Was told as second shooter I cant use my images

The guy wants to be paid, if you give away the work, whether your shots or his, he is afraid the client will not purchase them. He is a jerk for the way he is handling it, but I too would be annoyed if a partner started giving away work that we intended to sell.

Nickc84 wrote in post #11261408
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.

IMO, you have something to show for it.
You have some nice images (even if they are not publicly displayed,)
You have some awesome experience. (worth more in the long run then any other benefit.)
You (assuming here) were paid.

If you aspire to be a wedding photographer then you will have many weddings in your future. Don't worry too much about this one. Get out there and shoot your butt off and book the next.

Thanks Zagiace, I am doing my first solo wedding in April...excited!

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.

verbal agreement won't stand in court

Nickc84 wrote in post #11262293
Thanks Zagiace, I am doing my first solo wedding in April...excited!

Were you get paid for this one?
PS what are you going to be doing between now and April ?

sniper_md wrote in post #11271048
verbal agreement won't stand in court

Sure it can, if done properly. I know that in my state, if two people were to enter into an oral agreement before one or more disinterested witnesses who are willing to testify in court, it will stand (presuming the agreement meets other state requirements for enforceable contracts, such as having precise, enforceable terms and being between persons of legal age).

I suspect that's true in most states--I doubt there is any state in the US that has ruled an agreement is unenforceable solely for the reason of being oral.

A partial mitigation, however, is that most states do limit the enforceability of oral agreements based on the length of time the agreement requires. For instance, most states would rule that an oral agreement to perform an act more than a year from the date of the agreement is unenforceable. This does not invalidate oral agreements in which the performance could have been started or completed within a year, just those that could not have been started or competed within a year.

sniper_md wrote in post #11271052
Were you get paid for this one?
PS what are you going to be doing between now and April ?

I don't know ...why?

Whenever I 2nd I respect the primary's wishes even if I can legally do whatever I want with them. I'd rather miss out on a blog post or two and be liked by my peers and be hired again.

But that's just me.

Nickc84 wrote in post #11262293
Thanks Zagiace, I am doing my first solo wedding in April...excited!

Eek. Are you sure you want to take on a wedding job by yourself? It seems to me that a wedding is something that two shooters should be present for.

JackStrutz wrote in post #11296641
Eek. Are you sure you want to take on a wedding job by yourself? It seems to me that a wedding is something that two shooters should be present for.

I shoot weddings alone, and I know a lot of others do to.

Let it go, already. This is ONE wedding and it is causing you way more grief than it should. I worked in a studio for years and that was considered "work for hire". I didn't own the intellectual property even though it was my creativity on the film. You were shooting second shooter on HIS job. That makes those HIS intellectual property, not yours. Even if he agreed to allow you to use them (which he apparently reneged on), I think that was HIS right. In any event, chalk it up to experience and get on with it. Go out there and shoot your own images and put him out of business by being the best damned photographer in your town. This should NOT be the hill you want to die on.

suecassidy wrote in post #11296683
You were shooting second shooter on HIS job. That makes those HIS intellectual property, not yours.

That isn't how it works though. When he composes the shot and sets all the other parameters, but lets you push the shutter, then you are right, but until then...

adam8080 wrote in post #11298035
That isn't how it works though. When he composes the shot and sets all the other parameters, but lets you push the shutter, then you are right, but until then...

Maybe not even then. The closest situation so far that's actually been proven in court was a public school classroom situation in which the teacher provided the cameras, provided the subject, handed the cameras to the students, and let the students snap the pictures and hand the cameras back to the teacher. Then the teacher processed the images. He published them himself, got sued by parents, and the federal court ruled that the kids owned the copyrights, not the teacher.

It is tough as hell to convince the court that the person who pressed the shutter release does not own the copyright--if there is no previous written agreement that satisfies the copyright law to the contrary.

RDKirk, you are right and I stand corrected. I did a bit of research and the kicker here is the absence of a contract that specifically said that it was 'work for hire". The internet does not a study make, but I did read the same thing in a variety of articles. This one sums it up: "If you show up to a job where somebody tells you what to do and when to do it, and for that you're rewarded with a paycheck, then your work product is classified as a work for hire and you don't own the copyright on it. Instead, it automatically becomes copyrighted in the name of the company," Michael Bertin explained in the Austin Chronicle. In the situation of independent contractors, he added, "There are TWO criteria for works for hire. It has to fit into one of nine specific categories, and there has to be a contract stipulating that it's a 'work for hire.' If one of those two elements is missing, then the work in question is not, repeat not, a work for hire." In this case, one of those elements WAS missing. The contract. Still, I'd just let it go and get on with life.

suecassidy wrote in post #11301266
RDKirk, you are right and I stand corrected. I did a bit of research and the kicker here is the absence of a contract that specifically said that it was 'work for hire". The internet does not a study make, but I did read the same thing in a variety of articles. This one sums it up: "If you show up to a job where somebody tells you what to do and when to do it, and for that you're rewarded with a paycheck, then your work product is classified as a work for hire and you don't own the copyright on it. Instead, it automatically becomes copyrighted in the name of the company."

The law says,