[djslavoki]

English is not my first language so i apologize in advance.

Okay here is some back story: I shoot for a local shop (i've been shooting for them for a couple months now) they work on a lot of exotics and i only get to shoot inside their shop, no outdoor shooting. Shop owner is paying me close to nothing, but i shoot for them since i think it will help build with my portfolio (and it has) Shop owner pays me after every photo shoot.

Here is where the problem begins, i give the shop my photos and they get to post them on their facebook page, website, etc. i am fine with that. I later find out that the shop gave my pictures to a very popular wheel company and let them use it on their site. (lets call them wheel company #1) i am kind of mad since he didnt let me know about this, but i let it slide.

fast forward a month i post new pictures on a forum and a wheel company (wheel company #2) contacts me about the pictures to see if its okay for them to use on their site and i say its okay as long as you mention me. The shop owner finds out that i let Wheel company #2 use the pictures because he paid for them. now he is mad, because i let Wheel company #2 use the pictures. (shop owner has beef with wheel company #2, thats why he is mad)

I did not have to sign any contract saying who i could or could not give my photos to, i reserved all rights to my images so it is okay for me to give my photos to whom ever i want, correct? what should i tell shop owner?

[rodi]

tell him he did not purchase or sign a release or the copyrights and you're free to do whatever you want with your photos.

[rodi]

an you didn't authorize use for wheel company 1.

[djslavoki]

thank you rodi, that is what i was thinking of telling him but i just want to make sure i was right and not just being a asshole.

[M_Six]

Not sure how copyrights work there, but if the owner paid you to shoot the second set, doesn't he own the pics? Or not? I guess it's like wedding shoots where you pay the photographer and then still have to buy the images, eh?

[oneintheory]

you need to sign contracts when you do paid work. any time i do paid work, i don't assume the client is okay with me posting them. i either tell them i will be posting them or ask them (depending on the shots and the fees, etc.).

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

you need to sign contracts when you do paid work. any time i do paid work, i don't assume the client is okay with me posting them. i either tell them i will be posting them or ask them (depending on the shots and the fees, etc.).

This. Always better to have the understanding in writing.

[rodi]

photographer always retains the original copyright unless SPECIFICALLY given up in a contract. this is not normal, however. usually it's just a limited use permission contract. even if you sell the images, photographer still owns copyright. always.

[djslavoki]

this is his response when i told him that he needed consent from the copyright owner to give wheel company #1 the pics to use in their gallery.

"But sure you took the pictures but I did pay you to take it for me, not anyone else right? (wheel company #1) I gave them permission. There is a reason I ask you to take pictures for me and its because its for me to use with whom I want to use it for.
I feel as a customer if you take pictures for me its for me and whomever I want to share it with. I have a partnership with Wheel company #1, so yes we share the pictures. I can distribute it as I paid for it."

[djslavoki]

i mean its kind of like buying a CD or DVD and making copies of it and giving it to all your friends. that's just not right.


lesson learned for me though, always use contract!

[schoy]

Look up "works for hire" doctrine for copyrights.

First off, oral contracts are just as enforceable as written contracts (unless the Statute of Frauds applies, such as real estate contracts, services > 1 year, and sale of goods > $500).

Second, it's likely that the photos that you shot for the shop owner may be considered a "work for hire", meaning that the shop owner (and not you) owns the copyrights. Meaning the shop owner can do whatever he wants with the photos.

Next time, put a written contract together stating that you retain ownership (and all copyrights and other intellectual property) and all other rights in your photos, and that your photos are NOT "works for hire". You might want to put the relevant details of your engagement as well (such as compensation, length of service, what non-exclusive rights the owner has in the use of your photos, etc.).

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by djslavoki

this is his response when i told him that he needed consent from the copyright owner to give wheel company #1 the pics to use in their gallery.

"But sure you took the pictures but I did pay you to take it for me, not anyone else right? (wheel company #1) I gave them permission. There is a reason I ask you to take pictures for me and its because its for me to use with whom I want to use it for.
I feel as a customer if you take pictures for me its for me and whomever I want to share it with. I have a partnership with Wheel company #1, so yes we share the pictures. I can distribute it as I paid for it."

His description only works if he purchased the copyright of that image, thereby making it "his" image to distribute freely. What he paid you for was your time for taking pics at his shop and the permission to post them on their website, facebook, ect....

If what he said was legal that would mean since he paid Porsche to build him a 911 that he could make exact copies of them and sell or give them away at his will.... copyright infringement. You can believe that his explanation would not hold up in court when Porsche is suing his ass.

It sounds like you have a very causal deal set up where as you say, you get next to nothing for your time and energy. What you DO GET are photos that you own used to build your portfolio or to sell as you see fit.

You need to educate this guy on how it's going to work from now on. I can see that you're ok with doing it to help you learn and build portfolio. But if you let him continue to distribute your images as he sees fit, you could possibly lose out on some key opportunities.

Say instead of wheel company 1 just getting an image from this guy, he said to them, "contact djslavoki, he can hook you up with great images like this one" You may have 2 paying jobs at that point. Who knows. But if he's just going to give your work away for free, what would they want to contact you for?


Here is some info addressing what schoy said about works for hire.

Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter. It continues throughout the life of the artist and 50 years after his or her death. In order to insure you have all the rights the law provides, as well as access to all the legal remedies available, you should have a copyright notice put on all of your published works. "Publication" means not only published in the sense of inclusion in a printed book or magazine, but also distribution via public sale, display with intent to sell (as in a gallery), and the rental, lease or loan of the work. And now, with the Internet, publication includes use on a page.

An exception to the ownership just described occurs if the work was done as work for hire. This is the case when a photographer or other artist signs a contract to produce a work or works for a fee. In this contract "work for hire" is specifically noted. The artist or photographer relinquishes all rights to his or her work. Those rights are assigned to the client. In other words, your client--not you--owns the copyrights . This transfer of rights has been the source of much controversy and many legal battles. Be very careful when reading your contracts to be sure you are not giving up your rights to your work. Copyrights for work for hire continue for 100 years past the date of publication.

It should be noted that just because you own the rights to your work, this does not mean you have the rights to use your work. Issues such as model releases, invasion of privacy, intended use, etc. all play a part in whether you may safely publish or sell your work. Someone can stop you from using your photograph of them, for example, if they feel you have invaded their privacy or shown them in a bad light.

Contracts don't need to be crazy long double sided legal size pages of fine print. You can probably find some sample contracts on the internet and modify them to suit your needs.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

If what he said was legal that would mean since he paid Porsche to build him a 911 that he could make exact copies of them and sell or give them away at his will.... copyright infringement. You can believe that his explanation would not hold up in court when Porsche is suing his ass.

When you buy a car, you're not hiring Porsche to build you a specific design. You're paying for a good.

OP's situation is no different than any patent created by an engineer at, say, Apple. Does the patent belong to the engineer or Apple?

Edit: actually, the OP's situation is a bit different because OP is not an employee (but an independent contractor). Wikipedia is our friend here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by schoy

When you buy a car, you're not hiring Porsche to build you a specific design. You're paying for a good.

OP's situation is no different than any patent created by an engineer at, say, Apple. Does the patent belong to the engineer or Apple?

Edit: actually, the OP's situation is a bit different because OP is not an employee (but an independent contractor). Wikipedia is our friend here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

Without contract, and we agree that verbal contracts can be enforceable, any photo, image, print, raw file, thumbnail, etc... is copyrighted by the artist. My guess is that customer nor OP made verbal or written notice specifically about works for hire. Without that, copyright goes back to the artist. Keep in mind that the OP isn't planning on any legal action. He's just looking to see what stance he should take on the situation and going forward.

Customer in OP's case is viewing the photo as a good he purchased from OP. Not much different than a Porsche. Especially when you commission a car to be built from them. With the thousands of different build options to choose from, you could essentially make it a one off item built specifically for you. Not a perfect example but you see where i was coming from.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

Customer in OP's case is viewing the photo as a good he purchased from OP. Not much different than a Porsche. Especially when you commission a car to be built from them. With the thousands of different build options to choose from, you could essentially make it a one off item built specifically for you. Not a perfect example but you see where i was coming from.

I guess it depends on whether this was a contract for services or for goods, i.e. did the owner hire him to take photos (perhpas a work for hire) or to buy certain of the photos he takes (like buying a Porsche)? Ultimately, it's a moot point since there's no written contract and OP is likely an independent contractor, but OP's original post isn't clear what the owner was hiring him for. Interesting academic exercise ...

[strams]

Yeah sucks

[dcstep]

As an employee, your employer probably owns your work, unless other arrangements were made up front. As you said, lesson learned. Discuss these kinds of things up front and put them in writing, even if it's only a confirming email.

This guy seems to have connections, so you might learn something about the photography business from him. However, it doesn't sound like a long-term position.

Dave

[rodi]

from what i understand, though, he was NOT an employee.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by rodi

from what i understand, though, he was NOT an employee.

Maybe he should stop calling him his "boss" and calling him his client.

The relationship seems a little "loose", to say the least. The "boss" sent him on an assignment and then immediately paid him for something. Seems to me that the boss had a client and paid his worker an agreed rate (either as an employee or contractor) to shoot a product. Unless it was defined otherwise, I suspect it would be very hard to collect royalties or additional compensation at this point.

Dave