Ownership of images question - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/13/2010 03:10:34 PM · #1

As mentioned in this thread, I had a photo shoot today which was a volunteer job for the Diabetes Association in my area. It went great with the advice and help of DPC peeps, as always! I will be handing over images to the designer after I go through them.

My question now though is â�¦ is it normal and accepted that the photographer gets ownership of these images? (I assume so but since I forgot to bring release forms , now I need to send them out via email!). I plan on using the Getty Model release forms since I have some stock photos there â�¦ But I just want to make sure this is not something that is looked down upon or in conflict with working for a non-profit, or whatever.

Just looking for a green light from people who know more than I do. ;) THanks!

Message edited by author 2010-01-13 15:22:39.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/13/2010 03:25:21 PM · #2

You need to read up on the rules governing "work-for-hire" copyright -- if it was not done within those guidelines then you retain the copyright.

It really depends on the nature of your agreement/contract. Also, it's possible that you retain the copyright, but not be able to sell/license them to anyone else, i.e. the Diabetes Association may have an exclusive license to use the photos.

You can read about it at the US Copyright Office -- almost all of the rules and forms are available there as PDFs.

AJSullivan

01/13/2010 03:32:38 PM · #3

Good luck on getting those model releases signed (at least in a reasonable time)

01/13/2010 04:09:46 PM · #4

Hmmm â�¦ I wonder if I should just run it by my contact at the Diabetes Association.

AJSullivan

01/13/2010 04:15:53 PM · #5

Just for future reference, this is all shit you need to establish before you do the shoot next time.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/13/2010 04:30:30 PM · #6

Good idea. The way this happened, I volunteered before I had much info and who knew I would have had some decent images in the end ;)

Really, the photos will be used in a printed piece that will going out to tens of thousands of people and my name will be on that- hopefully on each photo as well and on their web-site with a link to my site - so that was a good motivator and enough to justify the shoot alone.

They seem to be worth using on my web-site, and I know they have no problem with that - but the formalities are always necessary since the internet is such a public thing.

Originally posted by AJSullivan:

Just for future reference, this is all shit you need to establish before you do the shoot next time.

Tez

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/14/2010 09:48:56 PM · #7

if this was a 'work for hire' agreement- they paid you, as an individual, to take the photos- Then they have the rights.

If they hired a company to take the photos such as 'your name here photography' then that company owns the rights.

At least, in my understanding.

ETA: I smirked when I read you put "I know they don't have a problem with that". Sorry, but unless you have it writing it means precisely nothing.

Message edited by author 2010-01-14 21:50:23.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/14/2010 10:43:15 PM · #8

If you want to take the hard line for the company side, just being "on the job" (even, potentially if you weren't paid) is enough for them to own the photos. I think about the firefighter who snapped that great pic of the deer in the creek during the fire. That didn't work out for him in the end. He was not being hired to take pictures but was on the clock when he took it.

Probably the easiest thing to do is talk to the Diabetes Association, no?

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/15/2010 09:44:32 AM · #9

you intrinsically own the copyright when you capture the image, unless you have contractually assigned the copyright to another entity. simple as that. it has nothing to do with what you are paid or what you call yourself - "skip rowland" is no different than "skip rowland photography, inc."

just like doc pointed out, an employment contract can cover works created, just like in the example he provided. the same holds true with computer programmers moonlighting; sometimes, their employers have been able to take their freelance creations from them, even when created off the clock!

in this instance, based on the details provided by the OP, he owns the work and has given a verbal license to another entity to use the work. he can use it in his portfolio as a sample of work, but, without a signed model release, he can't put it on a commercial product (ie, a mass-produced coffee mug or poster) or use it for marketing himself (ie, a mailed-out postcard, a brochure, or a mass-emailing) or license it for commercial use by another entity. in fact, the diabetes association needs to get a model release if they want to use it without being at risk. along those lines, it is the publisher, not the provider, that is typically held responsible for having the release. the reason the photographer comes into play is because of logistics: you took the shot, you were there with the subject, you should get the release. i have licensed numerous images without model releases--and my licensing makes it clear to the licensee that they know there is no model release and that they are responsible for it.

in this instance, there shouldn't be any issues. going forward, though, it's best to have this stuff dealt with ahead of time. when i am in this specific situation, where i'm shooting something for someone else, i ask my contact if they've taken care of getting the model release (and usually, they have). usually, these situations don't lend themselves to producing anything of market value or with any shelf life. if it looks like it could, though, i go on and get a release.

01/15/2010 09:58:54 AM · #10

Wow - thanks Skip. I feel better now =)
Enough to post the stage 1 semi-edited shots!:

The Photo shoot edit stage 1

-

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/15/2010 10:18:08 AM · #11

Fortunately, although this was related to my current full-time job, I was not on the clock with them. This was on my own time .

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/15/2010 11:30:28 AM · #12

Originally posted by tate:

Fortunately, although this was related to my current full-time job, I was not on the clock with them. This was on my own time .

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to take the hard line for the company side, just being "on the job" (even, potentially if you weren't paid) is enough for them to own the photos. I think about the firefighter who snapped that great pic of the deer in the creek during the fire. That didn't work out for him in the end. He was not being hired to take pictures but was on the clock when he took it.

Probably the easiest thing to do is talk to the Diabetes Association, no?

My question was whether you were on the clock with the Diabetes Association. I know they weren't paying you, but was there some sort of verbal agreement or expectation of you taking pictures for them? Did you have access to any areas that you wouldn't have if you weren't working for them? Questions like that might be important. Of course that would all matter only if it actually came down to a lawsuit.

I stand by the idea that it's easiest if you just talk to them and tell them what you want to do. If they have a problem with it, ask them their reasoning and then evaluate their case and make your decision. If you don't want to talk to them because you think you are getting away with something, then I think you've already answered your own question.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/15/2010 11:40:05 AM · #13

They came out great Tate!

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

01/15/2010 01:05:09 PM · #14

Originally posted by mpeters:

They came out great Tate!

mpeters said it first! I'll say it second,

Tate.
:-))