state courts for breach of contract" I did, in fact, emphasize the "may."

Everyone agrees that an oral contract might be difficult to prove in court. How difficult depends on individual state law. I know in at least one state, provisions for oral contracts are holdovers from the days when most of the population was illiterate, and are enforceable only if formally created as a contract--albeit oral--with witnesses specifically made available to endorse its provisions. A mere "informal gentleman's agreement' is not enforceable as a oral contract. That may or may not be true in other states <shrug>.

What's the endgame here? What do you want and how badly do you want it?

Personally, I would just take it as lesson learned. Let him have the photos, don't use them. Next time, use a written contract and be crystal clear about the arrangement.

Oh, and don't work with him again.

Oh, and he wouldn't be my friend after this...

I was just thinking - are you that certain that these will be your only good pictures from someone's wedding? Why are you grabbing to them for dear life?.... Let go and tell your friend to dissapear from your life.

I have been shooting pro for a few years now and always have seconds and thirds to help out. I can't be at the front and the back of the chapel, for instance. So, second shooters are important. But those that shoot for me, with my gear, I don't let them even have the CF cards after they use them. I gather them and do all the processing myself. Second shooters are just that, they shoot. I am the one processing all the images as they represent my work. My partner, Jim, is on his own. Whatever he shoots, he does with whatever, but he lets me do whatever to the images before giving the disks to the client. His work is wonderful, and I trust him.

I don't know why you got to take the memory cards home and are doing the work for the images you took, as the main shooter should have made clear what he wanted from you. He may have been over-reacting to the image posted on the net. That is something you will have to discuss. I recently did a shoot for a friend for a football game he coached. I did not put any images up until I cleared it with him, and it was one image right here in the forum. He asked if the family and friends of the players could have the images, I allowed it. But for real money, where clients are concerned, the main pro is the one who needs to have the say. That's just good business.

Frankly confused on exactly what happened to make the main photographer change their mind. When I first read your post I thought (incorrectly) that your sent a link to the client. In which case I would totally understand why the main photographer would get pissy with you.

You were a representative of his company at the time you shot this. yes, you own the copyright unless there is a written agreement that this was a "work for hire" job. But you have no agreement with the couple. While legally you may be able to display the images I would hesitate before fighting it.
I know of no stipulations in the copyright law that mentions whose equipment you are using and whether that has an effect on the copyright.

IMO, you would be starting your business off on a bad foot and possibly damaging future potential.

Take this as a lesson and get an agreement in writing prior to working with any other company and move on.

Pair up with another pro in your area, gain experience and build your portfoloio. When working with other photographers be respectful, you are not there to show them up. you are there to compliment their work. If this rubs you the wrong way you may want to start booking your own clients.

Nickc84 wrote in post #11250585
I worked as a second shooter with a friend for my first wedding and was told I could use my images for portfolio. After the wedding I uploaded a single picture to my flickr...

Couple of things. Was it made clear what "portfolio" meant? I've shot for someone who only allowed me to use the photos in a printed portfolio and not an online one. I think that's an important distinction.

Also, is a typical Flickr photo stream considered a "portfolio" or more of a photo sharing type of thing? I know it can be a portfolio, but probably not in a traditional sense.

Seems like there needed to be a better understanding of the terms. That said, whatever the main photographer meant, I would respect that, regardless of legality.

If you took them and are in possession of the photos you can use them.
Since you are already not talking....no worries .

There have been a couple of those cases in copyright court where the matter hinged on who owned the physical resources necessary to produce the photograph. So far, the person pressing the shutter release has always won, even in one case where he literally did nothing but hold up the provided camera, point it at the provided subject, press the shutter release, then give the camera back.

RDKirk wrote in post #11261110
There have been a couple of those cases in copyright court where the matter hinged on who owned the physical resources necessary to produce the photograph. So far, the person pressing the shutter release has always won, even in one case where he literally did nothing but hold up the provided camera, point it at the provided subject, press the shutter release, then give the camera back.

Seems odd but not totally surprising that this would end in court.
That would set a weird precedence for rental equipment. lol

Thanks everyone, I guess I will just let it go. It was important to me because it was the first wedding I shot and wanted to have something to show for it.

zagiace wrote in post #11261388
Seems odd but not totally surprising that this would end in court.
That would set a weird precedence for rental equipment. lol

I got a feeling the courts have preferred finding a "bright line" for their ruling and "who pressed the shutter release" was a lot brighter line than "who had the greater creative input."