Image ownership

R

ratzz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
53
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'm sure this will have been asked before, and probably cleared up but I couldn't find anything in the search relevant.

If I take portrait / wedding pictures and provide a printing service as well, who is the legal owner of the pictures?

Does ownership get passed on when they buy the images off me, or do I still own copyright?

OR, do the people own them because the picture is of them ... :shrug:

Thanks in advance guys ...
 
Copyright remains with the photographer unless you formally sign it over to someone else. If the client purchases prints, they own a copy of the photograph, but you still have the copyright. If you give them images on a CD, you are, in effect, giving them usage rights (ie to print, post on the web etc...) but you still retain the copyright. If they were to use those images commercially without your permission then they would be in breach of copyright.

HTH.
 
Hi

I asked a similar question yesterday from a different angle though. If a customer books a photographer to take the photographs yes the photographer owns the copyright unless agreed seperately but what can the photographer do with the images?
 
artona said:
Hi

I asked a similar question yesterday from a different angle though. If a customer books a photographer to take the photographs yes the photographer owns the copyright unless agreed seperately but what can the photographer do with the images?
Click to expand...

ANYTHING HE LIKES
 
well I am not sure he can. I think if we are talking about commercially taken photographs then yes he owns the copyright but he cannot use them to put on a forum or to use as examples of his work unless this is agreed by the customer
 
Is there a way to prove you own the images? Even if it's watermarked, someone can always come along and remove it.. if they do, and they say it's theirs, how can I prove that it's mine?
 
fletch5 said:
ANYTHING HE LIKES
Click to expand...

Wrong.

If that were the case then there would be no need for model releases or property releases.

Copyright and usage are two different things. When you create an image you automatically create and own the copyright to the image (in the UK) unless you have assigned that right through contract.

Usage is different again. If you have the appropriate releases you can then sell or give use of the image. You can of course sell the image without releases but you can also be sued if you do this. Images can be used in an editorial context without a release (but must not misrepresent the person whose image is used).

John
 
artona said:
Hi

I asked a similar question yesterday from a different angle though. If a customer books a photographer to take the photographs yes the photographer owns the copyright unless agreed seperately but what can the photographer do with the images?
Click to expand...

Depends if the photographer has a formal agreement with the client. Some will have something in a contract which may restrict the photographer's use of an image, usually for a fixed length of time (eg 6 months) but that is usually for corporate work. For weddings and portraits, the photographer can use the images as they wish, but then morality and courtesy come into play. If you take an image of someone, do some clever stuff in PS and then publish it in a way that is deemed deprecating to the person in the image, expect to be sued!

Edit: My above is on the assumption that model release is obtained.
 
artona said:
I would agree. What about portraits?
Click to expand...

The portraits I take of my clients I do post on here, I post on Flickr and they get used on the website, and occasionally in prints for Camera Club Competitions.....one of the girls who modelled for me, was "dead Chuffed" her words not mine, of the comments that were recieved on Flickr.
 
dellipher said:
The portraits I take of my clients I do post on here, I post on Flickr and they get used on the website, and occasionally in prints for Camera Club Competitions.....one of the girls who modelled for me, was "dead Chuffed" her words not mine, of the comments that were recieved on Flickr.
Click to expand...

I am sure most would but I am interested in the actual law. I have just seen some of the photographs you refer to.

Out of interest supposing a mate of one of the girls husbands saw the photographs on here and downloaded it. This weekend they are all on a stag do and he gives them to the DJ to put up on the big screens these clubs have.

The husband knows nothing about the "surprise" his wife is getting him for Christmas and heads home, drunk and batters her because he thinks she has been modelling without telling him.

The above is, I am aware far fetched but possible. Just wondered how you protected yourself - do you get their permission before publishing?
 
edz said:
Is there a way to prove you own the images? Even if it's watermarked, someone can always come along and remove it.. if they do, and they say it's theirs, how can I prove that it's mine?
Click to expand...


Keep a copy of the original, uneditted file, complete with full EXIF data. If you're really worried about it, sending CDs in a sealed envelope to your solicitor via a signed for service can be proof of dates etc.
To stop people being able to steal your images and claim them as their own, NEVER sell, post or publish your files at full, original resolution.
 
artona said:
I am sure most would but I am interested in the actual law. I have just seen some of the photographs you refer to.

Out of interest supposing a mate of one of the girls husbands saw the photographs on here and downloaded it. This weekend they are all on a stag do and he gives them to the DJ to put up on the big screens these clubs have.

The husband knows nothing about the "surprise" his wife is getting him for Christmas and heads home, drunk and batters her because he thinks she has been modelling without telling him.

The above is, I am aware far fetched but possible. Just wondered how you protected yourself - do you get their permission before publishing?
Click to expand...

I would always get the model's permission before posting photos on a forum. I made a point of it at our camera club practical evening a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty sure Adelle did the same for the ones you are referring to. It's all down to common sense and courtesy IMHO.
 
artona said:
I am sure most would but I am interested in the actual law. I have just seen some of the photographs you refer to.

Out of interest supposing a mate of one of the girls husbands saw the photographs on here and downloaded it. This weekend they are all on a stag do and he gives them to the DJ to put up on the big screens these clubs have.

The husband knows nothing about the "surprise" his wife is getting him for Christmas and heads home, drunk and batters her because he thinks she has been modelling without telling him.

The above is, I am aware far fetched but possible. Just wondered how you protected yourself - do you get their permission before publishing?
Click to expand...

The ones on my flickr, you can only view if your a friend/family - the ones on here are different.

And do you think that everyone would be drunk and beat up the wives/girlfriends? I'd also be more questioning on what type of mate would do something like that anyway....

And the girl in question I was talking about - is NOT the girls that you are now refering to.
 
fabs said:
I would always get the model's permission before posting photos on a forum. I made a point of it at our camera club practical evening a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty sure Adelle did the same for the ones you are referring to. It's all down to common sense and courtesy IMHO.
Click to expand...

Asking is fine - posting is fine - model relase - contracts - whichever way you want to go.
Tbh I think the other post was a lot out of hand - and far fetched and its posts like that that make me wary of posting ANYTHING on the internet
 
dellipher said:
Asking is fine - posting is fine - model relase - contracts - whichever way you want to go.
Tbh I think the other post was a lot out of hand - and far fetched and its posts like that that make me wary of posting ANYTHING on the internet
Click to expand...

I was not attacking you in any way so if you are refering to my post I am not sure why you have taken it personally. They were of course lovely photographs, just did not want them to cause you any bother by sharing them with us. I remember when we had a shop window. A solicitor once told me that I should always get permission from the sitters before using them in the window. Otherwise they could claim a percentage of any profits I made form subsequent work booked by people seeing them.

Always best to be careful rather than sorry afterwards
 
artona said:
I am sure most would but I am interested in the actual law. I have just seen some of the photographs you refer to.

Out of interest supposing a mate of one of the girls husbands saw the photographs on here and downloaded it. This weekend they are all on a stag do and he gives them to the DJ to put up on the big screens these clubs have.
Click to expand...

The photographer isn't to blame here, the person who downloaded it and used it without permission is.
 
pxl8 said:
The photographer isn't to blame here, the person who downloaded it and used it without permission is.
Click to expand...

thats interesting. Lets remember this is only hyperthetical but why do you say that?
 
artona said:
thats interesting. Lets remember this is only hyperthetical but why do you say that?
Click to expand...

People are responsible for their own actions. The photographer takes a photo and shares it with other people. The idiot then downloads it and has it blown up in a club causing embarrassment to the boyfriend. So who is responsible?
 
Well if the photographer put it on the forum, and someone STOLE it from the forum and gave it to someone who then used it without the rights to the image...
So its almost a case of....

1. Photographer right/wrong to post it on forum.
2. Person who stole it is breaking copyright by distributing something that is not their image.
3. DJ who then would show it could also be done for breaking copyright for distributing something that is not their image nor the person who gave it them.

I think thats what pxl8 was trying to get at. The photographer hasnt really done anything wrong. Its mainly the people who have been distributing the image.

So take into the extreme that the husband comes home and beats up the wife - and the wife tries to sue the photographer. The photographer can also get onto the club and even if not getting the person who supplied the image directly, but then they still fall back onto the DJ.
 
I remember a story a few years ago when a photographer walked into a picture framers and saw one of his photographs printed onto canvas and framed to 20"x16".

He could not remember doing a 20x16 and so asked the customer who said they had taken a 10"x8" in and the framer had copied it, printed it onto canvas and framed it.

The photographer sued the customer but it was thrown out as the judge said the customer had not realised they were doing anything wrong.

However a case against the framer did stick because as a professional he should have known better.

I started by asking what rights a photographer has to post commisioned photographs onto a forum. If I do I always get permission in writing. Others have said that they do as well so we are safe.

It is my opinion that if you post commisioned photographs without permission then when the arrows start flying then one might stick on the professional photographers door but everyone to their own devices
 
artona said:
thats interesting. Lets remember this is only hyperthetical but why do you say that?
Click to expand...

If someone used your car without permission and then ran someone over who's to blame? You?
 
artona said:
It is my opinion that if you post commisioned photographs without permission then when the arrows start flying then one might stick on the professional photographers door but everyone to their own devices
Click to expand...

It's hardly the same thing as copying a print and framing it. It's a common mistake for people to think they can copy a photograph but any framer/lab/etc *should* know better.

Posting images online does carry a risk, if you posted a shot of a client with a caption that said "Gawd what a moose this one is" you are leaving yourself wide open. Posting images for artistic discussion is perfectly fine and exempt from the only piece of law that comes close the covering the subject (in the UK), the Data Protection Act.
 
pxl8 said:
It's hardly the same thing as copying a print and framing it. It's a common mistake for people to think they can copy a photograph but any framer/lab/etc *should* know better.

Posting images online does carry a risk, if you posted a shot of a client with a caption that said "Gawd what a moose this one is" you are leaving yourself wide open. Posting images for artistic discussion is perfectly fine and exempt from the only piece of law that comes close the covering the subject (in the UK), the Data Protection Act.
Click to expand...

Exactly. As long as it's not to the detriment of the subject you are well within your rights to post a commissioned photograph for discussion on an internet forum. If you sell the photograph you would need model release.
 
By commercial I mean selling the image for use in a brochure, magazine, advertising, etc. so really it's about use. That's the essence of a model release - defining what the images can and can't be used for. Going back to my "moose" example, if you didn't have a release and the picture was used for the poster campaign of the butt ugly dating agency the "model" might not be very happy. Or they might be used to endorse a product/company the model doesn't like, etc.
 
pxl8 said:
By commercial I mean selling the image for use in a brochure, magazine, advertising, etc. so really it's about use. That's the essence of a model release - defining what the images can and can't be used for. Going back to my "moose" example, if you didn't have a release and the picture was used for the poster campaign of the butt ugly dating agency the "model" might not be very happy. Or they might be used to endorse a product/company the model doesn't like, etc.
Click to expand...

Get what you mean. So if I sell a print to joe bloggs on the street, I wouldn't need a model release?
 
Correct and just to really upset the apple cart, in the UK you don't need a release at all but it does make life simpler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top