The end of copyright

JumboBeef

JumboBeef

Suspended / Banned
Messages
978
Edit My Images
Yes
I have noticed over the last 12 months or so, things are a-changing.

More and more clients want to own copyright when they commission a shoot. It seems more and more photographers are agreeing to this, thus making it harder to disagree yourself........

The point is, is the whole copyright issue outdated? Now, I'm not talking about shoots you have taken, and then sell to clients ~ copyright remaining with the photographer in these cases makes sense: I'm talking about when someone books you, pays for your time and your travel and sends you to a location to shoot for them. More and more clients seem to be taking the view they comissioned the shoot so they should own everything and do whatever they wish with the images afterwards.

.................and I tend to agree.

If you bought a CD of music from your local shop then you are only buying a single copy of that music, and you can't resell it etc. However, if I booked a band to record music just for me, I would want to own the actual music to do with as I feel fit. There are lots of other examples out there........

Someone whe knows what they are doing can spend £600 or so on camera kit and produce very nice photos, and more and more people are doing it which makes it harder and harder to dig your heels in over issues like this (because someone else will come along and do it without the copyright issue).

I used to work in TV, and the cameraman never kept copyright of something he shot: it just never came into it. Someone paid you to do something, you did it and they owned everything. I think the same thing is (slowly) happening in still photography.
 
:bonk: Could a mod please correct my spelling in the title :bonk:

Thanks :thumbs:
 
I think that sounds sensible. If you are commissioned to do work, then all rights should be transferred to the new owner. I dont have a problem with that.
If you sell your own un commissioned work though, then you should retain all rights as to how it is used.
Allan
 
My feeling is that copyright should and always remain with the photographer (creator?). After all, no matter how much the commission is 'choreographed' by the client, the interpretation of the instructions toward the final image (exposure, DoF, focus, etc) is still down to the tog!

To relinquish copyright is a slippery slope to nothing. There is work afoot in the USA to allow free use of any image if the author cannot be "reasonably" traced. So, putting your work on a siite (eg flickr) without any EXIF data giving the files origin or ownership means your work is effectively 'stolen'. I hope it's a 'no-brainer' when it comes down to it :shrug:

What I tend to do in these circumstances is retain the copyright forever but, charge an annual licence to use the shots as the client wishes.

Why should you relinquish copyright? It's YOUR protection, it could be your livelihood.

(Incidentally, you can edit the title yourself by using the "Go Advanced" button.)
 
I have worked for over 10 years in publishing (magazines) and it used to be the photographer kept the rights to the photos. Maybe 3 or 4 years ago they're was pressure put on staff to start asking either for full rights of part-rights to the pics. i presume these days (im freelance now so dont commission anymore) that the same magazines demand full rights.

I think it's entirely up to you regarding your work, although i tend to agree that if you ask for rights, they'll probably get another photographer to shoot the pics.
 
Just thinking about your TV cameraman analogy.

He may be operating the camera but he is an employed agent of the TV company and you can bet, as sure as 'eggs is eggs', the TV company have retained the copyright. That includes shooting a production according to the brief of a client.

The cameraman is an 'extension' to the production crew and, as such, becomes just a part of the team. You could argue the production assistant has copyright justification.

The difference with a sinlge 'tog is he/she is the whole kit and caboodle and is entitled to the copyright.

Copyright is an interesting and often misunderstood avenue of Law!
 
JumboBeef said:
:bonk: Could a mod please correct my spelling in the title :bonk:

Thanks :thumbs:
Click to expand...

If you click on edit, then "go advanced" you will be able to change it yourself. :)
 
If the tog used 'auto' anything during the shoot should the copyright go to the camera manufacturer?
 
Perhaps a point worth considering in the situations where the tog is handing over rights is that for a lot of commissioned work the shots are useless to anyone but the client anyway so although there might be a perceived loss it's not a real one.

But I don't think togs are giving away their copyright, they are simply selling usage rights as part of the deal.
 
Some situations dictate.. For sport and in particular football I work under other peoples licence and therefore they retain the copyright. People who work for agencies in sport work under the agency licence so they (agency) retain the copyright to all pics taken. All club photographers in the football league that work under club licence do not hold the copyright to the pictures they take at games.
 
If the photographer is freelance, and hired in a one off situation to do a shoot, the photographer keeps copyright unless stated otherwise in the contract.

If the photographer is employed, the copyright is usually owned by the employer. i.e. if you work at a school portrait company, the portraits you take will sure enough be taken by you, but the company is free to do what they like with the shots.
 
I get the feeling I'm going to be very unpopular, but I don't agree with the notion of copyright at all, (though I will Copyleft things).
If someone wants to make commercial use of your product, or you wish to earn a living, then you have a right to charge them, otherwise, everything should be freely available...

In the case of they're commisioning the shoot: Do you want their custom? Are their T&C's fair for the price? If not is there a good compromise (more money/shared copyright)?
 
Classic example is wedding photos I guess - certainly i wanted my negs (back in the day :)) as I want to have them on my computer and, in time, make up my own versions, for example a pocket book to stick on the side, shots laid over washed-out closeup of the flowers, you know the kind of thing.

You're right, the market is simply changing. I wonder how much money pro togs make out of wedding negs years down the line anyway, I bet for 99% it's b****r all.

Just my opinions of course!
 
pearce_jj said:
Classic example is wedding photos I guess - certainly i wanted my negs (back in the day :)) as I want to have them on my computer and, in time, make up my own versions, for example a pocket book to stick on the side, shots laid over washed-out closeup of the flowers, you know the kind of thing.

You're right, the market is simply changing. I wonder how much money pro togs make out of wedding negs years down the line anyway, I bet for 99% it's *b****r all.

Just my opinions of course!
Click to expand...

Hi, Speaking as an old pro wedding tog, you're more or less spot-on*. Even when negs had been offered for sale at give away prices, clients seemed to prefer spending money anywhere else.
Very rare, but I have had wedding clients who say: ''We won't be ordering any re-prints, so can we have all the negatives please?''
Think about it!
Cheers..:thumbs:
PS: I am talking about pre-digital times here..
 
I have handed the copyright of a few shoots, I have done over to the client.
But only when I thought the pictures would have no re sale value for me.
 
I give copyright with images from commercial shoots nearly all the time as rule. I keep the right to use them for my own marketing and the client has all other rights.

I've been hired, I've been paid and frankly, I'm gone. :D

Until the next shoot of course.
 
PapaLazarou said:
I have handed the copyright of a few shoots, I have done over to the client.
But only when I thought the pictures would have no re sale value for me.
Click to expand...


Papa has the right idea, ultimately I think the this a commercial decision that needs to be made based on the situation and if copyright is demanded then the fees should take in to account of this.

It is also worth asking why the client wants the copyright and see if thier reason can be met in another way through a custom licence; not everyone understands licencing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top