Copyright, Usage Rights, and Suing for Money?

[SkvLTD]

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.

At least from what I've read, unless the magazine tells the photographer exact settings, angle, etc of what they need, photog holds the copyright and can transfer it to the magazine via signed document. There was some case where guy shot for a magazine, and magazine spread that work further out and got sued mad because that wasn't in the contract and photog charged other sources for usage of his work.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but even unlimited use =/= copyright, and unlimited use =/= ability to transfer images outside of the party whom they were made for.

 

[SkvLTD]

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?

Good few had a small mark, ALL had exif website url in them (those that were mis-used on other sites are likely good quality ones I zipped/sent em, so they likely retain the exif; ones on Facebook obviously not, but I still have ALL the raw files so its easy to claim ownership that way; and yes, raws have my website as well out-of-the-camera)

 

[ScottinPollock]

Copyrights & Campaigns: Can you sue in state small claims court over copyright infringement? Sorry, but no.

One of the first things I do with a new camera is enter a © notice in the exif comment.

 

[ScottinPollock]

And seeing how the Small Claims thing is iffy at best, one thing you can do easily is issue a DMCA take down notice to any entity hosting the photo.

This is provided of course that the value the infringer is gaining is from an internet presence.

 

[ScottinPollock]

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.

I wasn't speaking to 'possession' but the ability (and/or right) to copy. Without the negs it would be pretty tough to create any more decent prints. Only the photog is capable of additional prints, hence he is the only one with the right to print them. Now if they were to offer up the negs to the client, that seemingly would offer up the © as well.

Obviously that metaphor doesn't quite fit the digital age, but lawmakers have been slow to understand the technology, let alone write common sense legislation regarding it... and I don't suppose the courts are any less clueless in this regard. I don't want to go all political on you, but the whole USPTO/copyright system in the U.S. is in need of a serious revamp as it is no longer doing what it was designed to do, and in fact is accomplishing the exact opposite, often being used as a mainline tool for extortion.

Rant over... now back to our previously scheduled programming.

 

[RocketCowboy]

Only the photog is capable of additional prints, hence he is the only one with the right to print them.

This is where the analogy fails. Copyright isn't/wasn't granted because it was difficult to make quality reproductions of work. NBC hasn't lost copyright on the shows it produces just because DVRs make it easier to record/replay. Copyright is to protect the creator of the work, be that a software programmer, writer, artist, or photographer.

 

[480sparky]

I wasn't speaking to 'possession' but the ability (and/or right) to copy. Without the negs it would be pretty tough to create any more decent prints. Only the photog is capable of additional prints, hence he is the only one with the right to print them. Now if they were to offer up the negs to the client, that seemingly would offer up the © as well.

Obviously that metaphor doesn't quite fit the digital age, but lawmakers have been slow to understand the technology, let alone write common sense legislation regarding it... and I don't suppose the courts are any less clueless in this regard. I don't want to go all political on you, but the whole USPTO/copyright system in the U.S. is in need of a serious revamp as it is no longer doing what it was designed to do, and in fact is accomplishing the exact opposite, often being used as a mainline tool for extortion.

Rant over... now back to our previously scheduled programming.

One can easily make prints without negs. It's been done for decades. Or centuries for that matter. And ownership of the negatives does not give anyone the right to make prints.

The copyright system does work. What has failed is the majority of people who don't understand how it works. Hence, there is an element that will take advantage of that.

And for those who don't understand how it works, complain not when it fails you simply because you didn't feel compelled to play by the rules that have been set forth. Rules that are pretty much written in plain English, not legalese.

 

[ScottinPollock]

This is where the analogy fails.

Oh believe me I understand. It was more of a metaphor than an analogy. Something to relate to what might be inferred given no contract (or evidence of such) in place.

It is entirely possible the client's understanding was "I'm paying you to deliver these photos for my use, and at my sole discretion". In which case, a verbal contract is void as there was no meeting of the minds. Then the only room for a ruling is what the ruling party feels is reasonable. That judgement is based on experience and precedent. In general most 'for hire' photographers (or artists, even engineers and architects) don't give up unlimited use of their work, especially when a client may be profiting by sharing it with others.

For me, the keeping of the negs (or the printing plates so to speak) was an apt metaphor for a hard line in the sand that most folks would relate to... ergo, what is reasonable.

 

[SkvLTD]

Copyrights & Campaigns: Can you sue in state small claims court over copyright infringement? Sorry, but no.

One of the first things I do with a new camera is enter a © notice in the exif comment.

Like I said, I do that in-cam as well as in post, so all my RAWs have C@my website.

And yea, I would file for like intentional commercial misuse, since that can definitely get me 2-400/pic or get them ALL torn down. Tear down will hurt his business quite a bit, so that alone would be incentive enough to cede and respect my authority over MY work.

 

[Eyelight]

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.

I did mention in my first response that there is some gray area. The link below delves into the gray, but doesn't scatter it all. It is clear that one way to establish a work for hire relationship is with a written agreement, but goes back grayish on the what exactly is an employee.

What defines an employee by law is not paperwork, but who controls the person's activity...... kinda.... sorta.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

 

[SkvLTD]

I did mention in my first response that there is some gray area. The link below delves into the gray, but doesn't scatter it all. It is clear that one way to establish a work for hire relationship is with a written agreement, but goes back grayish on the what exactly is an employee.

What defines an employee by law is not paperwork, but who controls the person's activity...... kinda.... sorta.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

But no paper/contract, little grounds for employer to stand on and I'm lucky he hates legal bindings, hahaha. The man risks like a real gambler.