Legal Question as to rights ownership: Can I ask a legal question as to who owns the rights to a photograph? If this needs to be moved to another section of UHH please do so. Many...

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Can I ask a legal question as to who owns the rights to a photograph? If this needs to be moved to another section of UHH please do so.

Many years ago my daughter hired a professional photographer to take some pics of my grandson. No written contract. The pics were taken. My daughter paid the photographer and chose the ones she wanted from the proofs. 8x10's were made and sent to her. She received a sales receipt for her purchase.

So who owns the rights to the pictures she chose and paid for? Remember, no written contract exists. Can she duplicate those pictures? Enter them into a "kids" pic contest? etc? Or, does the photographer have all rights for additional use of those pictures?

sixshooter Loc: constitution state

Photographer. without a rights release client cannot legally duplicate images.

anotherview Loc: California

From what I understand, under law, the photographer owns the copyright to his photographs beginning with the act of pressing the shutter button. He may of course assign these rights to another via writing of some kind.

I hesitate to say more. Others here will give you their opinions. You may wish to Google your copyright questions, too.

If a serious copyright issue arises, then you will want to consider hiring a competent attorney to represent your interests.

insman1132 wrote:

Can I ask a legal question as to who owns the righ... (show quote)

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

ANY photographer who takes a picture OWNS the copyright unless they release that copyright to someone else IN WRITING.

Pro photographers charge you for their "time and work" in the sitting fees, then they charge you for the 'prints' which you will own and display as you wish, HOWEVER the photog stills owns the copyright to those images and you CANNOT LEGALLY reproduce that image and use it for other purposes, UNLESS you have that spelled out in a legal document.

Depending on the photog and how you use the images, they MIGHT not take you to court over any mis-use of those images, but they certainly have the right to do so.

That is one of the reasons that many in our family rarely use professionals for family pictures, we just find friends and family that take pics just as good as the studios. We then freely share the photos/files/etc with each other, however the one that actually "takes" the photos is still the copyright owner.

clixpix Loc: Surprise, Arizona

You may want to check out the details of a "work for hire" agreement. Since you hired the photog, paid for the work, got a receipt then work for hire may apply.

Just my 2 cents worth. Good luck.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

clixpix wrote:

You may want to check out the details of a "work for hire" agreement. Since you hired the photog, paid for the work, got a receipt then work for hire may apply.

Just my 2 cents worth. Good luck.

That never applies to portrait photographers. If the "work for hire" applied their prices would be even higher!! And there would also HAVE to be a WRITTEN CONTRACT with those details.

The "work for hire" principal is primarily for photographers who work for others, like all of the "Olan Mills" photographers, who did not own any of the copyrights of the work done for Olan Mills. Same applies to ALL EMPLOYEES of any Professional Photography company or studio, in which the STUDIO/COMPANY owns the copyrights.

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

Wahawk wrote:

That never applies to portrait photographers. If ... (show quote)

You are probably correct in saying "The "work for hire" principal is primarily for photographers who work for others" however you never know what a lawyer could do with it. Further, I have always thought it was totally wrong for a photographer to keep the copyrights if I am paying for his time and supplying the subject matter such as in a wedding. I am paying him to use his skill and perform a service. Why should he retain rights to the product? Does a carpenter have rights to use your house if you pay him to build it?

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

rcirr wrote:

You are probably correct in saying "The "... (show quote)

Work for hire is specified in the contract a photographer agrees to work under. If the employer wants copyright ownership, he will spell it out in the contract.

You can do the same thing when you hire a photographer, put it in the contract. The photographer will either agree or move on.

Photographers by law have ownership rights. Carpentry trades, by law, are work for hire. However, if you want the carpenter to use your house, then specify it is not a work for hire job.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

rcirr wrote:

You are probably correct in saying "The "... (show quote)

If you don't have a written contract stating that it is a "work for hire" arrangement, then the copyright is the photographer's. You are NOT paying him for his skill, you are paying him for the RESULTS of his skill. He retains the copyrights and you (BY LAW) are required to get all additional prints from him.

Why should he retain the rights? Because copyright law says that he does, unless he explicitly assigns those rights to someone else.

amehta Loc: Boston

rcirr wrote:

You are probably correct in saying "The "... (show quote)

Just as the carpenter produced a house which you can live in, the photographer produced a print which you can enjoy. You have the rights to use or sell the product, but you do not have the right to copy it. This is where intellectual property law comes in.

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

jdubu wrote:

Work for hire is specified in the contract a photographer agrees to work under. If the employer wants copyright ownership, he will spell it out in the contract.

You can do the same thing when you hire a photographer, put it in the contract. The photographer will either agree or move on.

Photographers by law have ownership rights. Carpentry trades, by law, are work for hire. However, if you want the carpenter to use your house, then specify it is not a work for hire job.

I fully understand the concept of work to hire. I always have put it in the contract when I hire a photographer....starting at my wedding in 1978, through my first daughter's wedding in 2004 and again with my second daughter's wedding in 2012. I will do the same when my youngest daughter marries. I just don't agree with the law. You know, I used a carpenter as a tongue in cheek analagy to hiring a photographer, but your statement "However, if you want the carpenter to use your house, then specify it is not a work for hire job." actually describes how I believe the law should be. If I pay a photographer for his time, supply the subject matter and tell him what I want shot, the rights should belong to me. As far as copyrights, if you have a builder build you a custom home, you have every right in the world (unless specified by contract) to build copies of it all day long!

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

amehta wrote:

Just as the carpenter produced a house which you can live in, the photographer produced a print which you can enjoy. You have the rights to use or sell the product, but you do not have the right to copy it. This is where intellectual property law comes in.

I appreciate that you realize I understand the law. Other responders seem to think I didn't comprehend it. While it is an interesting argument, I still don't agree with it. As I told someone else, if I pay for the photographers time, supply the subject matter and tell him what I want shot, I believe the copyright should be mine. I am simply using his skills to create a product. If a builder builds me a custom house, the drawings are mine and I can build copies of that house any time I care to. I wonder if a photographer that works for a photography studio has to have a special contract specifying who get's copyrights on images produced while working for the studio. I hope so. If not, that would mean studio's have preferential treatment over the public regarding retaining intellectual property rights.

amehta Loc: Boston

rcirr wrote:

I appreciate that you realize I understand the law... (show quote)

Yes, you can use the house drawings to have another house built, there is no such thing as "copy the house". In the same way, you can use the photo shoot plan to have another photo shot. But the first photo cannot be [i]copied[i] without the photographer assigning some or all rights to you, temporarily or permanently. Because the house cannot be copied, I think your analogy does not fully transfer when discussing copyright law.

You can tell the photographer what the subject matter is and how you want it shot, but if you hired me and told me "use this f-stop/ISO/shutter speed, focus on this point, change the focal length, stand right here, ...", I might just hand you the camera and walk out. :-)

rcirr Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

[quote=amehta]Yes, you can use the house drawings to have another house built, there is no such thing as "copy the house". In the same way, you can use the photo shoot plan to have another photo shot. But the first photo cannot be [i]copied[i] without the photographer assigning some or all rights to you, temporarily or permanently. Because the house cannot be copied, I think your analogy does not fully transfer when discussing copyright law.

You can tell the photographer what the subject matter is and how you want it shot, but if you hired me and told me "use this f-stop/ISO/shutter speed, focus on this point, change the focal length, stand right here, ...", I might just hand you the camera and walk out. :-)[/quote]

If I had to tell you how to use the camera, you would already have been fired! I appreciate the analogy isn't perfect but the fact still remains I still believe the copyright shouldn't automatically go to the person operating the camera.

amehta Loc: Boston

rcirr wrote:

If I had to tell you how to use the camera, you would already have been fired! I appreciate the analogy isn't perfect but the fact still remains I still believe the copyright shouldn't automatically go to the person operating the camera.

Of course I'm fired! :-)
So you can take your idea for how to set up the shot and set up another shoot, just as you can your idea of how to build the house and have another house built. Those are both your intellectual property, and those you get to reuse. When building the second house, you can even have the builder see the results of building the first house. When setting up the second shoot, you can also have the photographer see the results of the first shoot. But you cannot physically "copy" the house, and you are not legally allowed to "copy" that specific photograph.

You are welcome to believe that. And you may be right that it shouldn't. But in current US intellectual property law, it does. :-)