Value of copyright
- Thread starter fabphoto
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,228
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- No
You gain copyright for creating works, albeit photograph, paintings or written. The copyright will remain with you no matter what until you come to an agreement as to what you do with it.
As for worth, major companies and newspapers have been taken to court in the past for breach of copyright and in some cases it has cost them millions. So your guess is as good as anyones.
As for worth, major companies and newspapers have been taken to court in the past for breach of copyright and in some cases it has cost them millions. So your guess is as good as anyones.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 229
- Name
- Fabien
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What if I don t want the photo to be public? I guess that could be agreed with the photographer (if he is honest). But what stop him to show the photo to his wife, mates or on here?
I have got nothing to hide but a family photo is a private moment that I don t want to be shared by somebody else than me.
I have got nothing to hide but a family photo is a private moment that I don t want to be shared by somebody else than me.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,439
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
So long as you make that all clear beforehand you should find a photogrpaher willing to take the job on your terms.. I don't do portraits but if I did I would give you the pictures the files the copyright and walk off into the sunset with your money
However some photogrpahers (quite a lot in here) are so anal about copyright they wouldn't even take the job on... wierd I know but...
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm with you there Tony......go on start a thread about it.........see how long it lasts before a full scale riot
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
LOL This should be entertaining
Logically you're right, morally you're right, but legally you are wrong. It used to be that way, but the law on copyright was reversed in 1988 and even if you commissioned the work and paid for everything, unless your have had copyright assigned to you in writing, you own nothing but the prints you have purchased. It is technically illegal to make a photocopy or post them on Facebook, and you can (potentially) cause a heck of a rumpus if you do.
The law as it stands (currently under review) is designed to protect the photographer's income, and other rights, so you have to buy prints from them and pay extra for any form of re-use. That's the intention.
But since the photographer retains copyright, they can do (almost) what they like with the images without reference to you. For example, if your children become famous or the photos become commercially valuable for some reason, you could find them appearing all over the papers. Rather more likely, if the pictures are good the photographer could use them for their own advertising and promotion, though I guess it wouldn't be a great idea to upset a good customer in the process.
It's mad. The law is an ass, and is increasingly being shown to be either wrong, or unenforceable, or both, with the advent of new digital media. Hence the new legislation under review. That's my view anyway* but I don't expect everyone here will agree
* Edit: I should add, my view in relation to commissioned work!
Last edited:
Just create the work! Seriously, just take the photograph, write the book, paint the picture or whatever and you automatically own the copyright. You don't need to do anything else.
- Messages
- 822
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I understand the legal side of copyright and I think hoppyUK has pretty much said how stupid it is morally. I can see why the tog would own the copyright for photos he went out and took off his own back using his own time etc or a writer/painter/designer who did pieces for them selves. But from a customers point of view though your paying the tog/artisit/designer/writer to do something for you, i.e commissioning him/her to take the pictures you would expect to the own pictures outright, after all the work wouldn't be done without the customer requesting it in the first place.
The creator of the piece then who got paid from the customer once already to do the work can then continue to get paid by selling the work on again. know thats legal but it doesn't seem very moral does it?
The creator of the piece then who got paid from the customer once already to do the work can then continue to get paid by selling the work on again. know thats legal but it doesn't seem very moral does it?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
One big thing.
If you are an employee (ie salaried, permanent work) then your employer owns extensive rights to your work. Much more extensive than you might imagine. Pretty much anything 'connected' with your job belongs to your employer, in work time or any other time.
Example: you work for an automotive company and through work you get family tickets to a weekend race and VIP access. Something dramatic happens in the race and you take behind the scenes pictures. You do not own those pictures (could be your employer or someone else, but not you) but you would probably own the pictures of your family taken at the same time though it might take a court to decide that.
A good test question is, if it wasn't for my work, would I be able to take these pictures? And one way of checking if you are an employee in this context is, does your employer pay income tax on your behalf. If they don't, and you're effectively freelance, no probs.
If this affects you, you need to get a note popped into your personnel file to clarify.
If you are an employee (ie salaried, permanent work) then your employer owns extensive rights to your work. Much more extensive than you might imagine. Pretty much anything 'connected' with your job belongs to your employer, in work time or any other time.
Example: you work for an automotive company and through work you get family tickets to a weekend race and VIP access. Something dramatic happens in the race and you take behind the scenes pictures. You do not own those pictures (could be your employer or someone else, but not you) but you would probably own the pictures of your family taken at the same time though it might take a court to decide that.
A good test question is, if it wasn't for my work, would I be able to take these pictures? And one way of checking if you are an employee in this context is, does your employer pay income tax on your behalf. If they don't, and you're effectively freelance, no probs.
If this affects you, you need to get a note popped into your personnel file to clarify.
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Richard
Not sure I follow that..... Are you saying in your example above that my employer would own copyright to any images I took even if I was not being paid at the time? ... Because they had provided the tickets to the race?
It could certainly affect me if the above is true
Photodiva
Foot elevated on the stool
- Messages
- 4,134
- Name
- Carol
- Edit My Images
- Yes
O think the example is a bit more complex. IF you are are employed as a company photographer and IF you go to an event as part of your job then the images belong to your employer. IF for exame you are an accountant and go to an event on behalf of your employer and take photos then the images belong to you unless you've made an arrangement beforehand. That's how I've seen it work in practice.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Richard
Not sure I follow that..... Are you saying in your example above that my employer would own copyright to any images I took even if I was not being paid at the time? ... Because they had provided the tickets to the race?
It could certainly affect me if the above is true
Does't make any difference if you are being paid or not. If you are formally an employee, and you take pictures which you would not have done without that employment, then you almost certainly don't own copyright.
Of course, it is hardly ever a problem so never gets put to the test. But I have been involved in a case where the employment link was about as tenuous as it gets, it went legal and the employee lost. A few thousand quality images over many years
There was a thread on here along similar lines a while ago that was settled out of court, in the employer's favour.If you do this kind of work, and many of us do and there is never any clash of interests, you should get it formally agreed. If you're going to have difficulties, the crap usually hits the fan after you've left under a cloud! Often all it takes is for you to gently take the initiative and write something - very innocuous, along the lines of my pictures are mine - get it counter-signed by your manager/personnel/authority and dropped in your file. Don't kick up a fuss or you'll probably lose! The law is on the employer's side and you are asking for a concession.
You should take advice, privately. Sometimes it's better to do nothing or you might get whatever photographic priviledges you have withdrawn. These things can get very sensitive. Tread carefully. There's usually nothing written about it in contracts because it's the legal default.
That is indeed how it usually works in practise, because there is no clash of interests. But technically, when push comes to shove, the onus would be on you to prove that the images were of an entirely personal nature and completely unrelated to work, which when you're out on a work related event, is kind of difficult. The employer doesn't have to prove anything.
These things usually only become a problem if you leave to work for a rival, or start selling stuff, publish images of colleagues and they object etc.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks Richard for the clarification. This is indeed quite intriguing for me and I'm not challenging what you say, but for the point of discussion... I wonder how far this could be taken? for example, if I used knowledge or information obtained in the course of my work to photograph an unusual event then that image could then be theirs even if it was taken in my time and at my expense!......
This is all very strange as my contract goes into great detail regarding copyright etc. ..... I will though take your advice and get some further independent advice privately and I certainly will not be talking to my employer about this.... not just yet anyway.
This is all very strange as my contract goes into great detail regarding copyright etc. ..... I will though take your advice and get some further independent advice privately and I certainly will not be talking to my employer about this.... not just yet anyway.
This is a very good point raised by Hoppy, which is far more common than most might think, especially where you are in jobs where you 'create' things, artistic, scientific or technological.
Most of my clients employess have contracts which states (and mine does too) that anything that is 'invented or created' by an employee whilst in the employment of the company, whether in or out of worktime is the property of the employer.
I really disagree with this, and have only recently begun to think about the overall implications of this. I will certainly look at clarifying my contract to distinguish that the photos I take in my time remain mine. My hobby and my day job kinda overlap so I think I need to clarify this soon!
Most of my clients employess have contracts which states (and mine does too) that anything that is 'invented or created' by an employee whilst in the employment of the company, whether in or out of worktime is the property of the employer.
I really disagree with this, and have only recently begun to think about the overall implications of this. I will certainly look at clarifying my contract to distinguish that the photos I take in my time remain mine. My hobby and my day job kinda overlap so I think I need to clarify this soon!
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Mine also has something similar... But certainly not anything like:
I've also heard of employers drawing up contracts that in theory take away basic rights of the employees, however when challenged the employer loses! .... I remember my contract gave the employer the 'Right of search' when challenged it turned out to be complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] and that no employer has any such right!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
It's good that you have something about this in your contract. Most say nothing at all, and if you raised it with an emloyer, they might well be as surprised/confused as anybody else. Somebody familar with a bit of legalise should be able to pick the bones out of it.
But as you say, how far can you take this? If you shoot pictures directly connected with work, they obviously belong to your employer. That seems obvious and right enough. And your own private and independent photogaphy obviously has nothing to do with your employer.
However, most people's job extends into their private and social lives to at least some extent, and sometimes a lot, and that's where the difficulties start. The point is, the employer's rights do not stop once you leave the premises or enter your own unpaid time. And those rights are much more extensive in law than most folks believe. Further, because of the way the law is pitched, the onus is usually on you to prove that the pictures are yours, and not the other way around.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
A contract of employment can say anything it likes, so long as it doesn't break the law. For example, it cannot say that you're allowed to break the speed limit.
But the right to search sounds fair enough, in certain jobs, at least in principle. Bit of a dodgy one, but I'm sure that if you work in the Royal Mint there will be clause along those lines! Though they might need the police to do it for them.
If a clause is technically not illegal but unreasonable, then that, ultimately, is what juries are for.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed! Regarding the right of search This had something to do with navel ships and being allowed to board other ships ....
However, as you say it does require the police! If an employee chooses to go along with it... then no problem ..... Thanks again Richard