Ownership of photos?

L-M

How do, I figure this is the best place to ask. I've recently gotten into Car photography, photoshoots etc. and then offering the pictures photoshopped and in frames for a small fee.

Now, what I want to know, I presume I own these photos?

One lad posted this,

"might get one on my starlet when its done but just on the copyright seeing as its my car or who evers car in the photo and it would not exist with out that car how would you fully own it? say you used the photo of my car in something else a calender or something would you have to get concent from the car owner?"

Any info, links etc. on these lines greatly appriciated, thanks.

kensutz

You took the photo, you own the copyright.

Zillah

Whoever takes the photo owns the copyright on the photo, it is that simple. If they take their car into public view they're allowing photos of it to be taken.

There are a few exceptions. For example, if you take a photo in the course of your employment then the photo belongs to your employer; ie, if you were an engineer taking pictures of a potential building site then the photo belongs to the people paying you to do the survey.

There are a few weirder examples, such as the Eiffel Tower. Any photos of the tower belong to the French Government, but that's a really bizarre exception due to a law they passed.

If you take photos on private property the owner has the right to ask you to stop or leave and you must comply.

Now, that's the default position. As part of your contract with this car owner you can specify anything you guys want: You can agree to totally sign over copyright, or you can arrange an exclusivity agreement (he can used your photo in circumstances X, Y and Z, but nothing else, and you may not use it anywhere else. If he wants to use it in A or B then he must renegotiate with you for that use). For example, wedding photos: The people who's wedding it is get an album full of photos, the photos themselves actually belong to the photographer and if they want to make any copies they have to make an agreement with the photographer.

It would be highly unusual to totally hand over the copyright, by the way.

L-M

Thanks Zilah, exactly what I wanted.

smelltheglove

As said above all yours.... Now what I do to appease customers is this, I have a section in my contract explaining i have the right to use the photos for display, web, competitions etc, if they have any issues with this I generally just dont use the photos to be honest, some people are like that an at the end of the day you want to retain a good name for dealing with people rather than having an argument before you even do a job.

To the customer you can explain that the car is an object and once in public with or without consent you are entitled to photograph it and that you would own copyright, no model release required for an object, however on this occasion if the client fels they do not want the image used for advertising you will refrain from doing so as a gesture of respect.

ttcomet

I would agree 100% that Limerickman would own the copyright on the photo but who owns the copyright on the car?
I assume that the cars are modified? The act of modification could surely be taken as a creative work and therefore is copyrightable? Therefore that would make his photograph a derivative work?

Please note I am phrasing everything above as a set of questions as I would not be 100% on the legalities of it.

AnCatDubh

here's an old link but I think is very relevant for you;

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

As I understand it, the piece is opinion but I think its reasonably well founded.

Anouilh

Copyright laws are variable from one country to another. China does not recognise the concept of intellectual property. I came across references to people who have work published in Cuba because it is more open.

You might find this useful:

http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2008/03/permission-unpossible-i.html

Ever so often I just go back to photographing yet another "nice flower", just to take a break from thinking about this.

Also, for amateurs, putting a watermark on a photo is a useful ploy, though many find it unsightly.

In the long run, building up goodwill is the best stock in trade any photographer could have.

Duchovny

ttcomet wrote: »

I would agree 100% that Limerickman would own the copyright on the photo but who owns the copyright on the car?
I assume that the cars are modified? The act of modification could surely be taken as a creative work and therefore is copyrightable? Therefore that would make his photograph a derivative work?

Please note I am phrasing everything above as a set of questions as I would not be 100% on the legalities of it.

It doesn't matter who owns the car if the car is in a public space can be photographed.
Even if they are modified they are still in public space.

longshanks

what if the car is on private property?

mloc

longshanks wrote: »

what if the car is on private property?

AFAIK, IANAL but if you photograph it FROM public property you are good to go.

longshanks

ianal?

what if you take the photos while on private property? (i don't mean trespassing or anything like that)

Ghost Train

longshanks wrote: »

ianal?

i am not a lawyer (or maybe a Sex toy designed by Steve Jobs)

longshanks

Ghost Train wrote: »

a Sex toy designed by Steve Jobs

thats what popped into my head as well

Duchovny

longshanks wrote: »

what if the car is on private property?

I think if you take the pictures on a private property even from a public space you cannot use it without permission, but the copyright of that picture will always be yours.

mloc

Duchovny wrote: »

I think if you take the pictures on a private property even from a public space you cannot use it without permission, but the copyright of that picture will always be yours.

That doesn't really make any sense. If you are yourself standing on public property, it doesn't make any difference if the image is of public or private property as regards whether you can use it or whether you own the copyright.

DaireQuinlan

Some previous threads on this topic, just so we don't start down some well trodden paths ...

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055421017
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559303
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308254
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055259808

regardless of the legalities of the situation, probably the most important points for someone thinking of making a business out of this were those brought up by smelltheglove ...

"if they have any issues with this I generally just dont use the photos to be honest, some people are like that an at the end of the day you want to retain a good name for dealing with people rather than having an argument before you even do a job."

and anouilh ...

"In the long run, building up goodwill is the best stock in trade any photographer could have."

Zillah

Duchovny wrote: »

you cannot use it without permission, but the copyright of that picture will always be yours.

This is a contradiction in terms. If you have copyright ("the right to make copies") no one can forbid you from using the image.

DaireQuinlan

Zillah wrote: »

This is a contradiction in terms. If you have copyright ("the right to make copies") no one can forbid you from using the image.

This is untrue on a number of levels. Copyright and usage are two different ballgames. The most obvious example is an image you've taken (on which you retain copyright) which you cannot use commercially for some reason (model release, commercial rights belonging to someone else etc etc)

Duchovny

mloc wrote: »

That doesn't really make any sense. If you are yourself standing on public property, it doesn't make any difference if the image is of public or private property as regards whether you can use it or whether you own the copyright.

Not exactly because you are invading peoples privacy, not long ago some famous people sued one of the paparazzi because they were photographed on their home naked or something like that and they won because they were in their private property and they still manage to get the shoot, also they do state in the law that if you are shooting in public but behind a tree hidden that is not acceptable.

And in reply to the other of course you own the copyright but you need permission to use it, but is still your photograph and nobody can make you delete or make copies.

mloc

Duchovny wrote: »

Not exactly because you are invading peoples privacy, not long ago some famous people sued one of the paparazzi because they were photographed on their home naked or something like that and they won because they were in their private property and they still manage to get the shoot, also they do state in the law that if you are shooting in public but behind a tree hidden that is not acceptable.

And in reply to the other of course you own the copyright but you need permission to use it, but is still your photograph and nobody can make you delete or make copies.

The case is the same whether the subject is on private or public property, the distinction is a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Thus, it would be ok to photography someone in an open garden, even if it was private property, but illegal to use a long telephoto lens to take photos of someone in a secluded area of their home from a discreet position outside.

qwerty66

Hi!
You own the copyright of the images but I guess if you want to sell them it would be good to have a property release signed by the owner of the car (that states that the owner agrees that you can use the photo commercially). That will protect you against any possible legal issue.