Copyright, Usage Rights, and Suing for Money?

Can anyone chime in on the general procedure for this? If I do work for a client with only verbal agreement about usage rights, and not a peep about copyright, I hold copyright to all my work created (for the client), correct? Furthermore, if they misuse the usage rights, I can likely sue them in small claims court and/or demand they remove all misused work, correct?

Basically, lack of written/contract = photographer having the advantage if the work gets misused or not?

Generally depends on whether it is a work for hire or not. If a client hires a photographer to take photos for a certain purpose or use, the client likely owns the copyright. If the work is more the creation of the photographer, then the photographer generally owns the copyright.

Extreme example to make this clearer would be that an employee photographer in a studio owns no copyrights.

There's some gray areas though.

My guess is small claims court would likely not consider it as it being a federal law.

IANAL, but you need a lawyer. Certainly you need to read the basics at U.S. Copyright Office
They have FAQ there.

Sounds like you own the copyright, but might not have the right to sue.

Is your work registered? (formally applied for registered copyright? It is easy and inexpensive)

If not, then it's a your word vs his word, and the courts will not consider it. It has to be be registered to go to court and expect to win damages and lawyers fees, etc. Registration is the absolute hard evidence that the copyright is yours. Read the FAQ.

Thing is, it was a HUGE amount of venue and event shots, registering ALL that would be a PITA, but everything was my creative vision and we NEVER had any kind of contract. It's a moot point before court, but hence why I want to try to play the misuse card here. Plenty of time we had such conversations drunk, so what would and wouldn't stick is very moot.

Mostly hoping to go for - I gave my client usage rights for HIS networks, and he forwarded most of it to other networks and otherwise people without my permission (whether they used it for anything or not). So agreement was always pure good will/trust/friendship deal without any signatures ever involved.

SkvLTD said:

Thing is, it was a HUGE amount of venue and event shots, registering ALL that would be a PITA, but everything was my creative vision and we NEVER had any kind of contract. It's a moot point before court, but hence why I want to try to play the misuse card here. Plenty of time we had such conversations drunk, so what would and wouldn't stick is very moot.

Mostly hoping to go for - I gave my client usage rights for HIS networks, and he forwarded most of it to other networks and otherwise people without my permission (whether they used it for anything or not). So agreement was always pure good will/trust/friendship deal without any signatures ever involved.

Click to expand...

I believe you have 60-days to register images with the Copyright office, and you can do multiples in a single filing. It might be worth getting the ones you can do submitted, if only to give you a legal argument for recent works.

The old saying of course is "get it in writing". Like unregistered copyright, verbal contracts are technically valid too, but both are extremely difficult to enforce without evidence. I know nothing about law, but my guess is that without hard evidence, your best chance might be a discussion and negotiation, perhaps extra payment, to settle it with the client, out of court, without pissing each other off. That would likely be about who needs the other more, him or you?

There is info on the web, dunno how good it is...

photographer's contracts:
9 Free Photography Contracts from Docracy

small claims:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/smallclaimschecklist-en.pdf


I am not pretending to know anything about law, but is it about copyright or about a verbal contract? A lawyer could advise, perhaps about any possible witnesses or evidence, and about your chances. A lawyer can write a letter threatening court action. The client could see it as the bluff it is, but still, if it continues, both lawyers will get paid either way, so the defendant may consider complying to be the lesser cost. Seems like it is either worth this cost to you, or it's not.

You could have put many images for a big job(s) on a DVD, and registered copyright of all on one form for one $35 fee. That's very little cost for a big job. Then your evidence is the registration number of these images on the DVD in possession of the Library of Congress with the date of your claim of ownership. Then there is not much dispute possible, the earliest date wins. However, this is a big court and a pretty serious affair, they say legal fees are quite staggering to defend that, but you can get costs and punitive damages if you win, and you should. And possibly might even collect it.

There was a pretty good video link posted here a few months back on this very subject. For me it opened my eyes on some things that I didn't know about copyrights and photos. I think it was a lawyer and a photographer discussing what and how to do including registering as Rocketcowboy mentioned.

OK I found the post: #1 It was Grandpaw that posted the link.

When I sold an image to Australia post (1 single image) I wrote a contract saying to the extent that the image was to be used for (250 stamp/coin collection) this contract covers me for any misuse of that digital image. I would say get any photography work in writing and clear guidelines in place, but that is good in hindsight. I would see a lawyer and see what options you may have, as stated even a letter may be enough to sway the use of the images. Also have you sat down and spoke with your client? You may be able to work it out civilly before proceeding with extreme matters like suing.

This may be of use to you.

Oral Contracts - Understanding Oral Contracts

Well, I want to research and prep the hard hit just in case, because my client is likely to say go ahead, lets settle it in court if it came down to it. He's a friend, but stubborn and will argue to the death before paying a single dime civilly, hence why this situation even came up in a way.

Think about it guys, if he can't throw extra mere $100 for event coverage, do you really think he'd agree to pay misuse damaged collected over a year?

I could be wrong, as it does happen sometimes, but if you were hired to shoot, the one who hires owns the copyright of the images they hired (and paid for) to be shot in lieu of any other agreement.

Example: A magazine hires a photographer to go take pictures of the grand canyon. The images that the magazine accepts and pays for, belong to the magazine along with the copyright for those images.

If the photographer goes out and takes photos of the grand canyon, then sells the images to a magazine from his stock, the photographer owns the copyright and sells the usage rights to the magazine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the film days, didn't all wedding and portrait photographers keep the negatives? Hence the copyright, so to speak. Surely there must be some precedent there.

Eyelight said:

I could be wrong, as it does happen sometimes, but if you were hired to shoot, the one who hires owns the copyright of the images they hired (and paid for) to be shot in lieu of any other agreement.

Example: A magazine hires a photographer to go take pictures of the grand canyon. The images that the magazine accepts and pays for, belong to the magazine along with the copyright for those images.

If the photographer goes out and takes photos of the grand canyon, then sells the images to a magazine from his stock, the photographer owns the copyright and sells the usage rights to the magazine.

Click to expand...

Depends on the "for hire" part. If they employee you (W2 or 1099 in the US) and your job description is to take photos, then yes. If someone pays you as an independent photographer to photograph their wedding/birthday/party, the photographer still retains copyright.

ScottinPollock said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in the film days, didn't all wedding and portrait photographers keep the negatives? Hence the copyright, so to speak. Surely there must be some precedent there.

Click to expand...

Copyrights to photographs weren't a function of who keeps the negatives. The legal precedent was established long before the advent of photography. "Possession is 9/10th of the law" doesn't apply.

Careful there cowboy (always wanted to say that) (c;

1099 is for non-employee status (contractor, royalties, etc.).

I go back to the wedding/portrait thing again. What is the reasonable assumption regarding © in the absence of a written contract.

BTW, OP... Did you watermark or even exif comment your images?

RocketCowboy said:

Depends on the "for hire" part. If they employee you (W2 or 1099 in the US) and your job description is to take photos, then yes. If someone pays you as an independent photographer to photograph their wedding/birthday/party, the photographer still retains copyright.

Click to expand...

ScottinPollock said:

I go back to the wedding/portrait thing again. What is the reasonable assumption regarding © in the absence of a written contract.

Click to expand...

You shoot it, you own it (copyright).

One more thing to add to the confusion...

When I deliver software for a client, by default, my contract does not provide the source code. If they want that, and the right to do with it what they see fit, the price goes up substantially!!!

Exactly the same concept here.

RocketCowboy said:

Exactly the same concept here.

Click to expand...

Yeah... kinda figured.

Another wrench in the gear is:

Temper your understanding of the posts thrown up here with the fact that copyright law varies in different countries. A post that may be dead-on for the US may well not be for some other locale.