| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Who Owns The Image?
Kurt Rivers, Photographer
 |
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:30 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> Ok, Here we go. This might be a bad time to bring this up with the other things going on in the industry coughpresswirecough. But this just came up to me within the hour and hit a nerve.
If a photographer shoots for a news organization (non-profit or for-profit.. does it matter?) with no written or verbal contract with the news organization.
Can the news organization claim full rights to images taken by the photographer with a credential received by the news organization to get access to take the images?
Yes, the news organization receives and can use any of the images (for that news organization only) and the rights according to the league (NCAA.. Pro.. whatever) are also followed by the photographer for any other use.
It's a dumb call on both to not have a contract and I agree with that. But what is the right move to take?
This makes we want to use my 300mm as a baseball bat and live my life as 'the heckler' at baseball games the rest of my life. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:52 AM on 09.12.11 |
| ->> kurt, you're going to get extra credit for starting another idiotic thread. I'm sorry but I re-read your post five times....okay six...and am still scratching my head wondering just what the hell you a)are asking or b)are trying to say. Man, SS just gets weirder and weirder every day....please, someone tell me where you guys are coming from. |
|
Kurt Rivers, Photographer
|
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:23 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> Chuck,
I see why you are not getting what I am saying. I have read tons from you Chuck and I upmost respect you. I don't want to be the starter of a dumbass thread on SS or deteriorate the integrity of SS.
What it comes down to, the company wants FULL rights of images to distribute and use when myself and the company do not have any contract in any way.
The company is coming back with "you shot this with a credential from the company, they are our images."
I do not see any way how the company could say this.
Yes, this is mostly out of frustration but I wanted to see if any others have experienced this. |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 1:50 AM on 09.12.11 |
| ->> I know I'm probably going to regret this but who paid you for the usage of the image or images and who was the credential issued to? If the company paid you to shoot the images and requested the credential for your use to shoot photos for them and they paid for published said photographs and they issued you a check for said photos then they own the rights as this is a work for hire. |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Galveston & Houston | TX | US | Posted: 2:28 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> Kurt, based on the limited information you have posted, my opinion is that you retain the copyright and can control use of the photographs. As mentioned in your original post, you've highlighted how important it is to have a written agreement in place for all jobs to avoid situations like this afterwards.
Mike, I respectfully disagree. I don't think the credential matters at all in determining who owns the copyright to the images.
Quoting the NPPA Advocacy Blog:
http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/2011/07/29/wfh-101/
***Signed Contract Required for WFH***
"It is important for both editors and photographers to know that outside of the context of employment, a work for hire only arises in circumstances where there is a signed contract and only is available in certain circumstances. There is no “implied” work for hire. A client cannot tell you that “work for hire” is their policy and by working for them you automatically agree to it. You must actually agree to it in writing, before the assignment. Furthermore, a client cannot tell you after you have already shot the assignment that you must sign a WFH contract to get paid (this could be an ineffective modification, unless there is additional payment offered)."
NPPA Work for Hire chart:
http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2011/07/Work-for-Hire-chart.pdf |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:31 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> Kurt,
You haven't provided us with sufficient facts to be able to properly answer the question. The key point to be determined is the basis of the photographer's relationship with the news organization. A person can qualify as a full-time employee without having any written agreement, just as a person can qualify as a contractor without having any written agreement. If you're not in a position to answer this question, you cannot definitively answer the question of whether the news organization is the owner of the rights or simply the beneficiary of an implied license.
The implied license is a rather nasty twist in this area of law. If you create something at someone's request, and deliver it, the intended recipient receives an implied license. Note that payment is not a determining factor; thus, even if you deliver the work without payment, a license still arises. In some jurisdictions, if you fail to communicate any limitations to the scope of that license, there may not be any limitations (at which point, the only limitation the news organization may face is not being able to sue for infringement). |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 7:39 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> just as the lack of ethical understanding on the other referenced threads, the fundamental lack of understanding here really concerns me.
clearly students and those in this field are entering with some real shortcomings in their educations.
I've been pleased, obviously, to see the NPPA's code of Ethics and our Better Business Practices materials referenced in both threads ... but the real question remains, how do we get that information out to more people entering the field.
Clearly as more and more enter from non-traditional avenues (ie. not through a j-school) that becomes the challenge, to catch them before they get this deep in before asking these questions or even thinking about the issues.
For every one who posts here how many dozens are out there just making it up?
And it's not enough, at least in my view, to just police ourselves. It's not enough that the sportsshooter community has the Chuck Liddys of the world to dope-smack them here.
The message needs to go out farther and wider. When it comes right down to it, the message needs to go out into the hobbyist press where the GWC's are getting their technical advice, where the various varieties of newbies are deciding that their Rebel t3 is all they need to hang out their shingle.
yes, the horse left the barn a long time ago, but while there is still a barn ... it's time to find a way to get horses back into it ... in hopes that those that got out will whither on the vine and eventually leave the market?
Maybe? |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:54 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> Kurt,
But your post littered with all kinds of nonsense, which is why you gave Chuck a headache and we both had to read your post six times. You omitted several facts (see questions below) and other key information.
First of all, this statement does not make sense: "If a photographer shoots for a news organization (non-profit or for-profit.. does it matter?) with no written or verbal contract with the news organization." Normally, if a photographer is shooting FOR a news organization, who obtains a credential/access for them, there is usually a mutual understanding or agreement in place prior to the beginning of the actual creation of the work.
And no, profit status has no bearing on copyright ownership.
To answer your main question, in the absence of signed agreement, the photographer retain all the rights to any image s/he creates unless prior to the commencement of the work a written agreement or contract is in place and depending on the terms contained therein.
However, without knowing the event or terms of and on the credential, the images you shot may be worthless if the 'news organization' does not use, distribute or market the images you submitted.
Legally, you can attempt to go ahead and license the images, but then you will likely be blacklisted by the team and likely the league organization -- as well as by any sane editor who hires freelancers who reads this thread -- for future access as punishment for ignoring their credentialing agreement. Under the terms of most pro and collegiate credentials only the agency assigned the credential may use or redistribute images created at their event. In short, this means you CAN NOT license the images to any other entity for editorial (or commercial use) and will be unable to recoup the investment of time, labor and expenses you incurred or profit from the images.
There are several other unanswered questions such as:
1. Did you already submit images to the credentialed agency? If so, how were the submitted? You may have unknowingly gave the 'news organization' full rights when you uploaded the files to their system (would be nice to know WHO it is, too).
2. What were the terms of payment? Have you received any payment or compensation under the agreed upon verbal terms?
3. What are the terms on the credential?
4. How were you 'assigned' the event? Who made initial contact? Did you call/email XYZ News or did they call you?
5. Was the conversation strictly by phone or were there text/email messages between you and the 'wire service' that could establish the spirit of the agreement for or against your stance?
And FWIW, you wrote:
"This makes we want to use my 300mm as a baseball bat ..."
You probably would be better off using the 300mm to beat yourself on your head with for not agreeing to the terms in writing via either a letter of a agreement or a contract. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:03 AM on 09.12.11 |
->> For non-employees, work for hire requires a written contract.
Period.
Absent a written work-for-hire contract, the a non-employee pressing the shutter button owns the copyright. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:54 PM on 09.12.11 |
->> Kurt,
What Mark Peters said.
Unless there is a specific agreement before the shoot, you own the images. The credentials have nothing to do with it.
--Mark |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 7:52 PM on 09.12.11 |
->> The photographer may retain the copyright, but if he is not the owner of the credential, he may be limited to what he can do with the image.
The news organization and the team/league could like sue him or prevent him from using the image commercially. |
|
Kurt Rivers, Photographer
|
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:33 AM on 09.13.11 |
->> 1. Did you already submit images to the credentialed agency? If so, how were the submitted? You may have unknowingly gave the 'news organization' full rights when you uploaded the files to their system (would be nice to know WHO it is, too).
Uploaded online in to the database. I am not aware of any rights they receive when the file is uploaded to the server. It's a small company that I doubt anybody here will run in to.
2. What were the terms of payment? Have you received any payment or compensation under the agreed upon verbal terms?
All payment or compensation has been received under the verbal terms.
3. What are the terms on the credential?
Editorial use only for the organization given on the credential.
4. How were you 'assigned' the event? Who made initial contact? Did you call/email XYZ News or did they call you?
Depends, I contact the PR / AD of the teams for the news org now, but they use to get the credentials for me.
5. Was the conversation strictly by phone or were there text/email messages between you and the 'wire service' that could establish the spirit of the agreement for or against your stance?
I have some text messages and emails on the subject but not sure how detailed.
Last week I was asked to go shoot a couple shots of a person to use for this news org and a paper. I was getting paid to let the news org and a single paper use the photos. I did it and the paper ran it in print and web then the news org used a photo... I'm ok with this because that's what I was getting paid for.
The next day the news org tells me they are giving the photos to other papers for them to run in print and web..?! I did not agree to multiple papers running my images. I said no. They still did it. It's not the papers fault at all. It's that the news org thinks that they own and can do whatever they want with my images.
Then they are appalled at me for standing up for the rights of my photos.
(this shoot was in the public so no credential terms matter)
Also, I am NOT trying to use my images in any way that would violate the terms of the credential. People have asked me for photos of players and I always tell them I am not allowed. I just want to own them to keep the photos in my archive and not have others use them without my permission.
So now I am waiting for them to come back with an agreement that shows I retain my rights or they will have to go find some poor soul that will give them the full rights... or pay for the rights.
Thank you everybody for the useful information! |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 09.13.11 |
->> "Last week I was asked to go shoot a couple shots of a person to use for this news org and a paper. I was getting paid to let the news org and a single paper use the photos. I did it and the paper ran it in print and web then the news org used a photo... I'm ok with this because that's what I was getting paid for. "
Did your include the terms of usage in any of the IPTC fields? So you have done two assignments for the client without a written agreement or contract? In any of the written communication did you discuss what rights were to be allowed? |
|
David Scott, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | US | Posted: 2:24 PM on 09.13.11 |
->> "The next day the news org tells me they are giving the photos to other papers for them to run in print and web..?! I did not agree to multiple papers running my images. I said no. They still did it. It's not the papers fault at all. It's that the news org thinks that they own and can do whatever they want with my images."
Sounds like a cluster..
Register your images, talk to a lawyer to see if he/she can help.
For new clients get a paper trail via contract/email and spell things out. Sure you own and control your images but what you are going through is still a pain in the a--.
Every year I deal with more and more people who seem to think they know our business more than I do even though I've been licensing images since 1985.
-- Dave |
|
Kurt Rivers, Photographer
|
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:13 PM on 09.15.11 |
->> I usually have DO NOT DISTRIBUTE || FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY in the IPTC data.
I'm taking this as a lesson learned and I will now be more prepared with new clients. I'd rather learn the hard way because it'll sure stick with me! |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|