Who owns the photos I take?
Feb 5, 2013 08:58:05 #
Joecosentino wrote:
My guess is if you are contracted work for hire, the person or company paying you owns the rights to the work you produce for them.
Inaflash wrote:
What about copyright laws. Photographs are copyrighted and usually owned by the photographer.
My guess is if you are contracted work for hire, the person or company paying you owns the rights to the work you produce for them.
Unless there is a specific agreement/contract stating that the FULL RIGHTS belong to the 'hiring' party, the photographer still OWNS the Copyrights and the Photos. The issue of whether or not the rights they sold are for 'exclusive' use or not is a separate issue.
The lack of a WRITTEN contract generally means that the photographer retains all rights to the photographs since they are not an 'employee' that was taking the photos.
Feb 5, 2013 09:20:57 #
lighthouse wrote:
Are you sure you read the situation properly Hebegebe? I think you might be a little confused.
Hebegebe wrote:
This whole arguement is crazy like two children fighting over a toy. If your agency is not listing again, why would you even care about the photos. What would you ever usen them for. Sounds like sour grapes. Really!!! I would resell them to the new agent (not really) but I would never use the first again (big babies).
Are you sure you read the situation properly Hebegebe? I think you might be a little confused.
Now I'm the one that's confused. I thought that Hebegebe made a good point. Unless the original agent ever re-lists this piece of real estate, what possible use could he/she have for these photos? If there is a use OTHER THAN selling this property I'd love to hear it. My brain is pretty simple so I certainly could have missed something.
I can see that the agent might be a little miffed that someone else might be using something they paid for, but that's not entirely true either because the new listing agent will also be paying.
The question I would have if I were the original agent is whether I would have the use of these photos if I get this property back, since I paid earlier for their use.
Feb 5, 2013 09:23:33 #
Why do you wish to be paid twice for the same work? Apologize profusely to the first agent and hope you aren't blackballed by all the agencies. Then do another shoot, even if the pictures look the same. Or, make the second set something a tad different to show they are new ones.
Feb 5, 2013 09:24:31 #
I hired a photographer to take photos at the ranch. I paid the fee, the photos are mine to do whatever I want. I would be very upset if that photographer resold my photos to someone else to use!
Ethically, I think you are wrong for charging two people for the same set of photos You will hurt your reputation. Go shoot the photos again for the second person. Evidently, realestate people know you, and they will know if you start being "unfair."
Treat your clients as you would like to be treated.
Ethically, I think you are wrong for charging two people for the same set of photos You will hurt your reputation. Go shoot the photos again for the second person. Evidently, realestate people know you, and they will know if you start being "unfair."
Treat your clients as you would like to be treated.
Feb 5, 2013 09:36:40 #
When one is commissioned unless its 'as work for hire, the photographer owns the copyright. The commissioner does not pay for the photographs, they pay for the right to use the photographs. The analogy would be you hire a car to use it for a specific time and purpose.
That said- this is a little messy as clients do not understand or choose not to understand copyright law. They think 'I paid for the photographs they are mine'... they will choose to ignore that they paid for the USE of the photographs. Look at http://www.blinkbid.com/, a simple business software which generates licences to use and makes it clear to all what you are agreeing to.
Despite all the above, I would reshoot for goodwill all round and tighten up back office paperwork next time, agree the uses and rights up front, exclusive non exclusive whatever.
That said- this is a little messy as clients do not understand or choose not to understand copyright law. They think 'I paid for the photographs they are mine'... they will choose to ignore that they paid for the USE of the photographs. Look at http://www.blinkbid.com/, a simple business software which generates licences to use and makes it clear to all what you are agreeing to.
Despite all the above, I would reshoot for goodwill all round and tighten up back office paperwork next time, agree the uses and rights up front, exclusive non exclusive whatever.
Feb 5, 2013 09:37:59 #
Depends on how you define "employee."
The whole stupid thing boils down to, how willing one is to ruin his reputation within the realestate community. The quicker there is an apology, the better. Retake the photos. A photographer has no use for photos of someone else's house.
The whole stupid thing boils down to, how willing one is to ruin his reputation within the realestate community. The quicker there is an apology, the better. Retake the photos. A photographer has no use for photos of someone else's house.
Feb 5, 2013 09:46:34 #
Joecosentino wrote:
My guess is if you are contracted work for hire, the person or company paying you owns the rights to the work you produce for them.
Inaflash wrote:
What about copyright laws. Photographs are copyrighted and usually owned by the photographer.
My guess is if you are contracted work for hire, the person or company paying you owns the rights to the work you produce for them.
Exactly... leaving the question: Was this work for hire? (that is employment) and that was not made any more clear that the terms of the exchange.
The point has been made repeatedly that one needs to make the deal going in... good advice. Even in jurisdictions where there is default ownership, arriving at a place where both parties clearly understand the transaction and implications is critical.
Feb 5, 2013 09:46:40 #
Kind of true.... to be blunt, the whole thing boils down to sloppy business practice on both sides. the long and short of it is when sloppines creeps in the client has more power, as the photographer is in fear of not working again.
Feb 5, 2013 09:47:24 #
usaellie101
Loc: Spring Hill, Florida
RocketScientist wrote:
The owner and rights of you and the original person you contracted with are entirely up to the wording of the contract you both entered into. To answer your question properly, we would need to see the contract.
True True But common sense tells you the photos were sold and paid for by one agent. It is now hers to do with what she pleases.
If you had sold it to me and the house did not sell I might return the photos to you but I am not in the Rat business of real estate.
Sorry to be so down on the Real Estate business but we are in the process fo bing a house here in Hernando County Florida at the moment. We smell rats all over the place.
Feb 5, 2013 09:49:31 #
Inaflash wrote:
Never had a written contract, real estate agent calls me with a photo shoot request we schedule a time for the shoot I take the photos they pay me and I send them the pictures.
Hello Inaflash,
You ask an important question. Based on 'gentleman's agreement', many years ago shot property for a local real estate company. I just 'assumed' the product they were paying me for was their property, and treated it as such, but as you've read in some posts, it would depend entirely on what agreement was either discussed or stated in the contract. If doing a job for pay, it's good practice to have it on paper in the future, what your terms are. I never ran into a situation like you describe, but had it taken place, I would not use the same photo someone else paid me for. JMHO PapaJoe
Feb 5, 2013 09:56:27 #
TheeGambler wrote:
. A photographer has no use for photos of someone else's house.
And neither does the original agent if they no longer have the listing.
If we put ethics aside for a moment, who has actually lost anything as a result of the photo use? The original listing agent has paid for pics but the house didn't sell. If the same photos are used again by another listing agent (who also paid for their use), does it cost the original agent anything? - No.
Does the original agent GAIN anything by having the photographer take new photos? - No.
Though I do agree with most of you that the photographer, by not having a contract, should take new photos (If for no other reason to avoid petty arguments like this one), this entire issue is little more than sour grapes.
One agent loses a listing to another one. It happens all the time. And no one likes to lose business.
Feb 5, 2013 10:27:47 #
No, people don't understand why photographers want to control and resell photos when "the photographers have been paid to take them." I run into this mindset with professional photographers and those are the ones I won't use. That idea just doesn't cut butter.
The solution is for the photographer to have his own contract that he gets clients to sign before doing the job. The client has a right to know, upfront, what will happen with the photos.
Again, photographers should be reasonable so they can keep their clients. Just because "that is the way it is done" doesn't mean that it is the "right thing to do."
The solution is for the photographer to have his own contract that he gets clients to sign before doing the job. The client has a right to know, upfront, what will happen with the photos.
Again, photographers should be reasonable so they can keep their clients. Just because "that is the way it is done" doesn't mean that it is the "right thing to do."
Feb 5, 2013 10:38:36 #
As a photographer, if someone hires me to take some photos, the photos remain my property UNLESS the agreement plainly indicates the 'customer' will own them. IF that happens, the customer provides the 'media' that will be used, and after shooting the photos I remove the media and hand it to them with NO PP of any kind, and this usually requires a higher fee upfront as well.
Feb 5, 2013 10:43:30 #
I can't get past the fact that the first agent is simply being a poor sport. He she/is making you dance, they have nothing to gain
Feb 5, 2013 10:53:01 #
Loudbri wrote:
I can't get past the fact that the first agent is simply being a poor sport. He she/is making you dance, they have nothing to gain
LOL!! But that is the very nature of the cut-throat business of Real Estate sales. And a LOT of egos are on the line too!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.