| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
fujhhn
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Photography and copyrights (question also posted under 'phot |
 |
|
|
| I'm a photographer just starting my own business. I've done quite a bit of research about copyrights & all of my findings tell me that I, as the photographer & artist, own the rights to any photos that I take, even if I'm hired to take them. I'm of the understanding that unless I have a signed contract with my client stating that I will give the up my rights to the finished product I will own them forever & can do with them as I wish (ie: using them in my portfolio, for advertising, etc.).However, my friend knows a couple that hired a photographer to take their wedding photos who asked them to sign a release for him to be able to sell any pictures that he took, they declined to sign. About a year later the wife discovered that he had sold her pictures to a magazine. They sued the photographer & won $50,000. My question is..why? Do they own rights to the pictures because they are in them? Am I wrong in believing that I'm the artist & I own my art even if I'm hired?Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 |
Essegeror
Joined: 30 Oct 2007
Posts: 9
Location: MY
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: Photography and copyrights (question also posted under 'phot |
|
|
|
| Mahal is absolutely correct.The only "right" you retain is the copyright. That means that they can't reproduce your photographs and hand them out to all their friends unless you give them permission to do so.Most professional photographers use a small hallmark in the lower right corner of the photograph. Simply your name or the name of your studio is sufficient. That way, when they take the photos to Walmart to get them copied, they will be turned away unless they have your written permission to copy them.However, you no longer own the photographs or the rights to use them in any manner without the owner's written consent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FlozoMek
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 5
Location: IT
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Photography and copyrights (question also posted under 'phot |
|
|
|
| There were two issues in play in the case your friend told you about. First is the issue of the copyright in the photographs. The photographer in almost all cases retains the copyright in the photos. If the happy couple want more copies, they have to pay the photographer for them, they can't just make their own without violating copyright.Second is the issue of modelling fees. When a photographer makes 'commercial use' of someone else's image he must either get the model to sign a "model release" authorizing him to to do so, or pay the model a fair fee for the use of her image. By selling the pictures to a magazine without the brides permission and 'behind her back' he deprived her of her rightful modelling fee. If he'd offered her a small amount of money in order to sell her photo, and she'd declined, he could have asked a court to set a 'reasonable fee' - by trying to hide what he was doing he got smacked with punitive damages.Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fijibabie
Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: Photography and copyrights (question also posted under 'phot |
|
|
|
| Well, you're talking about two separate issues. The copyright for the photos actually belongs to the photographer. Because the actually property is the negative or the digital file used to create the photos and unless he specifically gives up that right in a contract, he owns the originals. The package the couple gets is just a copy from the source material. The couple cannot take their wedding photos down to Walgreens and legally make copies. If they want more, they're supposed to go back to the original photographer and purchase more reproductions.That being said, the photographer sold his customers likeness without their permission. Their claim had nothing to do with copyright, but rather the use of those photos for a commercial purpose without a signed release. Now, notice I said commercial purpose. IE, if he used their photos to advertise his business, they'd be in the right to collect that money. However, if the photos were sold to a magazine for an article about weddings, then they really wouldn't have a claim and I'd be surprised to learn that was the case. If so, the photographer had a good case to appeal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
