Copyright Sharing?

Hi all,


Gonna have to be intentionally vague here, but was looking for opinions on anyone familiar with copyright retention, etc.


I've been taking photographs for a photo agency recently, which they publish in printed form regularly.

My name is always credited, and the photographs are of people. I don't get paid to take these photos. I take them because I never really get the chance to photograph people, and wanted the experience of dealing with people and such (plus i'd rather be out taking photographs than sitting at home scratching my ass).


Anyway, today, the agency guy handed me a 1D Mark II and said I could use that. He's been trying to give it to me for a while, and I kept turning it down, opting to keep with my own gear (the 20D).

Then came the awkward copyright talk. Now, I'm not a professional photographer. I'm a barely competent enthusiast, but I do enjoy photography and would like to do something photographically related with my life.


I feel copyright is an extremely important subject, and it's not something I'm willing to give up too easily, if at all.


Is there any such thing as sharing copyright? If I wrote up a plain english quick contract, which we both agreed on and signed, is it possible for me to share copyright of my images with him, but to still fully retain it myself?



It's an awkward one, so I thought I'd stick it out in the open (as a streaker said) and see if anyone has any experience or advice?


Cheers.

sineadw

Don't give your copyright away for the use of a camera. Did they ask for that? If they want something, give them a licence to use the shots.

charybdis

Yes it is possible to do this with a written contract.

If you are really serious about this you should probably talk to a lawyer or intellectual property attorney.

N.B.: I am not a lawyer.

I do take the issue of copyright seriously, but not enough to start squandering money on it. The photographs will never really generate much money, nor will people be falling over themselves to see them, but it's just instilled into me that copyright is and should be mine. I don't want to give it up, regardless of how petty it may seem in the grand scheme of things.


Sinead, I don't actually want the 1D off him. I'd like to have my own 1D, but I'm against having other people's gear and as such, don't really want to be using someone else's great. He seems to be saying that, as the copyright will be his, I should use his gear.


The gear is just kinda on loan to me, really. Will have to mention it about a written agreement.

Paddy@CIRL

It is possible to share copyright (the difference between the author and owner of the work)

Get in touch with a good intellectual copyright solicitor if you want PROPER advice.

Do not rely on message boards and hearsay for this issue. It's a very complicated area and even though I've studied it quite well but even so, I'd still seek the advice of a qualified solicitor.

sineadw

You never ever know what your photos will be worth in the future: What if you snap the next Michael Jackson (god forbid)? Or what if you become the next Cartier Bresson?

See how he feels with a licence. That's what I'd do anyway. You *can* share copyright if he won't go for it. If you feel uncomfortable with it though I'd be telling him, politely, where to go. Especially as you're not even being paid for the shots! :eek: He's basically asking you to give your copyright up for nothing.

smelltheglove

You can transfer limited copyright, I have written into my bridal contracts that the client is free to use the images for printing and distribution to friends and relatives along with watermarked images for social networking sites. Now you could do similar but maybe point out free to use for printing and publishing but permission and compensation must be obtained for commercial use or advertising!

Prenderb

Also, bear in mind that on some cameras, (mine, for example) there is a setting where you can input the copyright owner's name, rank, serial number, or other identifying script. Without any suggestion on my part, I wonder if the 1D has this set to the owner's name? Does this have any effect on KKV's position?

I agree - you should have an agreement about copyright and be clear about it before continuing, if copyright is important in this case (which it almost invariably is!)

AnCatDubh

as I understand it, a printed reference or attached to the jpg exif in the file has zero bearing on the legal position. Once you click the button, you have pre-visualised the images, and thus you own the copyright of the image. Proving it is a separate matter when push comes to shove.

Rather than shared copyright why don't you just licence them to the individual for non exclusive royalty free unlimited usage (or limit it if you have the parameters of usage agreed).

Thus, you get to keep the copyright which is the important part (ie. you can still do anything you wish with them).

He seems to be saying that, as the copyright will be his, I should use his gear.

:eek: ** SOUND ALARM BELLS **

As I understand it (unless i'm wrong), even using his gear has zero impact on the copyright which is yours.

I think you can be sure that the individual is considering this issue to (probably on another forum ) so it is timely to come to an understanding.

But you are right, keep the copyright no matter what. Thereafter freely licence as circumstances dictate.

Promac

So, I have this guy taking pictures for me with my 1D....

stcstc

isnt it something to do with the difference between work for hire and working for someone

if they provide you with the kit etc, then you are not doing work for hire, and therefore everything you create is theirs

if you turn up with all ya own gear etc, then its yours

Paulw

stcstc wrote: »

isnt it something to do with the difference between work for hire and working for someone

if they provide you with the kit etc, then you are not doing work for hire, and therefore everything you create is theirs

if you turn up with all ya own gear etc, then its yours

Yep, I'd have to agree with that. Using his gear is more working for them, than shooting with your own which is work for hire.

If I were you, I'd either continue to use your own gear, retain full copyright and then just license the images to him, or else come to a written agreement that copyright remains with you, and you use his gear under license.

AnCatDubh

stcstc wrote: »

isnt it something to do with the difference between work for hire and working for someone

if they provide you with the kit etc, then you are not doing work for hire, and therefore everything you create is theirs

if you turn up with all ya own gear etc, then its yours

I think you are correct in the scenario if you are being hired - this is the exception to all things of copyright ownership, however KKV has indicated that they aren't getting paid for taking the photographs so it doesn't sound like the images are being taken under any form of other contract (though, KKV also says that he's been taking these photos for an agency).... hmnnnn....... need more info on the original contract or basis on which the photographs are being taken.

Well I'm sure you can understand why I'm being vague, and not throwing out names or such.

I should point out that the guy I'm dealing with is a nice guy, and I get on well with him. He hasn't been a prick about this at all. He reckons that from a legal standpoint (as he'll be using the images on his site) that it's best for him to own the copyright.


The agency itself makes money, of course, or it wouldn't be around. For the pictures I take in particular, there is potential for him to make money off the images I take (they can be purchased) but this is usually very unlikely.


Personally, I wouldn't mind if I was getting paid for this, as then I'd consider it a job and I'd have cash at the end of the day (Though it'd still irk me a little to lose complete copyright). As I'm doing it for the experience, I do feel like that, by taking away the copyright, I've no longer got photos to show for my efforts.

Now I realise that may sound silly, as I still have the files on my PC, can still stick them in a portfolio, etc. but it's just kind of annoying that I don't own the images when I'm done, if you see where I'm coming from?


I'll probably be talking to him about it tomorrow and will of course keep everyone updated.


Does anyone know of any template letters/contracts that I could work off to type something up? Anything I Google copyright sharing, licensing, etc. all i get are peer-to-peer download links and articles.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

Now I realise that may sound silly, as I still have the files on my PC, can still stick them in a portfolio, etc. but it's just kind of annoying that I don't own the images when I'm done, if you see where I'm coming from?

If he owns the copyright then you would have no right to use them in your portfolio, etc, without his expressed permission.

It is much more common, when you freelance for an agency, that you retain copyright, and they display sell the images on your behalf (and take a percentage of the sale). This differs from agency to agency, of course.

I think you would be very foolish to allow them to dictate terms that they own the copyright, and they may be pushing that angle to make life easy for them. But, you need to make your own decision here.

AnCatDubh

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone know of any template letters/contracts that I could work off to type something up? Anything I Google copyright sharing, licensing, etc. all i get are peer-to-peer download links and articles.

http://www.docstoc.com can be good for sample contracts - not exactly sure if they'll have the kind of one that you are after but worth a search.

sineadw

It doesn't matter a jot whose equipment you use. In order for the employment aspect of copyright to be an issue you have to be *employed* by that person. i.e.; you are in a regular, salaried position.

I'll say again KKV, give him a licence to do what he wants with the images, but retain your copyright!

(oh and on the subject, if you - and I assume he - is commissioned by any of these people for a photograph, then you have to ask permission if you want to use them in your portfolio. Just a heads up in case it's pertinent down the line..).

There's a simple licencing agreement that you can customise at http://photo.net/business-photography-forum/00I6Ey

sheesh

So you are taking pictures for free for this guy and now he wants you to use his camera.

there are 2 big questions.

What happens after the shoot? does he appear out of nowhere says he needs the camera straight away and head off with the card leaving you with nothing

does he think that by using his camera that he gets the some or all of the copyright?

What are you going to do if this happens?

If he insists on you taking the camera to do the shoot bring your own camera too "as a back up" make sure to take a couple of shots with that.

I would definitely get this all out in the open with the person involved so that you are both clear on what you both want from the arrangement.

does he want a camera operator? well then he will have to pay you and license the images to you for your portfolio (if thats what you want).

like a couple of people here I am suspicious of his motives and I think you might need to assert yourself even if means risking a gig you really like doing.

Sheesh,

the photos aren't taken in a studio or anything like that. I move about the place. The camera will probably remain mine indefinitely (until he needs it for something or it begins to gather dust).

I take the photos and send them on to him in my own time, so all the photos I've taken are on my PC, and the compact flash cards belong to me, too.


He really isn't as sinister as ye guys probably are lead to think.

sineadw

Deleted User wrote: »

He really isn't as sinister as ye guys probably are lead to think.

Not at all. But handing over copyright is a serious issue. I wonder if its what he actually wants too? Or if he would be happy with a very broad licence and just doesn't have the legal language? I know it seems the same as sharing copyright but it's a world apart.

ditpaintball

Tell him he can keep his MKII and get a MKIV off im instead

I am no solicitor, but as already mentioned, when you are paid to shoot for some one else using their gear, then they (the company owns the copyright) i.e. in event photography. If you use their gear and are shooting for them, then I don't see what would be different just because you are not getting paid.


Bottom line is, if you are worried about it, get paperwork sorted out and know where you stand. Also, how long are you going to keep working and letting other people make money off your work with out getting paid your self?

CabanSail

I don't think the ownership of the gear is relevent to the copyright.

Copyright is not a simple matter. I heard about one case, at a talk on this issue, where a well known Band were doing a shoot & everything was set up. Someone who was in the studio pushed the shutter release for a "test shot" but that ended up being used on the Album. The person who pressed the shutter demanded payment as the photo was their copyright and a court upheld that decision.

ditpaintball

Have a read of:http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

The main exception to this principle is where photographs are taken by an employee in the course of their employment – if X Ltd. employs Z as a photographer, then the photos taken by Z in the course of his work belong to X Ltd. and cannot be used by Z without their permission. This can trip up the unwary – for example, Z may be in difficulties if he wishes to use those photos as part of a portfolio of work.

AnCatDubh

CabanSail wrote: »

I don't think the ownership of the gear is relevent to the copyright.

Copyright is not a simple matter. I heard about one case, at a talk on this issue, where a well known Band were doing a shoot & everything was set up. Someone who was in the studio pushed the shutter release for a "test shot" but that ended up being used on the Album. The person who pressed the shutter demanded payment as the photo was their copyright and a court upheld that decision.

That sounds reasonable, though the photographer/venue/band/production team could, I would guess, counter claim that they hadn't been paid by the individual who was now receiving some form of remuneration for the shot, for setting up the studio / scene / etc...

Ah, the lawyers would have such fun. Then again, you'd get to a point where you'd wonder is it all worth it. Photographers (artists) aren't generally good business people.

VisionaryP

sineadw wrote: »

It doesn't matter a jot whose equipment you use. In order for the employment aspect of copyright to be an issue you have to be *employed* by that person.

Exactly. The photos you take are YOUR copyright, UNLESS you have signed a contract to say otherwise. This is regardless of the ownership of the equipment.

Righty oh, ladies and gentlemen.

So it appears, now, that he's talking from a completely legal standpoint. He issues the photographs to the people who print them etc. so he has to have copyright (to an extent) over them (otherwise he wouldn't be able to do such, legally).

However, apparently, every time I'm out and about doing stuff on his behalf, I'm actually covered under his insurance (public liability, etc.) and if I were to freelance to him, instead of for him, he'd only legally allow me to do so if i had my own insurance, etc.


It's all very confusing. It's not actually causing any major grief between us at the moment at all, now (in reality I couldn't really care less what he does with my images, provided he doesn't make thousands of euro off them behind my back, but that's never gonna happen) but it's been brought up a few times, mostly by me, admittedly, as I'd like to get it sorted out.

challengemaster

Doesn't need copyright, you could license them to him and include that it IS transferrable in the case of printing by a third party....

As has been said here loads of times, NEVER give up your copyright. Especially if you're not being paid.

sineadw

Yep yep -it's still not a copyright issue. Again, I wonder ifhe understands the legal jargon? I would imagine he does..

Now the insurance issue is a different one. He should continue to cover you as HE'S the one profiting! I would check that you *are* actually covered though, not being employed by him. It could be that he
wants to have that aspect covered.

Effectively, he's asking you to be employed by him with no income. If you're ok with that and/or don't really care about your images, then go for it. I'm not being facetious- if you really enjoy it the why not? It wouldn't be something i'd race into though...

sheesh

edit: having reread your op I would like to ask what did the 'copyright talk' consist of

Pretty much it was just a conversation, where he stated he needed copyright of my images and me saying it's something I'd need to think about, but that it was unlikely I'd give it up to him.

He has paid photographers, all of whom sign over their copyright to them. He explained that they have a steady income, so if they take a photo that turns out to be worth a couple of grand, they generally don't mind losing out, because it keeps them covered for weeks when they don't get any photos at all (they still receive a wage).

That seems perfectly rational to me. It's logical and I agree with it.

I'm not a paid employee though, so I'm not willing to completely give up my copyright. As far as I'm concerned, this is a lot of experience and practice for me. Getting to see his set ups for studio-like shots, or how he interacts with clients, approaches paid shoots of products or places, etc. and even though I've only been doing it for about two months, I feel I've learned a lot about photography and have also met quite a lot of nice people (and now I'm familiar with most of the local pros, too).


So there's a definite upside to this for me. No, it doesn't pay bills or anything like that yet, but it's something I enjoy.

However, maybe it's from this forum being my photography teacher, but I've got it ingrained into me that copyright is of extreme importance and something to be treated very carefully and certainly not something to be handed over for free.


That said, when I expressed this to the guy, he agreed with me. He also said that he believes copyright is a huge issue, not something to be glossed over and that I should never feel bullied into giving it up. (I realise this paragraph isn't required for this post, but I wanted to try and remove the sinister aspect of him that I seem to have unintentionally created; he is a nice guy).


So I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue. On one hand, I don't want to give up copyright when I'm not actually receiving money for my work. On the other, I don't want to give up the stuff I'm doing as I'm enjoying it.

I'm happy to come up with an agreement whereby, as has been suggested here, I license my images to him, but I retain overall copyright. He reckons this is a problem, as I would then (from a legal standpoint) be free-lancing to him, and I'd need my own insurance cover.

Not entirely sure how true that is, though. If I were freelancing to him, I doubt anything I choose to do (be insured or not) would have any affect on him. Maybe he means from a moral standpoint he wouldn't touch anyone not covered? Not sure.


It's a complex issue.