Assigning copyright - what would you do?

W

Withers

Messages
96
Edit My Images
No
I do voluntary work for a charity which operates in several locations. The work involves being something of a "jack of all trades", helping out generally and just being an extra pair of hands at the location where I volunteer. The charity know that I'm interested in photography and own a "proper" camera, so recently I was asked if I would take a few photos to publicise a fund raising event. I did so on my normal volunteering day, handed over the images and they were used on the charity's social media in relation to the event. I have subsequently been asked to take more pictures and am happy to do so in the knowledge that they will be used for the purpose stated and help the cause generally.

However, due to another volunteer elsewhere in the country doing something similar, but then having a dispute with the charity around copyright of the images, "head office" has now issued a form which I am being asked to sign to prevent further disputes (fair enough, I suppose). Basically, it asks volunteers who take pictures to agree that copyright of all photos taken for the charity as part of any volunteer work, now automatically belong to the charity, regardless of whether they are submitted for use or not. For context, the last time I took pictures for them, I took around 40 but gave them the best 10 to use, retaining or deleting the remainder.

So, fellow photographers, do I sign the form and hand over all the pictures, including the duds, or cease taking photos for the charity. Opinions welcome. Many thanks.
 
Unless you truly think that the images have some commercial value that might be useful to you, I'd delete the ones that don't pass muster, and let them have the rest with all the rights. You might also require an author credit wherever the images are used, or decide that it isn't important.

Basically it's a charity, so why not be generous?
 
There's a factsheet on this easily googlable - only your conscience can realistically tell you how you wish to act.

For myself - any images I make as part of my job are unequivocally property of my employer, they're essentially useless to anyone else anyway :) That said, I mostly take pictures at work because it makes my job easier than the poor sketches I'd otherwise produce.
 
If you're happy to volunteer to take photos for free, that you can't really sell elsewhere anyway so they have no value to you, I don't see what the problem is

You either volunteer as a photographer on that basis or you stop that element of your volunteer work - simples :)

Dave
 
If it was me I would give them the copyright and bin the others , what are you going to do with the ones you retain ,you decided they are not worth giving them so they are only taking up drive space.
You could burn them to disc and give them the disc and nobody will ever look at them so why bother.
Some time ago as part of my job I took photos for an estate agent, I just binned the unused ones as they were no use to anyone.
 
Last edited:
As a matter of principle I never transfer my copyright on images I shoot. When I once shot for a charity I supported they supplied a copy of the license they wished me to sign, which stated the logical use, time period, and reference to crediting. The licence specifically stated the photographer retains full copyright. Your charity is being lazy, seeing owning the copyright as being easier for them than agreeing with you the terms of an acceptable license.

I would suggest to the charity you volunteer for, advise them you would supply a license for them to use the images you have taken as they feel fit, but not give up your copyright.
 
DG Phototraining said:
If you're happy to volunteer to take photos for free, that you can't really sell elsewhere anyway so they have no value to you, I don't see what the problem is

You either volunteer as a photographer on that basis or you stop that element of your volunteer work - simples :)

Dave
Click to expand...

This is the end of the discussion in reality. However there should be more of as discussion on what is a "proper" camera !
 
If I was the charity I would insist on the images being somehow protected, be it a licence or transfer of copyright, which is the same thing if done right, they are rightly covering their bottoms.
 
Last edited:
I guess the one issue with handing over copyright is that you lose the right to use the images withoiut permission in the future. Never mind commercial use, you couldn't even pop them on FB, flickr or a blog without the charity agreeing.
 
Whilst I agree that it's a charity and the images probably have no commercial value to you, surely a license should be enough to avoid future disputes. I'd probably ask head-office if they would accept a license, it feels to me like they are being a bit over zealous.
 
It may depend on the exact circumstances. I have certainly been involved with taking photographs at NT and other stately homes. We have normally made an agreement (license/contract) by which the photographer retains copyright but we permit the owner of the home to use images we supply for publicity. The images have value to the home but also the photographer. I am an amateur photographer so I have no interest in commercial exploitation but would be annoyed if I could not use a good shot in a competition. At no time have I been asked to give up my copyright.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
It may depend on the exact circumstances. I have certainly been involved with taking photographs at NT and other stately homes. We have normally made an agreement (license/contract) by which the photographer retains copyright but we permit the owner of the home to use images we supply for publicity. The images have value to the home but also the photographer. I am an amateur photographer so I have no interest in commercial exploitation but would be annoyed if I could not use a good shot in a competition. At no time have I been asked to give up my copyright.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a just about my stance on it. I have no interest in any commercial gain from the images, but like you, I do enter camera club competitions and some of them may have some merit for that purpose. I would like to think I could use one in a competition if I chose without it being an issue. I will enquire about the possibility of having some form of licence for the use of the images I submit.

I should add, that until the issue of signing the form arose, I was perfectly happy to supply the pictures FOC with no strings attached, simply as part of my ongoing support of the charity and its aims. Just interested to see what other people thought about this.

Studio488commercial said:
This is the end of the discussion in reality. However there should be more of as discussion on what is a "proper" camera !
Click to expand...

LOL .... to the people I work with, a "proper" camera is anything which looks like a camera and isn't a phone!! (..... let's not get into a debate abut how good phones are for taking pictures these days ....)
 
Any organisation worth its salt would have some from of terms and conditions for its voluteers, has yours ? this sort of thing may be covered anyway along the lines of whatever you create whilest volouteering would be theirs, etc.
 
Most larger charities will also be licensing commercial images from professional photographers under standard terms by which the photographer retains copyright. Perhaps you could ask them if they would accept your images under similar terms, free of charge? It may just be that they want some paperwork that demonstrates they have the right to use the images in case of dispute. They may have existing acceptable licences they have used in other circumstances, or you could supply your own using some standard wording. One of the Creative Commons licences might be appropriate if you don't mind others also potentially using the images.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'd say no and stop taking pics for them. I dont know which charity your with but nearly all are run as businesses, the CEO of most big charities trousers around a 140k a year. They get paid so should you. You give them your time, if your taking pics thats extra.
Click to expand...

Only if the OP decides it is. Where people draw the line on what they do as a volunteer is surely up to them.
 
Does the copyright belongs to the newspaper or the photographer?

Usually if the photographer is a staff photographer working for the newspaper, with cameras issued by the newspaper, then the copyright automatically belongs to the newspaper. But if the photographer is a freelancer with his/her own cameras, and whose photos are being published in the newspaper, then the copyright belongs to the photographer.

Thus if you are working for the charity (even if voluntary) and using camera issued by the charity, then the photos you take would belong to the charity in the same way as staff photographer taking photos using newspaper issued cameras, then photos belong to newspaper.

My suggestion is: Bring your own camera along with the charity issued camera. If you take photos using charity issue camera, and the photos are mainly useful for charity's social media, then copyright is theirs. But make it clear that if you took photos using your own camera, in your personal time (ie: outside of office hours, or in your lunch hour) and any photos you take that is unrelated to the charity, then those photos are yours, copyright belongs to you.

Surely that if the newspaper's staff photographer had been told to work 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, then at weekend, if using his own camera, he took what seems to be newsworthy photo, then copyright belongs to him, because at that time, he was not using newspaper issue camera and was in his free time?
 
My answer would be along the lines of, no I don't agree. Would you like me to voluntarily take some pictures for you?

I kind of agree with @DG Phototraining but 1. I think they're just being lazy and 2. you never know what the future brings.
 
Major Eazy said:
Does the copyright belongs to the newspaper or the photographer?

Usually if the photographer is a staff photographer working for the newspaper, with cameras issued by the newspaper, then the copyright automatically belongs to the newspaper. But if the photographer is a freelancer with his/her own cameras, and whose photos are being published in the newspaper, then the copyright belongs to the photographer.

Thus if you are working for the charity (even if voluntary) and using camera issued by the charity, then the photos you take would belong to the charity in the same way as staff photographer taking photos using newspaper issued cameras, then photos belong to newspaper.

My suggestion is: Bring your own camera along with the charity issued camera. If you take photos using charity issue camera, and the photos are mainly useful for charity's social media, then copyright is theirs. But make it clear that if you took photos using your own camera, in your personal time (ie: outside of office hours, or in your lunch hour) and any photos you take that is unrelated to the charity, then those photos are yours, copyright belongs to you.

Surely that if the newspaper's staff photographer had been told to work 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, then at weekend, if using his own camera, he took what seems to be newsworthy photo, then copyright belongs to him, because at that time, he was not using newspaper issue camera and was in his free time?
Click to expand...

In an 'employee' situation, it doesn't matter who owns the camera or where and when photos are taken - if the images are in any way related to your formal employment then there's a very good chance your employer owns copyright by default. Employers' automatic legal rights in this area are surprisingly extensive.
 
HoppyUK said:
In an 'employee' situation, it doesn't matter who owns the camera or where and when photos are taken - if the images are in any way related to your formal employment then there's a very good chance your employer owns copyright by default. Employers' automatic legal rights in this area are surprisingly extensive.
Click to expand...

That’s an interesting aspect of this discussion. Is voluntary “work” for a charity classed as “formal employment” in this context? Certainly, none of the rules which protect employees would apply, in that I can just walk away at any time without notice and equally they can dismiss me without notice, I don’t get any employment benefits (pay, holidays, pension rights etc) and I don’t have any type of contract or job description.

In taking images for a charity as a volunteer, using my own gear, it could be argued that I am taking them in my own time, at my own expense etc.

Just pondering really. It seems it would be very easy to go from me doing a simple favour for a charity I support, to getting into all sorts of legal debate about who does what, who owns what etc etc.
 
I do some volunteer work for a local charity, including at times taking photographs for use on their website, social media, and a few other things. I also cover events for them like recently when they had a fundraising event. I don't just take photographs for them off course I do everything that everyone else does including making the tea.

The issue of copyright has never came up but if it did I would happily sign over all rights to them. It's a cause I feel passionate about as it is something which had effected my own family. The charity is also run solely by volunteers with the only payments being made to anyone involved being for expenses for things like travel when needed.

I have also done work for larger "charities" and even though at times they have been causes which at a personal level I feel are important because I know that the staff get paid and the management get paid very well, I charge them my normal rates and use my normal t & c's. A few of those have tried to chance their arm in terms of asking for the work to be done "voluntarily" but as some of these organisations while yes absolutely are providing a level of service to those who need it most, a lot of them are run the same way as any profit making business and I won't work for them without getting paid.
 
HoppyUK said:
In an 'employee' situation, it doesn't matter who owns the camera or where and when photos are taken - if the images are in any way related to your formal employment then there's a very good chance your employer owns copyright by default. Employers' automatic legal rights in this area are surprisingly extensive.
Click to expand...
Our employees, contractors, and anyone who steps foot inside the studio are under contract which basically says any images taken are ours and you cannot use them, employees terms are a bit tighter and covers anything created.

The charity in question could simply add a clause in its terms of volunteering which states the same, its up to you then if you want to take a picture or not.

If the OP can use the opportunity to learn/get experience, and help the charity then what's the problem, you either get them to sign your paperwork or you sign theirs, at the end of the day you are operating under their terms.
 
Major Eazy said:
Does the copyright belongs to the newspaper or the photographer?

Usually if the photographer is a staff photographer working for the newspaper, with cameras issued by the newspaper, then the copyright automatically belongs to the newspaper. But if the photographer is a freelancer with his/her own cameras, and whose photos are being published in the newspaper, then the copyright belongs to the photographer.

Thus if you are working for the charity (even if voluntary) and using camera issued by the charity, then the photos you take would belong to the charity in the same way as staff photographer taking photos using newspaper issued cameras, then photos belong to newspaper.

My suggestion is: Bring your own camera along with the charity issued camera. If you take photos using charity issue camera, and the photos are mainly useful for charity's social media, then copyright is theirs. But make it clear that if you took photos using your own camera, in your personal time (ie: outside of office hours, or in your lunch hour) and any photos you take that is unrelated to the charity, then those photos are yours, copyright belongs to you.

Surely that if the newspaper's staff photographer had been told to work 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, then at weekend, if using his own camera, he took what seems to be newsworthy photo, then copyright belongs to him, because at that time, he was not using newspaper issue camera and was in his free time?
Click to expand...
.

That would depend entirely on the wording of the contract. Who owns the camera is not an issue in ownership of copyright of images. News photographers rarely work set hours. Their contract will specify who owns what and when. Intellectual property contracts usually cover any work done during employment including your free time.
 
@Withers I think this has got a bit overcomplicated.

If you really want to carry on working for the charity but want to reserve the right to use your images for other things, you need to have a grown up chat explaining how licensing works.

If the images are of no use to you whatsoever (highly likely) then just sign the copyright over.
 
I would give them a licence to use the images (& any future ones) for the purposes of the charity.
If they insist on more than that I'd stop working for them.

I don't see any commercial value to them (but you never know there might be in the future) but assigning them copyright looses you the right to do anything with them and allows them to use the photos for purposes outside of the charity should that ever become possible.
It's always possible you might photograph a VIP visitor doing something newsworthy...
 
Last edited:
Just a thought - would a licence agreement be a way to sort this rather than using copyright? You grant the charity a licence to use the photos in the agreed way while you retain copyright and the right to use them for competitions etc. Just make the licence agreement reflect how you both want to use the photos.
Not an expert but seems a reasonable approach....... If the charity refuses then it’s purely your choice whether to carry on taking photos on their terms because you support their work or tell them to find someone else with a “proper” camera.
 
Petrochemist said:
I would tell give them a licence to use the images (& any future ones) for the purposes of the charity.
If they insist on more than that I'd stop working for them.
Click to expand...

Same thought - typed at the same time [emoji16]
 
I take lots of photos for a voluntary organisation I volunteer for. We sell (ask for donations) for cards with mine and others' photos on which we get commercially printed. They use my photos for social media and press, and I also do formal presentation shots at events and things when we have vip visitors etc or someone is presented with a certificate.They've also sold/auctioned some of my landscapes for fundraising. We have no formal agreements in place.

I personally would feel a bit grumpy about handing over copyright. I'd rather they got someone else to do it in that case. i agree with @Phil V that a grown up chat is the way forward maybe with a licensing agreement.
 
Bebop said:
I take lots of photos for a voluntary organisation I volunteer for. We sell (ask for donations) for cards with mine and others' photos on which we get commercially printed. They use my photos for social media and press, and I also do formal presentation shots at events and things when we have vip visitors etc or someone is presented with a certificate.They've also sold/auctioned some of my landscapes for fundraising. We have no formal agreements in place.

I personally would feel a bit grumpy about handing over copyright. I'd rather they got someone else to do it in that case. i agree with @Phil V that a grown up chat is the way forward maybe with a licensing agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree with Phil and yourself on this. I really just started the thread to gauge the opinions of other photographers on the matter. In fact the images are of little or no use to me and I will most likely assign the copyright as asked, simply because I enjoy the role and the social interaction it brings to my life and don't want to leave for this reason. But I do have to admit to feeling a bit grumpy about it if I'm honest, simply because I feel they are introducing an unnecessary element of bureaucracy where none is needed, and also because the assignment will also mean they can use the images for any purpose they think fit, including selling them on the third parties for profit (to themselves) should they wish. I'm not sure this is an organisation which would be open to a grown up chat with one volunteer about this (or any other) issue, sadly.
 
Withers said:
Yes, I totally agree with Phil and yourself on this. I really just started the thread to gauge the opinions of other photographers on the matter. In fact the images are of little or no use to me and I will most likely assign the copyright as asked, simply because I enjoy the role and the social interaction it brings to my life and don't want to leave for this reason. But I do have to admit to feeling a bit grumpy about it if I'm honest, simply because I feel they are introducing an unnecessary element of bureaucracy where none is needed, and also because the assignment will also mean they can use the images for any purpose they think fit, including selling them on the third parties for profit (to themselves) should they wish. I'm not sure this is an organisation which would be open to a grown up chat with one volunteer about this (or any other) issue, sadly.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain. We do this for nothing. I also volunteer with another organisation and they wanted access to my driving licence details online for up to 2 or 3 years. I resisted and almost gave up volunteering with them as I felt so strongly that it was wrong. Their argument was that it was to ensure we were insured and they couldn't be sued, but I felt it was nothing to do with them. Eventually I caved, but it still left a bitter feeling... and now I've remembered it I feel like resigning again :LOL: I bring in over £1000 a year for them and they bring in this red tape and intrusion into my life :mad:
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
.

That would depend entirely on the wording of the contract. Who owns the camera is not an issue in ownership of copyright of images. News photographers rarely work set hours. Their contract will specify who owns what and when. Intellectual property contracts usually cover any work done during employment including your free time.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The point I was making above about employers owning copyright is that it's the automatic default legal position and therefore may not even be mentioned in a standard contract of employment. This is a general comment and I don't know how volunteer work fits in.

Copyright is widely misunderstood by all parties and while it can be complicated when things go wrong, that's usually because there's no clear and simple agreement in the first place. As has been said, licensing is usually an easy way to keep everybody happy and the license can say anything you want from all rights, in all media, forever, down to quite tight and specific limitations.
 
j crossley said:
So you do voluntary work for a charity, but you begrudge that aforementioned charity raising funds by selling your photographs taken on their behalf, even though those photographs have no intrinsic value.
Click to expand...
they are not selling images they are simply using them in social media posts to advertise the charity, BIG difference.
 
Studio488commercial said:
they are not selling images they are simply using them in social media posts to advertise the charity, BIG difference.
Click to expand...
The point is a licence allows them to do this, yet still allows you to use them on your facebook etc. A licence could also allow them to sell the images too if the situation ever came up.
While them having copyright means you can't legally do anything else with them.
 
j crossley said:
So you do voluntary work for a charity, but you begrudge that aforementioned charity raising funds by selling your photographs taken on their behalf, even though those photographs have no intrinsic value.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. To clarify, yes, I do voluntary work from the charity, which is to their benefit and I certainly don't begrudge them raising funds in any legitimate way to support their work. The issue about them selling the images on to third parties raises a whole other question about where they end up.

If the charity wished to use the images for its own purposes in addition to the original purpose (to support a one off fund raising event), then fine. It's nice that they have a longer shelf life, as it were and that they might continue to promote the cause in other ways. But assigning the copyright means that they could end up being sold to any and every other charity or commercial entity, and find themselves being used to promote/advertise all sorts of things. This isn't about me personally making financial gain for the sale of the images, but more about A) me not particularly wishing to see my images used to promote charities, products, commercial enterprises etc to which I have no connection and no wish to be associated with; and B) feeling that my approval of the use of the images for use by the charity is being exploited. They were taken on behalf of the charity for their use and to support their work. Full stop!! They were not taken to be bandied about and used as a merchantable asset going forward.
 
Withers said:
If the charity wished to use the images for its own purposes in addition to the original purpose (to support a one off fund raising event), then fine. It's nice that they have a longer shelf life, as it were and that they might continue to promote the cause in other ways. But assigning the copyright means that they could end up being sold to any and every other charity or commercial entity, and find themselves being used to promote/advertise all sorts of things. This isn't about me personally making financial gain for the sale of the images, but more about A) me not particularly wishing to see my images used to promote charities, products, commercial enterprises etc to which I have no connection and no wish to be associated with; and B) feeling that my approval of the use of the images for use by the charity is being exploited. They were taken on behalf of the charity for their use and to support their work. Full stop!! They were not taken to be bandied about and used as a merchantable asset going forward.
Click to expand...

This seems to answer your own question.

The best solution is to tell the charity that you're not prepared to transfer copyright, but happy to give them a license to use them as originally agreed free of charge. You can define any terms and conditions, including restrictions on selling them to other parties, per HoppyUK's post above.
 
Regardless of all the above, you should get something in writing about the use of your images. I did a lot of work for a charitable organisation a few years back - the understanding at the time was that the images were for their social media sites. Nothing in writing. I subsequently found that they had given some of my images to a commercial business who were using them for their own advertising. I was not happy - got dog's abuse from the commercial business when I complained to them and asked for the images to be removed. Have never been invited back by the charitable organization to take any more pictures. Really upset me at the time and still leaves a bad taste in my mind. Subsequently I have been a lot more careful of what I do.
 
I think they have a cheek.. your giving up your time and expertise and taking pictures from them for free.... they are hardly in a position to make demands.. I would refuse... what they gonna do.. sack you? :)
 
Studio488commercial said:
If I was the charity I would insist on the images being somehow protected, be it a licence or transfer of copyright, which is the same thing if done right, they are rightly covering their bottoms.
Click to expand...
Thats all well and good when you buy a service, but if your getting the service for nothing it's a bit of a cheek at best, and taking the p**s at worst.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top