Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ohkphoto" data-source="post: 171372" data-attributes="member: 1573">You are right, Kodiak, the whole thing is a mess, and somewhat unnecessary . . . just another way for lawyers to get rich.Here in the US, the IRS makes a distinction between an independent contractor and and employee.&nbsp; You can be &quot;hired&quot; to do a job for a business and not be classified as an employee.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are indeed a bona fide salaried employee, then the employer owns your work.&nbsp; But if you are an independent service provider/contractor, the work is yours. . . at least here in the USA.&nbsp; Maybe the safest thing to do is to always have a release for person and property.Like you, I, too, want to just take photos, and maybe NOT like you, I have a dislike for lawyers. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ohkphoto, post: 171372, member: 1573"] You are right, Kodiak, the whole thing is a mess, and somewhat unnecessary . . . just another way for lawyers to get rich. Here in the US, the IRS makes a distinction between an independent contractor and and employee. You can be "hired" to do a job for a business and not be classified as an employee. If you are indeed a bona fide salaried employee, then the employer owns your work. But if you are an independent service provider/contractor, the work is yours. . . at least here in the USA. Maybe the safest thing to do is to always have a release for person and property. Like you, I, too, want to just take photos, and maybe NOT like you, I have a dislike for lawyers. :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification