Who owns copyright in this situation?

[Coldeh]

Hi folks,
a little background to the situation:
I used to volunteer with an organisation local to me in a role other than photographer. I was asked by an employee of the organisation to take photos of an event they were holding, but not to attend in my normal role.

Needless to say, I took the photos and attended wearing my ID card for the organisation (which had my role other than photographer on it) along with my uniform.

Now I know as part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that an employer automatically has copyright over any work their employees create during the course of their duties however I'm not sure in this situation.

I was recently asked by the organisation to provide the photos for a press release, I said I would and that all I want is a credit line to prevent my works from becoming orphaned (there are some nice shots in there I'll have you know!) I was told that I would not be credited as I performed the role of photographer as part of my volunteering and that they own copyright over all the images I produced.

Now I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, the person who requested them needs to produce the release by today which would leave me looking bad if I didn't get them in on time. On the other hand, if the copyright is mine I'm now handing over photos without anything in return except a warm fuzzy feeling.

Thoughts?

 

[donut]

i would think that as you wernt employed by them the copyright stays with you , just a matter of how far you want to take it ,,,,dig your heels in for what youve asked or just let them have all images along with the copyright .

 

[Coldeh]

I'm not letting them have the copyright as this would have implications for my work, as I mentioned, there are some nice images in there that I would like to use.

 

[Impspeed]

Well by the sounds of it you've already decided what you're going to do...

There are lots of if's and but's in this;

- Have you signed employment contracts highlighting your job description (even though it's voluntary)?
- Have you taken images for the organisation before?
- Would you have been able to gain access to the event if it were not for the privileges bought on by being employed?

I'm afraid if you've answered yes to any of the above you're screwed, especially under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. I work as an event manager and often take my own photos (helps being freelance and in this job - save the company £'0000s!) but have recently got peeved with the company using lots of my photos, handing them out and making huge gains from it, not just financial but also publicity.

Anyway, I work very closely with the Intellectual Properties Office who said that it doesn't matter, so long as any of the above three are fulfilled I haven't got a leg to stand on so in future either don't take photos or take poor photos more as a record of the event...

Guess which one I took?!


DB

 

[ka$h]

You said you used to volunteer, do you have a contract of employment with them? did you get paid whilst performing the role of photographer? If the answers are yes, the company own you and your workings, therefore the copyright is theirs. if you were not contracted to the company then slap your name right across the middle as a watermark and send them over.

K

 

[Arkady]

Unless you're an Employed Photographer - i.e. paid by them to be as such, then copyright reverts to the artist - you in this case.
In fact, even as an employed photographer, unless you sign a contract stating otherwise, copyright is still yours...the employer may have certain rights pertaining to sale and distribution, but as the author of the image you still retain intellectual copyright.

Even as a paid photographer, you still have the right to demand a byline, if this is not otherwise covered by your employment T&Cs...

Furthermore, as a volunteer (unpaid) worker, they have no rights whatsoever to any images and no right to compel you to turn them over unless you agree.

I frequently have this argument with my Bosses (on a yearly basis it seems)...currently going round the roundabout again...
Even Crown Copyright images taken on deployments are still my intellectual property as the author of the image...MoD only owns the indefinite rights to sale and distribution for as long as I'm employed by them as no specific contracts regarding image rights were ever drawn up and agreed to...

 

[TinaC]

I admit to being rather naive in this are but couldn't you give them your images with your name plastered over, or suitably visible?

Watermark, that's the word...

 

[Coldeh]

- Have you signed employment contracts highlighting your job description (even though it's voluntary)?
- Have you taken images for the organisation before?
- Would you have been able to gain access to the event if it were not for the privileges bought on by being employed?

Nope, I signed no contract (I was a volunteer, although I am staff at the moment and I know that they own the copyright to any images I take now as part of my work).

I haven't taken images for the organisation before no, this was the first time, the second was during my employment with them and now I won't take any more images using my equipment for them.

I would have been able to gain access yes, it was a public event in a public park, most of the images are on public land and the building was open to the public as well.

Unless you're an Employed Photographer - i.e. paid by them to be as such, then copyright reverts to the artist - you in this case.
In fact, even as an employed photographer, unless you sign a contract stating otherwise, copyright is still yours...the employer may have certain rights pertaining to sale and distribution, but as the author of the image you still retain intellectual copyright.

Even as a paid photographer, you still have the right to demand a byline, if this is not otherwise covered by your employment T&Cs...

Furthermore, as a volunteer (unpaid) worker, they have no rights whatsoever to any images and no right to compel you to turn them over unless you agree.

I frequently have this argument with my Bosses (on a yearly basis it seems)...currently going round the roundabout again...
Even Crown Copyright images taken on deployments are still my intellectual property as the author of the image...MoD only owns the indefinite rights to sale and distribution for as long as I'm employed by them as no specific contracts regarding image rights were ever drawn up and agreed to...

Thank you all! It's made me feel much better. I will turn some over (they only want 3-4 anyway) but I asked mostly because I'm using the images outside of work and if I don't turn them over, the person who's asking for them and telling me I am compelled to provide them can fire me.

 

[karmagarda]

I can see it now. The watermark:

Coldeh Photography

 

[Coldeh]

I can see it now. The watermark:

Coldeh Photography

That made me laugh. HARD!

 

[Arkady]

... the person who's asking for them and telling me I am compelled to provide them can fire me.

I don't think they can actually - not without risking a monster law-suit for unfair dismissal...you say you weren't actually employed - you volunteered - and at that time you were not even there in the capacity of photographer.
This comes more into the realm of 'doing someone a favour', rather than being tasked as a proper job...

 

[OutLore]

the person who's asking for them and telling me I am compelled to provide them can fire me.

Is it even possible to get "fired" from voluntary work? Surely it would just be them asking you not to turn up tomorrow?

 

[Coldeh]

Is it even possible to get "fired" from voluntary work? Surely it would just be them asking you not to turn up tomorrow?

I'm now staff rather than a volunteer, they might not fire me but they could make my life extremely difficult.

 

[jerry12953]

Considering you were volnteering for them it sounds like they are being VERY unreasonable, let alone the legal aspect that others have referred to.

Rock and a hard place comes to mind........

 

[OutLore]

I'm now staff rather than a volunteer, they might not fire me but they could make my life extremely difficult.

And you could theirs - by not turning up any more. There are plenty of other charities (assumption there) who are crying out for volunteers, and may well treat you a lot better.

You're not asking for payment, just for accreditation which will cost them nothing.

 

[Coldeh]

And you could theirs - by not turning up any more. There are plenty of other charities (assumption there) who are crying out for volunteers, and may well treat you a lot better.

You're not asking for payment, just for accreditation which will cost them nothing.

That is more than likely the case, but I'm stuck here for the moment and may as well make the most of it as jobs aren't particularly as well paid or available.

 

[awp]

They didn't hire you as a photographer - copyright is yours.

 

[Spiritflier]

Just a thought but if your employer digs their heels in, I'd say that you're terribly sorry but the images are irrevocably lost and you can't hand them over!

Si

 

[Coldeh]

They didn't hire you as a photographer - copyright is yours.

They didn't hire me at all!

Thanks everyone for the support! Unfortunately I think I'm going to have to just hand them over, whilst I know I'm right and they are wrong, I could do with my life being easy rather than hell which I have no doubt they would make.

Think penguins from Madagascar "Smile and wave boys, just smile and wave."

 

[POAH]

They didn't hire me at all!

Thanks everyone for the support! Unfortunately I think I'm going to have to just hand them over, whilst I know I'm right and they are wrong, I could do with my life being easy rather than hell which I have no doubt they would make.

Think penguins from Madagascar "Smile and wave boys, just smile and wave."

not more like bend over and smile

 

[AndWhyNot]

There's some good contributions in this thread, esp Arkady's informed commentary made interesting reading and is now filed in the memory banks...

Thanks everyone for the support! Unfortunately I think I'm going to have to just hand them over, whilst I know I'm right and they are wrong, I could do with my life being easy rather than hell which I have no doubt they would make.

...and to think if you'd had this brainwave from the start folk wouldn't have needed to go to the effort of contributing.

I really think that for yourself, the contributors and ultimately for photographers across the land you should have at the very least exercised the rights about which you first posted.

 

[Bazza155]

By you giving them the images doesn't then give them the right to use them, copyright still remains with you.
As soon as you see them used whack in an invoice.

 

[Arkady]

By you giving them the images doesn't then give them the right to use them, copyright still remains with you.
As soon as you see them used whack in an invoice.

F*****g-A!

 

[Coldeh]

...and to think if you'd had this brainwave from the start folk wouldn't have needed to go to the effort of contributing.

I really think that for yourself, the contributors and ultimately for photographers across the land you should have at the very least exercised the rights about which you first posted.

But then I would have felt like crap having had my images stolen from me and felt castrated by someone who is ignorantly abusing their power... oh wait...

If I were in any other circumstance I would have slapped a bill of £4000 (corporate rate of 2 days) then doubled it for unlicensed use and failing that, I would have taken them to court, unfortunately while I have the ability to do it, if I do I'll be cutting my nose off to spite my face.

I know that many of you will think that I'm just as bad as them for giving in, but I'm in a very tough spot and they could easily make my life very, very difficult and could easily jeopardise my career.

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm not sure I agree with the gist of the replies. I think that, most likely, legally the OP does not own copyright. And furthermore Rob (Arkady) I don't think that you own any rights to your work, either now or if you leave employment.

If the OP has a formal employment contract (simple test is that your income tax is paid by the employer, but there are others) then the employer owns all rights to all work. Employers' rights are very extensive and automatic - there is no need for a specific clause in the contract as it is a legal default position. This applies even if you are not employed as a photographer, or even if the work is done outside normal work hours if that work has a direct connection with your employment.

Rob, if you are formally employed, you do not have rights to your images, not any aspect of them. Not now, not never - unless you have a specific opt-out clause.

Of course this depends on the exact nature of your employment contracts (both Rob and the OP) and I don't know the details of them, but unless there is a specific clause saying that you do own rights, then you don't.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong so don't have a go at me (Jerry ) but I speak as the recipient of a lot of very expensive and specific legal advice. As a result of that knowledge, I have frequently advised people on here to get a note put on their contracts to ensure that any photos they take, that have even the most remote conection with their formal employment, are excluded from normal employment regulations. For example, if you work in the automtive business and as a result get tickets to the British Grand Prix for you and your family, your employer almost certainly owns the rights to those photos. Or at the very least, you would have to prove to a court that they did not own them, and TBH I think you'd have trouble. Like I said, employers' rights are extensive

 

[London luke]

I'm not sure I agree with the gist of the replies. I think that, most likely, legally the OP does not own copyright. And furthermore Rob (Arkady) I don't think that you own any rights to your work, either now or if you leave employment.

If the OP has a formal employment contract (simple test is that your income tax is paid by the employer, but there are others) then the employer owns all rights to all work. Employers' rights are very extensive and automatic - there is no need for a specific clause in the contract as it is a legal default position. This applies even if you are not employed as a photographer, or even if the work is done outside normal work hours if that work has a direct connection with your employment.

Rob, if you are formally employed, you do not have rights to your images, not any aspect of them. Not now, not never - unless you have a specific opt-out clause.

Of course this depends on the exact nature of your employment contracts (both Rob and the OP) and I don't know the details of them, but unless there is a specific clause saying that you do own rights, then you don't.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong so don't have a go at me (Jerry ) but I speak as the recipient of a lot of very expensive and specific legal advice. As a result of that knowledge, I have frequently advised people on here to get a note put on their contracts to ensure that any photos they take, that have even the most remote conection with their formal employment, are excluded from normal employment regulations. For example, if you work in the automtive business and as a result get tickets to the British Grand Prix for you and your family, your employer almost certainly owns the rights to those photos. Or at the very least, you would have to prove to a court that they did not own them, and TBH I think you'd have trouble. Like I said, employers' rights are extensive

Read about a situation just like this last week and made a quick call to see what a certain lady thought

she agrees with you ! And she charges companies £2700.00 a HOUR for Employment law.So you can see she must know her beans

The only way to get them is to charge them for the hire of any equipment you provide. If they rent it for you etc then hard luck .

 

[HoppyUK]

Read about a situation just like this last week and made a quick call to see what a certain lady thought

she agrees with you ! And she charges companies £2700.00 a HOUR for Employment law.So you can see she must know her beans

The only way to get them is to charge them for the hire of any equipment you provide. If they rent it for you etc then hard luck .

After midnight, I charge £5k an hour

 

[Arkady]

I'm not sure I agree with the gist of the replies. I think that, most likely, legally the OP does not own copyright. And furthermore Rob (Arkady) I don't think that you own any rights to your work, either now or if you leave employment...
Rob, if you are formally employed, you do not have rights to your images, not any aspect of them. Not now, not never - unless you have a specific opt-out clause.

Of course this depends on the exact nature of your employment contracts (both Rob and the OP) and I don't know the details of them, but unless there is a specific clause saying that you do own rights, then you don't.

OK it's late and I'm p'd off today, so...
I've been around the bushes too many times to get into this in too much detail, but... when I worked at DMOC I was on the panel of people up at MoD who drew up the guidelines for Service Photographers when we revamped everything 5 years ago, so I might know what I can and can't do with my own stuff...thanks for the concern though...

As I'm a soldier first and a photographer second, my terms of contract still revert to my original ToC as an Infantry Soldier.
All Army and RN photographers were 'something else' before transferring to their respective Phot Branches.
Unlike RAF Photographers who sign-up as photographers direct upon entry into their service, we and the Royal Navy sign up as something else.

Furthermore, as I'm employed on n 'S'-Type Engagement, not an Open Engagement, I'm in effect still on Reserve Status - not quite FTRS, but similar - something which was overlooked by Manning and Records (MCM Div) in Glasgow.
In effect, I'm a freelance, working in uniform...

Technically I shouldn't have been allowed to transfer, as an 'S'-Type contract is only with the Regiment you originally sign on with, but (and I love this bit) I was so damn good the Master Photographer at the time made an exception just for me...how the rest of the branch must rue that decision... no wonder I never got promoted...lol
This wasn't picked-up by Manning and Records in Glasgow either...
According to my original contract with 2 PWRR, I should have left the Army in 2004, but because I had completed the Service Career course in 2002, this meant I was time-barred from leaving the Army for another five years.
While I was working at Hereford, I applied for and recieved another 5 year extension - possibly because SF get whatever they ask for...
By that time I was slated to deploy to Iraq (meaning I couldn't leave as there was no-one to replace me) and following that was given another extension for my last Tour of Afghanistan as no-one else wanted to go there...

I only found out most of this background stuff the year before last when I applied for another 3 year extension (in Germany, so I could pay off my car-loan) and was told that I shouldn't even be in the Army still...imagine my surprise...

 

[Coldeh]

I'm not sure I agree with the gist of the replies. I think that, most likely, legally the OP does not own copyright. And furthermore Rob (Arkady) I don't think that you own any rights to your work, either now or if you leave employment.

If the OP has a formal employment contract (simple test is that your income tax is paid by the employer, but there are others) then the employer owns all rights to all work. Employers' rights are very extensive and automatic - there is no need for a specific clause in the contract as it is a legal default position. This applies even if you are not employed as a photographer, or even if the work is done outside normal work hours if that work has a direct connection with your employment.

Rob, if you are formally employed, you do not have rights to your images, not any aspect of them. Not now, not never - unless you have a specific opt-out clause.

Of course this depends on the exact nature of your employment contracts (both Rob and the OP) and I don't know the details of them, but unless there is a specific clause saying that you do own rights, then you don't.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong so don't have a go at me (Jerry ) but I speak as the recipient of a lot of very expensive and specific legal advice. As a result of that knowledge, I have frequently advised people on here to get a note put on their contracts to ensure that any photos they take, that have even the most remote conection with their formal employment, are excluded from normal employment regulations. For example, if you work in the automtive business and as a result get tickets to the British Grand Prix for you and your family, your employer almost certainly owns the rights to those photos. Or at the very least, you would have to prove to a court that they did not own them, and TBH I think you'd have trouble. Like I said, employers' rights are extensive

Well I didn't have an employment contract with them at the time, as (as mentioned in my original post) I was a volunteer.

According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, employers may only claim copyright over employees work if they have created it during the course of their employment so I would be surprised if a court decided in favour of an employer should they try and claim copyright over an employees holiday snaps.

I posed the question as I wasn't sure of my position at the time, but I've been assured by several copyright solicitors that they have no claim over my work.

 

[HoppyUK]

Well I didn't have an employment contract with them at the time, as (as mentioned in my original post) I was a volunteer.

This is the grey area from what you have said. If you had no contract with them at that time, of any sort, and neither were you a formal employee with or without a contract - then your relationship is strictly freelance, unpaid volunteer or otherwise, so how would they have any claim? If this was the situation, what makes you ask?

According to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, employers may only claim copyright over employees work if they have created it during the course of their employment so I would be surprised if a court decided in favour of an employer should they try and claim copyright over an employees holiday snaps.

I didn't say holiday snaps, that would be using personal disposal income in private activity and is not during the course of your employment.

I said images that were related to your work, however remotely that might appear to be the case. The basic question to ask is, if it wasn't for your job would you be in a position to take these pictures? If the answer is no, then there is a work connection, however tenuous, and there is a very real possibility (bordering on probability) that your employer would own the rights and it would be up to you to prove otherwise.

I posed the question as I wasn't sure of my position at the time, but I've been assured by several copyright solicitors that they have no claim over my work.

Well that's all right then

 

[Coldeh]

This is the grey area from what you have said. If you had no contract with them at that time, of any sort, and neither were you a formal employee with or without a contract - then your relationship is strictly freelance, unpaid volunteer or otherwise, so how would they have any claim? If this was the situation, what makes you ask?

When your current boss says "we own the pictures you took, the same applies to part and full time staff as well as volunteers" then I started to wonder.

Well that's all right then

I posted the thread when I got the message about the issue, I talked to solicitors a while after that, the question was long since answered here though .

 

[HoppyUK]

OK it's late and I'm p'd off today, so...
I've been around the bushes too many times to get into this in too much detail, but... when I worked at DMOC I was on the panel of people up at MoD who drew up the guidelines for Service Photographers when we revamped everything 5 years ago, so I might know what I can and can't do with my own stuff...thanks for the concern though...

As I'm a soldier first and a photographer second, my terms of contract still revert to my original ToC as an Infantry Soldier.
All Army and RN photographers were 'something else' before transferring to their respective Phot Branches.
Unlike RAF Photographers who sign-up as photographers direct upon entry into their service, we and the Royal Navy sign up as something else.

Furthermore, as I'm employed on n 'S'-Type Engagement, not an Open Engagement, I'm in effect still on Reserve Status - not quite FTRS, but similar - something which was overlooked by Manning and Records (MCM Div) in Glasgow.
In effect, I'm a freelance, working in uniform...

Technically I shouldn't have been allowed to transfer, as an 'S'-Type contract is only with the Regiment you originally sign on with, but (and I love this bit) I was so damn good the Master Photographer at the time made an exception just for me...how the rest of the branch must rue that decision... no wonder I never got promoted...lol
This wasn't picked-up by Manning and Records in Glasgow either...
According to my original contract with 2 PWRR, I should have left the Army in 2004, but because I had completed the Service Career course in 2002, this meant I was time-barred from leaving the Army for another five years.
While I was working at Hereford, I applied for and recieved another 5 year extension - possibly because SF get whatever they ask for...
By that time I was slated to deploy to Iraq (meaning I couldn't leave as there was no-one to replace me) and following that was given another extension for my last Tour of Afghanistan as no-one else wanted to go there...

I only found out most of this background stuff the year before last when I applied for another 3 year extension (in Germany, so I could pay off my car-loan) and was told that I shouldn't even be in the Army still...imagine my surprise...

A freelance in uniform. Okay, then you will have a freelance contract, not a regular employment contract, and that specifically outlines the the fact that you retain rights to your work and that, as you say, when you leave all rights revert to you?

Hmm. If you don't have that formally detailed, I wouldn't like to put it to the test legally. In all seriousness, if it is an issue for you, even if only a remote future prospect, you should get it properly sorted. Unwritten rules, informal understandings and gentlemen's agreements tend not to carry much weight in court. If your assumptions are correct, then there shouldn't be any problem drawing up a formal agreement.

On the other hand, and this is just personal speculation, it sounds to me rather like the quite common situation where a disjointed employment situation has got confused and the true current position is not clear and has never been formally laid down. In which case, if push came to shove, the default legal position would apply and you'd have great trouble shifting that.

Also, from what little I know of what you do operating in sensitive military areas and recording the lives of active service personnel, I find it quite extraordinary that the powers that be do not have the rights to your work categorically nailed down in armourplated cast iron absoluteness

 

[Arkady]

Also, from what little I know of what you do operating in sensitive military areas and recording the lives of active service personnel, I find it quite extraordinary that the powers that be do not have the rights to your work categorically nailed down in armourplated cast iron absoluteness

My work contract specifies 'Infantry Soldier' on my Army Record, but my posting orders state 'NCO-Photographer-RLC' as my Post Description. As you know there are no Infantry Soldiers in the RLC.

Different rules apply to different jobs.
I'd say 99% of my work is categorised as 'Unclassified' in a world where the lowest form of document classification is usually 'Restricted'. in the normal course of my work, all imagery is theoretically destined for publicity purposes.
If an incident occurs where that would be undesirable then my SO2 on location or SIB would make a ruling, but i'd have probably figured it out before that and would be the one telling them we need to control those images in all liklihood, as SO2 and SO3 officers tend to not have a bloody clue when it comes to Media Ops...
When I worked at Hereford, for example, no imagery ever left camp - everything is classified there as 'Secret'.

I'm not stupid, I know what can and cannot go outside the wire - anything that's been previously published to civilian agencies is fair game. I can't sell any of it, nor profit directly - those are the rules - but as the author I can use them for personal publicity purposes - that's part of what we drafted after other photographers left the Service and published coffee-table books, not only with their own images, but with those belonging to other service photographers.
How would you like to be a photographer for ten years or more and have absolutely no portfolio of images to show anyone? Right - so we can use our images for those reasons. I just can't re-sell them to the papers or anything.
Also, as an aside, MoD has never chased a Copyright infringement case - ever.
MoD do retain the perpetual right to sales and distribution...also my images go to the Imperial War Museum to form part of the National Archive...

 

[desantnik]

If I can just add some common sense to the OP's discussion for a second...

Employment law etc might well sound wonderful on the telly when some big city worker on a billion quid a year sues their employer for a gazillion quid for unfair dismisal, but in reality for most people you will get a few hundred quid, no job and depending on the sector that you work in, a reputation that will ensure that you never easily find employment again.

If your boss was (really) raping you or making you handle toxic chemicals without safety equipment or beating you with a stick, I'd say sure, get legal on them.

Getting a little bit prissy about a few photos you took for them isn't quite frankly worth it surely to god?

Take it as a lesson learnt, don't take photos for them unless you are happy to give them up - you clearly were happy before to do it for nothing, why expect payment now?

Not worth loosing your job over unless the photos have real monetary value I suggest.

 

[Coldeh]

Take it as a lesson learnt, don't take photos for them unless you are happy to give them up - you clearly were happy before to do it for nothing, why expect payment now?

Not worth loosing your job over unless the photos have real monetary value I suggest.

It's not about the money, it's that I have no doubt that they would try and chase me for copyright infringement if I used them in my portfolio or put them on my website. That's the only reason I was concerned about all of this really, because like you said, I had the intention of giving them the images for free anyway.

 

[desantnik]

Well, why not negotiate the use of one, the best one, for your portfolio or website?

BTW Are we really talking about a photo that you could not recreate? If its an example of your skill, go shoot another one the same perhaps?

Unless you have a truly unique photo - say Gordon Brown humping the Queeen or something, just do another one...

 

[HoppyUK]

My work contract specifies 'Infantry Soldier' on my Army Record, but my posting orders state 'NCO-Photographer-RLC' as my Post Description. As you know there are no Infantry Soldiers in the RLC.

Different rules apply to different jobs.
I'd say 99% of my work is categorised as 'Unclassified' in a world where the lowest form of document classification is usually 'Restricted'. in the normal course of my work, all imagery is theoretically destined for publicity purposes.
If an incident occurs where that would be undesirable then my SO2 on location or SIB would make a ruling, but i'd have probably figured it out before that and would be the one telling them we need to control those images in all liklihood, as SO2 and SO3 officers tend to not have a bloody clue when it comes to Media Ops...
When I worked at Hereford, for example, no imagery ever left camp - everything is classified there as 'Secret'.

I'm not stupid, I know what can and cannot go outside the wire - anything that's been previously published to civilian agencies is fair game. I can't sell any of it, nor profit directly - those are the rules - but as the author I can use them for personal publicity purposes - that's part of what we drafted after other photographers left the Service and published coffee-table books, not only with their own images, but with those belonging to other service photographers.
How would you like to be a photographer for ten years or more and have absolutely no portfolio of images to show anyone? Right - so we can use our images for those reasons. I just can't re-sell them to the papers or anything.
Also, as an aside, MoD has never chased a Copyright infringement case - ever.
MoD do retain the perpetual right to sales and distribution...also my images go to the Imperial War Museum to form part of the National Archive...

So you don't actually have a piece of paper that outlines your rights, as you have described them previously? Then it sounds to me Rob that, legally, you own the rights to diddly.

What you may or may not be allowed to do, using what amounts to a discretionary license, is not a legal right and could be withdrawn. Sure, most of the time it amounts to the same thing as you wouldn't want to do or sell anything that the Army wouldn't want to be seen anyway, so everyone's happy.

But, for example, if The Sun did a story about lesbian love in the forces and you sold them one of your pictures of girls on parade (perhaps that one of the lass with unfeasibly large feet ) then you would quickly find out just exactly what rights you haven't got.

But, to be serious for a moment, for you and anyone else that takes photographs that could possibly be connected with their employment and therefore not their copyright, write a note outlining your position, give it to your line manager (the person that reviews your salary and position, not just the guy that tells you what to do everyday) and formally ask for it to be attached to your contract. Make sure they read it and record details of the delivery - to whom, when, where etc.

This will provoke one of two reactions:
1) A formal debate about your rights, and clarification.
2) It will just get slipped in to your personnel file and if it remains there unchallenged, that implies acceptance and would carry a lot of legal weight.
If you really want something rock solid, get your manager to counter sign the agreement.

 

[Arkady]

But, for example, if The Sun did a story about lesbian love in the forces and you sold them one of your pictures of girls on parade (perhaps that one of the lass with unfeasibly large feet ) then you would quickly find out just exactly what rights you haven't got...

I thought I mentioned this.
I cannot sell anything that I've taken in the course of my duties as a Military Photographer.
I can only use those images to publicise myself as a photographer, if they have been previously released to the Civilian Press.

However, if I take other images while at work - say a series of portraits of soldiers' tattoos, or maybe thier cars with them stood next to them in a TopGear style magazine shoot (both of which I've done), then those images are mine. They were not tasked images. Even if I used military equipment to photograph them...
Remember that as soldiers we are paid 24-7 - technically we have no 'free' time at all - even annual Leave can be cancelled with no notice - we have to give precise contact details in case we are needed.
Under those circumstances even a weekend Wedding shoot would be considered as Crown Copyright, which is plainly ridiculous...

Example: here is a picture of an Afghan baker. It was taken while on deployment, with issued equipment. There is no military connection in this image. I saw something nice and took advantage of a lull in proceedings to make some images.
Had the Army not sent me there, this image would never have been taken, however, it's mine - I saw it, I took it.

If you view the EXIF Info you will see that it does still retain Crown Copyright Info - that was embedded both on the camera and in my File Info templates for speed of P&P workflow...
So... even though this is technically 'my' image, I have still taken steps to ensure that it contains the relevant Crown Copyright Information, just in case someone decides to throw a wobbly at me. This image will not be offered for sale - ever. But I can still show it around as an example of my work.

And also remember that as my employer is HMG, what applies to an employee of a Private Firm does not always apply to me...

 

[HoppyUK]

I thought I mentioned this.
I cannot sell anything that I've taken in the course of my duties as a Military Photographer.
I can only use those images to publicise myself as a photographer, if they have been previously released to the Civilian Press.

However, if I take other images while at work - say a series of portraits of soldiers' tattoos, or maybe thier cars with them stood next to them in a TopGear style magazine shoot (both of which I've done), then those images are mine. They were not tasked images. Even if I used military equipment to photograph them...
Remember that as soldiers we are paid 24-7 - technically we have no 'free' time at all - even annual Leave can be cancelled with no notice - we have to give precise contact details in case we are needed.
Under those circumstances even a weekend Wedding shoot would be considered as Crown Copyright, which is plainly ridiculous...

Example: here is a picture of an Afghan baker. It was taken while on deployment, with issued equipment. There is no military connection in this image. I saw something nice and took advantage of a lull in proceedings to make some images.
Had the Army not sent me there, this image would never have been taken, however, it's mine - I saw it, I took it.

That's the point Rob, unless you have formal documentation that says so, it's not legally yours. From what you've said, I can't see how it would be from a strictly legal point of view.

If your arrangement works for you and HMG, that's fine - that's the kind of way most things rub along with no need to legal interference. But it's not the same as owning the rights to images.

If you view the EXIF Info you will see that it does still retain Crown Copyright Info - that was embedded both on the camera and in my File Info templates for speed of P&P workflow...
So... even though this is technically 'my' image, I have still taken steps to ensure that it contains the relevant Crown Copyright Information, just in case someone decides to throw a wobbly at me. This image will not be offered for sale - ever. But I can still show it around as an example of my work.

And also remember that as my employer is HMG, what applies to an employee of a Private Firm does not always apply to me...

I'm not sure what point you're making there, but the law is the law and any deviation from that as far as the forces are concerned will be very clearly stated and given the senitive nature of some of the stuff you do, I can only imagine that any additional clauses would restrict you even further.

But hey Rob, this is your gig, if it works for you then that's cool. I would strongly advise to get things clarified because what tends to happen is that everything bobbles along quite nicely while you're all working together as a big happy family, then when you leave you find that the formal terms of your separation are not what you expected. That's how it happens, when it's too late.

Shooting with a protection filter won't protect you in this case

 

[Arkady]

...I'm not sure what point you're making there, but the law is the law and any deviation from that as far as the forces are concerned will be very clearly stated and given the senitive nature of some of the stuff you do, I can only imagine that any additional clauses would restrict you even further.

Did you miss the bit where I said I was on the panel that drew up the guidelines for Service Photographers back in 2004-5?

Do you really think I would sign the right to display my own work away in perpetuity?

That document is a Land Command LANDSO-SOI - Land Standing Order - Standard Operation Instruction

Without that SOI, all imagery, by whatever means, be it iPhone, P&S compacts etc by any member of the Armed Forces on-duty or off would be technically considered Crown Copyright material.
It's not.

Only images taken on properly documented tasks by on-duty Service Photographers are Crown Copyright.

No job number - not a tasking; therefore not Crown Copyright.

I had to hammer the bosses in Afghan over and over and over to issue job-sheets with job-numbers on for all the tasks I undertook in Afghanistan this time round (it has never been a problem on any other deployment I've been on, but most of the Media Ops staff this time were TA officers from MOG(V) or other TA Units).
In the end I made up my own job-sheets and submitted then via email to HQ Land Command as otherwise none of the stuff I'd taken would belong to the MoD under the guidelines as laid down.

One of our service Phots arranged a Gallery Exhibition (at his own personal expense) of his Operational work a couple of years ago and MoD once again tried to Court-Martial him, until it was pointed out (once again) that he had the right to display those images as long as it was not for gain - in that instance, all proceeds went to the Army Benevolent Fund.

TBH, The biggest problem we have is that most Staff Officers only do about two years in post, so every couple of years, a new officer comes into PJHQ, sees what he thinks is a breach of security and goes off half-cocked without checking with us first.
Seriously, every 2 years I have this exact same conversation with some idiot-Major at Northwood or MoD, Main Building - never occurs to them to talk to Dir. Media & Comms at MoD or D-DCOM Media & Comms Land Command first...oh no...too easy...beat-up the phot (usually some poor bloody Corporal), then check up afterwards...

:bonk:

Out in 6 months - can't wait...