addressing Copyright default in Canada

RDKirk wrote in post #11342767
This is true. Joint ownership of copyright naturally applies when the two parties are truly equal co-authors of a work. It's not impossible to write a contract that establishes joint copyright ownership, but can wind up a pretty messy legal proposition.

You want to provide a "license" to "use" the works in certain specified ways. You don't even want to use the word "right" because a "right" is not "licensed." A "right" is inalienable, so you don't want to get involved with that particular word either. "License" and "usage" are the words you want to use.

A right is necessarily inalienable ? so the phrase 'inalienable rights' is redundant ? that's strange. It seems to me that we often discuss rights that are contingent, though perhaps there is some specialized legal meaning here that I'm not aware of. Still--I agree that my contract can be tightened up a little. Good tip; thanks a lot.

chrisvl wrote in post #11346148
I think you need to clearly define the relationships of the parties involved.
If you are employee by a newspaper, they give you the equipment and send you on assignment. They they own copyright of the photos.

If a third party hires to shoot an ad. Then in your contract with the third party you clearly state who owns the copyright (you the photographer) and they are buying a license to use the images from the shoot. Of course they have the option buy those rights outright as well.

This is my understanding and have not had an issue. Don't shoot until you discuss copyright and put it in your contract.

I actually don't think there is a material distinction between the two cases you refer to. In both cases the third party (newspaper or person hiring me to shoot an ad) by default own copyright of the images; and in both cases the photographer has the ability to define a contract with that third party such that they reserve copyright ownership to his or herself.

If you don't mind my asking, how do you word the copyright portion of your contract ?

I would disagree. I one instance you're an employee and in the other contracted contracted to do a job as an independent/freelance entity.
I'm a freellance independent IT consultant and in every contract I sign in that world it clearly states that I have no rights to the software I develop for my client. If I had an issue I would strike that from the contract or we would negotiate it but that's the way the industry functions in order to have competitive advantages.

As for wording it simply states that the photographer retains full ownership of the copyright to the images unless negotiated and paid for. This is also reiterated in our meetings and that's why the contract has license fee to use the images for a specific period of the time. When that time period expires they renew the license.

The wording on CAPIC's website is all you need in your contract to retain copyright when being commissioned.

"Do Canadian creators own the copyright in their works?

Yes. All Canadian creators of original works automatically own the copyright in their original (personally created) works.

EXCEPTION:

In commissioned (assigned) photographic works, if the creator does not have an agreement to the contrary with the commissioner of the work, the commissioner of the work shall own the copyright in the work, once the work has been paid for.
See laws.justice.gc.ca - rid-38969 Ownership of Copyright, Section 13(2).

As a photographer, how do I ensure that I retain copyright in my assignment work?

To retain copyright in assigned photographic works, you must have an agreement between you and the commissioner of the work (your client) stating "Copyright in this work shall be owned by the photographer." This statement should be in the normal Assignment Terms & Conditions that would accompany your Estimate or Assignment Confirmation."


I touched base with a Cdn IP lawyer (employed by a leading worldwide CPG company) a few years ago and he stated a simple sentence "The photographer (studio) retains copyright to all works created. Any usage other than stated in the usage license requires a separately negotiated usage license".

He also suggested the other, sometimes more important, point is to include a line about payment & usage. "Usage license takes effect once full payment has been received. Any usage of unpaid work is an infringement of copyright (add whatever threatening action you feel like...).

I've never had any client question my retaining of copyright. I think many Canadians in the general public assume copyright is the photographers, though agencies, corporations and marketing professionals know better.

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #11346180
A right is necessarily inalienable ? so the phrase 'inalienable rights' is redundant ? that's strange. It seems to me that we often discuss rights that are contingent, though perhaps there is some specialized legal meaning here that I'm not aware of. Still--I agree that my contract can be tightened up a little. Good tip; thanks a lot.

Yes, there is a distinction between a license and a right, so you don't want to end up arguing over what "you really meant to say" in court.

Rubi Jane wrote in post #11346772
I think many Canadians( read people or folks or whatever) in the general public assume copyright

I'd say 99% of the people don't know what a copyright is.

lui-même wrote in post #11350960
I'd say 99% of the people don't know what a copyright is.

You're probably correct.