MDI Mainer

Unless a photographer is an employee of the person or entity commissioning the work (and is not acting as an independent contractor as is most common photographer/client relationship) the work product will not ordinarily be deemed a "work for hire" under US law.

Thus absent more, the photographer, AND NOT the client, owns the copyright in the photograph, and thus owns the right to control future and additional uses of the image. (The "fair use" doctrine does provide some exceptions to this right of control, but is perhaps the most complex part of copyright law and beyond the scope of this post.)

The most common exception is where the photograph is part of a collective work or a compilation of work AND there is a written agreement designating the image as a "work for hire." In most other cases designation of an image as a "work for hire" is ineffective, because the work does not fit the statutory definition.

Like other forms of property, a copyright may be transferred, sold or assigned in whole or in part, but the transaction must ordinarily (and certainly under a best practice standard would) be in writing and signed by the owner of the copyright, i.e., the photographer.

Finally, there are antecedent steps, e.g., registration with the Copyright Office, required before a copyright can be enforced (i.e., by claiming damages for or seeking to prohibit unauthorized use of the image) in federal court. Federal court litigation is the exclusive remedy for a copyright infringement, except for the issuance of a "take down notice" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Of course the commercial realities of successfully working with and for clients will affect the conduct and terms of the transaction.

This and the following information are a very brief and condensed synopsis of copyright law, and one should consult an attorney knowledgeable about intellectual property law, especially where substantial financial interests are involved.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/06/sample-dmca-take-down-letter/id=4501/

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Pat, this topic has been discussed at least a couple dozen times here and I have always left the conversation not really knowing much more than when I started reading the thread. Always lots of opinions, lots of links, lots of conflicting information. (Type "Copyright" into the search box at the top of the site and you can read lots more on the subject).

Back when I shot weddings, my contract basically just said that I could use any photographs taken in any way I wished for sales & marketing of MY services and that is all I cared about having the ability to do. My goal was NOT to run off customers with a lots of legal jargon when it was THEIR wedding I was shooting. I saw no reason when I sat down with the couple to spend time arguing on the nitpics of who owned what and when. Because you said this is portrait (people) photography versus other commercial work, I would doubt if you would be needing or wanting to sell these to others than the client so why not use the KISS system in writing up your contract?

MDI Mainer

Misappropriation of intellectual property like songs and photographs by political campaigns is not uncommon and is an enduring enforcement problem.

repleo Loc: Boston

Follow your intuition. As a client, I would never sign such a contract. If anything, I would want a clause prohibiting the Photographer from using any of the images for any use without my express and specific permission. What if the session captured some embarasing, unflattering or intimate moments?

The essence of a professional ethos is that the client's interests come first.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So if he worded the title a certain way, Piggly Wiggly could own them???

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Yes, that is standard, always has been. Back in the days the photographer always owned his neg's and could do whatever he liked with it. But if used later for another commercial purpose, an additional release form is/was needed!

cascoly Loc: seattle

NOTHING is certain - while you own the copyright, the contract determines whether you are transferring that copyright or granting a license to use the images. in general, the more rights you give to the client, the higher the price you can ask. many clients just need a use license.

as far as the actual license you reference, I certainly wouldn't sign a contract allowing someone to use my portraits anyway they want - a better approach would be to specify non-commercial use.

in addition to, or rather than, consulting a copyright lawyer you might want to check microstock agencies like adobe, getty, Shutterstock et al since they face this every day selling millions of images. (as a stock photographer, I retain copyright of my images, and the agencies grant very specific rights)

cascoly Loc: seattle

true, but the problem is the contract IS the model release in this case. one common use of contracts like this would be the ability to use portraits as advertising for one's portrait business without paying the subject.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Find a lawyer and pay them to:
1. Review your contract and offer advice on it.
2. Tell you what the law is in Connecticut.

From all that I understand, the contract will determine who owns the copyright to the photos and who has the license to use them (and to what extent). But I'm not a lawyer and may be blowing smoke out of my nose.

repleo Loc: Boston

Copyright law is Federal Law. The State doesn't enter into it. In order to bring a breach of copyright case in a Federal Court you must have a certificate of registration of copyright from the U.S. Copyright Office - recent Supreme Court decision. It doesn't really matter who 'owns' the copyright - you can't enforce it without an official certificate of registration.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

So what you are saying, if for example, I went to a photography studio and got a portrait of myself done and I then had the sudden urge to draw a silly mustache on the image I purchased, I first need to contact the photographer to get permission to do so? That doesn't seem right.

Keen

Accept the terms of the contract, or find another photographer which has a different contract, or take your own photos. Generally, he / she who shoots the photo owns all rights to it....unless those rights are surrendered by a contract. Doing work for another-a magazine, newspaper, portrait client, etc-generally gives all rights to that other via 'work for hire' principles....unless a contract surrenders some of those rights. Written contracts alter any / all general principles / assumptions. Once you sign a contract, model release, etc, you are bound by whatever it says. If you don't like the terms of a written agreement-contract, model release, etc-do not sign it.

repleo Loc: Boston

Try putting this notice in your window or on your website, business cards etc.

"I own all rights for the pictures you pay me to take and I can do anything I want with them. You only have the right to use the pictures for what I say you can and nothing else"

Then watch your business take off - down the sewer.

User ID

No. If they are the client's photos, as per
the thread title, then they are the client's
photos.

If you are correct about the contract, then
as per the thread title, in the contract the
client is granted ownership.

No matter what makes them the property
of the client ... contract, gravity, etc etc ...
the question posed, of who owns a "client's
photos" is no question at all. Who own's the
client's shoes ? Same stoopid question :-(

`

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You can do anything you want to an image, but if you scan and post on FB, Insta, or some other public forum, then you are potentially in violation of copyright.