WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

I know there are more then a few pros here so I am confident that the correct legal answer may be available.

Assume the local VFW (a US not for profit org. Veterans of Forign Wars) is holding a fundraiser car show pig roast. They want pictures of the event for their web space, brag wall and next year's promo flyer or advertising. They hire a photographer sensitive to their cause to shoot candid images of the day plus images of the cars in the car show. All car owners sign releases for their pictures and pictures of their cars. Releases are obtained by photographer, let's assume granting the rights for above use and rights for the photographer to use the images ... say as stock photos.

The deal made with the VFW grants permission to the VFW to use the images as stated above in exchange for giving the photographer permission to shoot the event.

Does the photographer have the legal right to sell prints or electronic images/files outside of the VFW. In particular ; say the owners of the cars would like nice printed images of their car or of others cars? How about the pig roast guy wants a nice blow up?
How about after the fact, say Hot Rod mag. learns of some awesome car that was there and wants some images?

Now let's say that the deal with the VFW was that the photographer agreed to shoot the event as described above plus $1. Does the payment of a fee alter the distribution of rights.

Who owns the files?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Unless there is an agreement that prevents the photographer from selling his own photos, he is free to do that if he wants. He is the owner of the images unless as part of the agreement he sold that to the VFW.

Best advice is to talk to a lawyer - rights are typically governed by licensing and releases, ownership remains with the shooter unless an agreement specifically says otherwise.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks. I thought so.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

These are usually open to the public, no problem. And even if it is a private event, the photographer keeps the rights, unless he is paid by the hour, which could make him a employee, and the photos then belong to the business. It depends on the contract he has. Since the photographer is getting releases there are no problems, he can do what he likes.....

Jmho

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

The photographer owns the copyright. You have given limited rights to the VFW. So they can do what the contract stipulates. You must have it in writing as to what they can do. If they wanted to sell the images to the car owners, they cannot legally because that's not in the contract.

It is similar to a model release that stipulates you own the copyright and you can do anything with the image you want.

Just specify exactly what they can do-- advertisement, brochure, or whatever. When giving them pictures or files, I would make small files such as no larger than 300 kB. That's fine for newspapers and Facebook, but not large enough for 8" x 10" prints.

Hope this helps,
Kozan

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

What does the written and mutually signed contract say about ownership and reuse outside the contract purpose of hiring the photographer to perform this work? The contract language would be the first place to consult to resolve this question. What do the signed photo release documents say regarding the purposes of the images? That would be a guide to the expected wide (or limited) reuse of the images. Standard for-hire contracts will address and clearly state the ownership / copyright and reuse opportunities of the resulting images, typically retained exclusively by the party that hired the photographer. The release documents may constrain the photographer if the contract failed to address this issue.

If you're asking on behalf of the VFW, you can download standard photographer for-hire contracts and see the format, language and level of detail, assuming this is a future event. Both parties can negotiate the contract terms to their liking before signing or they can choose not to enter into the contract for this work.

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Exactly
Thanks very much

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks.
Sorry I didnt but I was thinking of asking if there is a repository of stardard contracts for photographers for differant purposes?

Edit.
But then,,, Google is my friend.😉 Found PPA

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If the contract signed by the car owners give the rights of the photo's to the photographer then the photographer own's the images and can do what ever he/she wants.
If, Hot Rod Mag. wants some of the images, and the said contact gives all rights to the photographer, then the photographer can sell the images on a ONE TIME RELEASE to the mag. and retain all rights to those images for further sales. ie. a pro wants to retain all rights to the images, they never give them up under any circumstances.
As far as the $1 goes, it all depends on what the contract says about that. DEPENDS.
By the way, sounds a lot like YOU want to be that photographer. HUH? Come on, time to come clean, you want to be that photographer don't yea, yeah, you do.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I think so too Bill, he's the one........

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Model/property releases and copyright ownership are two different subjects.

Model & property releases...

In this example, the car owners' sign model & property releases giving the photographer the right to use the images of their cars and themselves any way they wish. Other parties featured in images also should sign releases. Best examples of model and property releases, and among the most commonly used can be found with detailed descriptions here: https://www.asmp.org/property-model-releases/

Model/property releases have little to nothing to do with copyright ownership (i.e., the topic of this post, according to its headline). Releases simply determine how an image may or may not be used. A fully and properly released image potentially has a lot more value than an unreleased image. A release might reiterate that copyright ownership remains with the photographer (or their employer), but this is merely a clarification. The copyright owner can do almost anything they wish with fully released photos. The owner can license image usage for commercial or editorial purposes, display them publicly online without restriction, use them in a portfolio and in self-promotion materials and more.

Model/property releases primary purposes are to reduce risk and discourage lawsuits. Some uses tehcnically don't require a release: news/editorial, educational, portfolio, fine art. However in all cases it is better to have a signed release and in some cases it's become standard practice or expected. For example, more and more editorial users are asking for them (magazines, newspapers, websites, etc.)... especially for "soft news" photos. A major newspaper I worked for some years ago had something like active 50 court cases on any given day. Of course, not all those were related to images they'd used... but some were. Anything they could do to reduce that number of court cases and legal costs that come with them was helpful.

There are some image types and usages where a standard release might not be sufficient... Such as nude photos or defamatory uses. A more explicit model/property release, identification and proof of age may be necessary for a photog and/or their employer to CYA. Not likely to be needed at a car show... But, hey, who knows!

Copyright ownership...

There are situations where a photographer may not own the copyright of images they take. The primary situation where that occurs is "work for hire". This is where the photographer is a "regular employee" such as a staff photographer for a newspaper or magazine. A friend of mine was an Associated Press photographer for ten years, early in his career. All the images he took as part of his job during that time period are owned by AP... not by him. He's actually bought usage some of his own images as stock photos, when AP has offered them for sale.

Another photographer I worked with years ago took one of the most iconic news photos of the 20th century while employed as a staff photographer by the Dallas Morning News. He won a Pulitzer, but the newspaper owned the copyright and sold usage of the image widely for many years. When the photographer retired, the newspaper gifted the copyright of the image to him. He has been able to license it's usage many times since then.

In the case given above, the VFW just paying the photographer $1 would not constitute "work for hire" very clearly. In the case of a temporary hire such as that implies, work for hire must be clearly defined in a written agreement signed by both parties.... in the United States. It may be different in other countries. For example, I don't know that it's true, but I've been told that it's just the opposite in Italy... that any sort of payment (such as the fee paid to a wedding photographer) automatically makes it work for hire, unless it's in writing that it is not.

The situation where the VFW paid the photographer $1 is a good example of why it's important that a written agreement be signed by both parties, to fully clarify each party's duties and to definitively spell out who owns the images being made. If there's no written agreement and the VFW chose to dispute it, they might take the photographer to court over copyright ownership... claiming it was work for hire because they paid them $1. In a U.S. court, chances are the photographer would win the case. However, even so they would have hefty legal bills. Even winners in court sometimes end up bankrupted by the costs of defending themselves!

Ask a lawyer to be certain. I'm just a photographer who has to deal with some of this stuff!

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Allen,
Thanks for a very complete reply.

You picked up on the $1 implications. I knew that a fee paid, any fee, could toss a wrench into the works. Thanks for thinking through with me.

As fory mention of the car owners signing the releases. I only included it because I knew the question would come up from some quarter.

Thanks very much
Bill

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

As a professional, I do ALL work by written work order or contract even if it is donated, pro bono, or performed at a lower rate for a non-profit or charitable organization. I stipulate in all my forms that I am the owner of all negatives, proofs (form the olden days), alldigital media, and files as well as the copyright on all images connected with the contract unless otherwise specified in the list of goods and services supplied. An intrinsic model release for all usages is also included and specifies my right to sell, display, exhibit, in my showroom, at public exhibitions and online all images connected with the contract or work order- again unless otherwise specified. If there are privacy issues, waivers. restrictions, or exemptions, those have to be written into the contract.

On commercial work, I do no sell images made for clients to others. I just want the display and portfolio rights. Reproduction rights may be limited, sold outright or charged my insertions and license.

I have been doing this for the better part of 50 years and only had to take one client to court for unauthorized reproduction and I won the case.

Before printing my forms, I ran all this by my lawyer to make certain that the terms are legal and enforceable and in conformance with consumer protection laws and regulation my jurisdiction. The legal fees for this advice was money well spent because it precluded lots of potential aggravation. It's best to put thigs in writing and make sure that the client is comfortable with all the terms before signing.

Even for amateurs and part-time pros, it pays to design and print up your own forms, make certain they are legal and enforceable and keep them on hand for when assignments come your way. Good contracts protect the photographer and the client and ensure a smooth working relationship with no ambiguity.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

Photographer.