Copyright Issue: Advice Please!

Plugus Maximus

Plugus Maximus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
273
Edit My Images
Yes
A few years back an employee of my company, in his capacity as supervisor/manager, took some photographs of a road traffic accident involving one of our vehicles on the public highway. The photos were taken on his camera as a record of the event and it's aftermath. They were used in an insurance claim. The employe has since left the organisation and I now have noticed the photos appearing on a Facebook Group. I want these removed.

Who owns the copyright of the pictures in this instance? Who has control? What are my company rights? What is the best way to politely but firmly request they be removed?


Any help appreciated!!

K
 
You have no rights - he took the photos he owns the copyright.

The only way you could get them taken down is if they were evidence in an ongoing investigation (or insurance claim if still ongoing)
 
Plugus Maximus said:
A few years back an employee of my company, in his capacity as supervisor/manager, took some photographs of a road traffic accident involving one of our vehicles on the public highway. The photos were taken on his camera as a record of the event and it's aftermath. They were used in an insurance claim. The employe has since left the organisation and I now have noticed the photos appearing on a Facebook Group. I want these removed.

Who owns the copyright of the pictures in this instance? Who has control? What are my company rights? What is the best way to politely but firmly request they be removed?


Any help appreciated!!

K
Click to expand...

I would suggest that as he was an employee, the company has the copyright.

j.
 
was it in his contract that any photos taken while in duty of work where not his to do as he pleased with?
 
jerry12953 said:
I would suggest that as he was an employee, the company has the copyright.

j.
Click to expand...

I am employed on a freelance basis, and I keep all copyright. It is down to whoever triggers the shutter who has copyright - unless previously agreed.
 
There was no explicit mention of photography or copyright in the contract - he was not employed to take photos. He took the photos to record the crash for operational reasons at the time of the incident. In his contract during his time employed it stated:

You may not disclose any information of a confidential nature relating to the Company or any of its associated companies or their business or trade secrets or in respect of which the Company owes an obligation of confidence to any third party during your employment except as required by the Company or law at all after the termination of your employment.

The photos were taken during business hours while he was being paid. I consider his actions in taking the photos a responsible action at the time, but I am not happy that since his termination, the photos are in wider circulation.
 
Why not get your company lawyer / solicitor to check the terms of his contact of employment, they would give you a definitive answer, and not one subject to speculation.
 
A good deal of employment contracts contain a clause which states that anything created/produced in your capacity as an employee (Regardless of job description) becomes interlectual property of the employer. Does his?

I'm not even sure it needs to be in the contract as it may be part of how copyright law works...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-employer.htm
 
We're a small company, they cost a lot of money, and if it was a clear cut case of "No he's not allowed" or "He's within his rights" then I was hoping to get an answer from these forums. At the moment it appears opinion is divided, so I shall wait and see. I'm not after speculation but rather solid evidence/experienced backed advice. I would have thought this may have cropped up with other TP users hence the thread!
 
purpleclouds said:
I am employed on a freelance basis, and I keep all copyright. It is down to whoever triggers the shutter who has copyright - unless previously agreed.
Click to expand...

:agree:

It's fairly cut and dried as far as the law is concerned. It sounds like you might not be on the best of terms with this chap otherwise I guess you'd have just asked him to take them off as a matter of courtesy. If the photographs are in any way derogatory toward you or your Company you could always approach Facebook and ask them to remove them. If he is using them to somehow "get back at you" it wouldn't hurt to spice things up a bit in your request to Facebook :D
 
RichardtheSane said:
A good deal of employment contracts contain a clause which states that anything created/produced in your capacity as an employee (Regardless of job description) becomes interlectual property of the employer. Does his?

I'm not even sure it needs to be in the contract as it may be part of how copyright law works...
Click to expand...

This is my understanding too. Though I am simply speculating.

Much better to follow the advice of whiteflyer and seek professional advice.

If your relationship with the ex-employee is not amicable then it will pay to be correct in your approach (or rather potentially cost if you are not). If you are on good terms then simply requesting the removal of the images, without threats, might be an appropriate course of action.

I have just seen your last post: whilst the advice will cost it is relative to the other costs involved. If you believe that your businiess is affected by the photos then this is a cost, if you go in with an ill informed response then this may also cost. The cost of legal advice can at least be understood in advance and considered, the other costs are rather more indeterminate. It's a matter of risk.

I suspect that even after 6 pages of response on here you will not have a definitive answer and will be taking a risk in following any advice. At that point what will you do? Do that now, save time and irritation.
 
Plugus Maximus said:
There was no explicit mention of photography or copyright in the contract - he was not employed to take photos. He took the photos to record the crash for operational reasons at the time of the incident. In his contract during his time employed it stated:

You may not disclose any information of a confidential nature relating to the Company or any of its associated companies or their business or trade secrets or in respect of which the Company owes an obligation of confidence to any third party during your employment except as required by the Company or law at all after the termination of your employment.

The photos were taken during business hours while he was being paid. I consider his actions in taking the photos a responsible action at the time, but I am not happy that since his termination, the photos are in wider circulation.
Click to expand...

A road accident isn't confidential, it's happened on the road (ie a public place) and other people are involved, police etc, he wasn't employed as a photographer, and used his own camera, the copyright is his.
Next time pay a pro and get a contract, the guy probably did you a favor at the time, now you want to get back at him. Wayne
 
Are you on speaking terms with him? Have you tried to ask him? Or ask the admin of the FB group.
 
swanseamale47 said:
A road accident isn't confidential, it's happened on the road (ie a public place) and other people are involved, police etc, he wasn't employed as a photographer, and used his own camera, the copyright is his.
Next time pay a pro and get a contract, the guy probably did you a favor at the time, now you want to get back at him. Wayne
Click to expand...

It matters not what he is employed to do nor whose equipment was used - if he took the photograph in his capacity as an employee (manager) while on company time then the company have a good case to claim ownership of the image.
 
swanseamale47 said:
A road accident isn't confidential, it's happened on the road (ie a public place) and other people are involved, police etc, he wasn't employed as a photographer, and used his own camera, the copyright is his.
Next time pay a pro and get a contract, the guy probably did you a favor at the time, now you want to get back at him. Wayne
Click to expand...

I am on amicable speaking terms with the individual that took the photos. He has since set up his own business and his business partner has put these pictures on facebook. I am hoping to speak to my ex-employee in due course to amicably remove them.

When a road crash occurs I have never heard of anyone in the moments after the point of impact setting about employing a pro 'tog and establishing a contract to get them to the scene within minutes! Everything my employee did was reasonable at the time. I am just trying to establish my rights should he present a problem.

My view is that he was employed by me and anything produced by him, while in my employment for the company's records, should actually remain property of my business.

It seems there's two views to this situation:

1. As he pressed the shutter he owns the copyright no matter what, unless there was an explict prior contractual agreeement to the contrary;
2. As an employee his work is owed by the company.

The arguements seem both strong, but logically (to my mind at least) 2 is stronger. :thinking:
 
When you say "The photos were taken on his camera as a record of the event and it's aftermath" did he, under his own initiative, take out his own camera at the time of the incident and takes photos because he thought they'd be useful... or... did you instruct him to go to site, following the accident, with a Company owned camera and take record photographs to be used by the Company?
 
ROFL2K9 said:
When you say "The photos were taken on his camera as a record of the event and it's aftermath" did he, under his own initiative, take out his own camera at the time of the incident and takes photos because he thought they'd be useful... or... did you instruct him to go to site, following the accident, with a Company owned camera and take record photographs to be used by the Company?
Click to expand...

Truth be told it was nearly two years ago it occured and I was out of the country at the time so the exact minutia are a little hard to come by. In a major incident like it was he acted as I hoped he would have done of his own accord, and as he would be expected to as a supervisor of the staff/vehicles.

He got to the scene as quick as he could and took photos on his own camera. At all times he was acting on behalf of the company, albeit no direction was given to him to act as he did or take the photos. But such was the nature of the incident and the extraoridnary circumstances an investigation could have been likely to answer to possibly the police, HSE and our client. He was acting responsibly in taking the photos. Staff are not expected to carry cameras (we work on high speed roads).
 
Hum - I take photos for my company as an addition to my main duties. Our staff handbook says:


It is a condition of employment that all staff irrevocably and unconditionally waive any and all rights granted by Chapter IV of Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that vest in them individually or collectively (whether before, on or after the date hereof) in connection with their authorship of any copyright works in any way relating to their employment with the Company. This applies on a world-wide basis wherever enforceable. It
also includes, but is not limited to, the right to be identified as the author of any such works and the right not to have any such works subjected to derogatory treatment.
 
Plugus Maximus said:
You may not disclose any information of a confidential nature relating to the Company or any of its associated companies or their business or trade secrets or in respect of which the Company owes an obligation of confidence to any third party during your employment except as required by the Company or law at all after the termination of your employment.
Click to expand...

You really need to get legal advice. Your works rules might be in breach of the Human Rights Act which apparently gives toe-rags much more freedom than they should have.

As it was his camera and his initiative he may well ave the upper hand in any legal battle. The innocent are not protected very well under UK laws.
 
Grockle said:
You really need to get legal advice. Your works rules might be in breach of the Human Rights Act which apparently gives toe-rags much more freedom than they should have.

As it was his camera and his initiative he may well ave the upper hand in any legal battle. The innocent are not protected very well under UK laws.
Click to expand...

This wording is no longer used;)

Our docs have been modified and improved.
 
OK ...

So what's the difference with respect to this, between Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright? Facebook allows to report both.
 
Intellectual property rights fall principally into four main areas; copyright, trademarks, design rights and patents.
As you're going down the route of saying that you/your Company own the copyright to the photograph, then as far as you're concerned he is infringing this copyright..... so I guess the best way to approach it would be via the Copyright report.
 
You really do need specialist advice here....it can't be much use listening to the conflicting views of a bunch of ****** photographers.;)

Once you have a good idea of the exact legal situation, and if you are still on good terms with the guy, try just asking him to remove the photo. If he won't you will be armed with the knowledge needed to take further action.
 
jerry12953 said:
You really do need specialist advice here....it can't be much use listening to the conflicting views of a bunch of ****** photographers.;)
QUOTE]

I resent that statement......... I never claimed to be a photographer :D
Click to expand...
 
UPDATE!!

The nice man approach worked first time! The photo's have been removed and I'm now a happy man. Thank you for all your help, speculation :) and advice. Having researched the links I am confident I own the copyright and stated as such and it's had the desired effect.

Fankkk ooooo!!!!
 
Glad you got an amicable result :thumbs:
 
All's well that ends well :thumbs:
 
Plugus Maximus said:
UPDATE!!

The nice man approach worked first time! The photo's have been removed and I'm now a happy man. Thank you for all your help, speculation :) and advice. Having researched the links I am confident I own the copyright and stated as such and it's had the desired effect.

Fankkk ooooo!!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, if they are an employee, you do.

As a reference for other folk who may wonder about who owns their 'work' photos, the law is quite clear. Simple definition of an employee is somebody who has their tax and NI paid (so this does not apply to freelances). There are other definitions, but that's an easy one.

Anything they do in work hours pretty much belongs to their employer. Anything they do in connection with work, outside work hours, quite possibly belongs to the employer also (depends - bit of a grey area). I have had cases like this which have gone legal and even the stuff done outside work hours belonged to us (employer).

Normally, it would therefore be down to the employee to prove that this was not the case, and unless they had negotiated a specific clause in their contract, it would be quite difficult.

If the guy used his own camera you could end up with a silly situation where the employer owned the image Rights (the intellectual property) but the employee owned the 'materials' which in effect would mean the digital files. In other words, the employer might own the images but couldn't access them, and the employee could access them but could not use them! That is usually sorted out with an exchange of cash, or a court might make a ruling.

I guess the message for people on here is that if you are an employee and take photos in work hours, or outside work hours but in a related area (this is quite common) then either you don't own the pictures, or at best your ownership would be in serious doubt if it ever went to court. Of course, as always 'possession is 9/10ths of the law' ;) but if you want to be sure, get a clause added to your contract sooner rather than later.
 
For future reference, your covered by the data protection act. ;)
 
RichardtheSane said:
It matters not what he is employed to do nor whose equipment was used - if he took the photograph in his capacity as an employee (manager) while on company time then the company have a good case to claim ownership of the image.
Click to expand...

Rubbish, The copyright of photographs are the photographers, unless theres a contract, or the persons employed as a photographer, and employed means employed not freelance or self employed. The photos were taken in a public place (as far as we know) they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
Rubbish, The copyright of photographs are the photographers, unless theres a contract, or the persons employed as a photographer, and employed means employed not freelance or self employed. The photos were taken in a public place (as far as we know) they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Wayne
Click to expand...

You would do well to read up on the subject properly before making such claims.
Employers have a remarkable number of rights when it comes to any materials produced by an employee while conducting their duties. It most certainly would have a leg to stand on in court.

Edit, just seen Hoppys Reply which gives ample information for you to gain a better understanding.
 
I see where your coming from there swansea male, based on the usual rules, but the government set up basic employment rules that are enforced when you become employed, you are deemed to accept them when you get paid, unless a contract is signed to say differently(grey area here though). so entering employment was you agreeing to the terms of the contract. if you do a job for someone, not employed, then you still retain copyright.

hope i got that right:thinking:
 
I'm glad that this was resolved by just asking. This illustrates nicely how a simple polite conversation can do away with the need to "assert one's rights under the law".

The phrase "the Law is an ass" is well justified, it frequently doesn't support the most commonly held view.

This thread also showcases the propensity for some posters to assert as fact what is in fact utter speculation. Reader beware!
 
I don't think this was really a case of who owns the copyright on them, I can't imagine that the employee got out his lightstands and SB-600's to take a well lit and framed picture. It was just a few snaps on a compact digi camera as far as I can imagine.

All it boils down to was that you weren't happy with them being visible to the whole world, perhaps due to the sensitive nature, and should have just requested that he remove them without all this copyright debacle, simples? :D
 
RichardtheSane said:
You would do well to read up on the subject properly before making such claims.
Employers have a remarkable number of rights when it comes to any materials produced by an employee while conducting their duties. It most certainly would have a leg to stand on in court.

Edit, just seen Hoppys Reply which gives ample information for you to gain a better understanding.
Click to expand...

Yup see my earlier post. I take shots for use on our website during work time. Copyright under my working conditions belongs to my company.

As this has been resolved amicably, how about sending a gift, a couple of bottle of wine, hamper, flowers etc as an unexpected thank you.
 
Fact is that when you are 'employed' you do lose a lot of rights, often to stuff that you might not expect. (But let's be fair, you gain a heck of a lot more in all sorts of things.)

Anything you do in work time probably belongs to your employer for sure, and I think that's right. When you get outside work time, I think that you should be able to do pretty much what you like, but that is not always the case. Far from it. I have some experience of this.

A good test question is, would you have been able to take the photos if you had not been employed by this particular company? And then, are the photos in any way related to your work? You need to be able to answer no to both questions, and if the answer is in any doubt and you want to make anything more than strictly private use of the photos, then you should make your employer aware of this.

At the very least, you should send them a note simply stating that any photos you take out of formal work hours belong to you. Make it as bland and simple as possible so as not to raise questions - you're a keen photographer, right? You just want to make things clear. Chances are that this will simply get slipped in to your personnel file without further ado, and the job is done. Keep a dated copy with your contract.

Here's an example. You work in the car industry and are given tickets to a motor race. Clearly you got those tickets because of your job. You take photos of your family - no problem there. Then you are invited into the paddock and take pictures of cars. This is now privileged access to work related subjects and there could be a question mark over Rights.

It's just so much easier to clarify things up before the event rather than after. It might seem a bit petty, but there has to be a law of some sort on this stuff because questions do arise. Virtually everything we do has some element of 'intellectual property' about it, but nobody cares who owns the Rights to the recipe for that cup of tea you just made, or even to the 100 photocopies you just printed out. So 99.9% of everything we do is irrelevant. But taking photos in a work related capacity often falls into that other 0.1%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top