Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

How much to sell photo?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

TonyCoridan
13 Feb 2013 - 5:28 PM

My humble understanding is that the photographer owns the absolute copyright of his/her work. Not even the subject. Unless any prior agreement state otherwise.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
13 Feb 2013 - 5:28 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

awphot
awphot  2 United Kingdom
13 Feb 2013 - 5:38 PM

YES. Except in cases where the photographer is employed and taking pictures as a part of that employment.

Commissioning a freelance photographer is NOT employment and hence the photographer owns the copyright.
The subject has no "rights" to the image and the copyright holder (photographer) is free to do what they want with the image (within the bounds of libel/defamation laws).

EXCEPT in the case of photographs commissioned for "private and domestic" purposes (per section 85 of the copyright act). The photographer owns the copyright but CANNOT publicly display, sell etc those images without the consent of the commissioning party. I.E. in private portrait and wedding work.

TonyCoridan
13 Feb 2013 - 5:57 PM

Things getting a bit clearer to me!

Thank you

lemmy
lemmy  71873 forum posts United Kingdom
13 Feb 2013 - 7:10 PM


Quote: It is no harder to paint than photograph

Really? It may not be for you but I think you will find it is for most people.

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41207 forum posts United Kingdom198 Constructive Critique Points
13 Feb 2013 - 7:16 PM

Excerpt from the Intellectual Property Office:

"Commissioned works
When you ask or commission another person or organisation to create a copyright work for you, the first legal owner of copyright is the person or organisation that created the work and not you the commissioner, unless you otherwise agree it in writing.

However, in some circumstances, for example when copyright is not dealt with in the contract to commission the work, Courts may be willing to find that there is an implied licence from the contractor to the commissioner so that the commissioner is able to use that work for the purpose for which it was commissioned. This does not necessarily result in a transfer of ownership. Instead, the company commissioning the work may only get a limited non-exclusive licence. This situation demonstrates the importance of establishing who owns copyright through a contract."

It is not cut and dried as to who has the rights to use the work. If the commissioner employed you to take the photographs, and you accepted, this forms the basis of a contract. It might be deemed that you did not uphold your end of the contract by not allowing the use the photographs were taken for, in the same way that the commissioner might be deemed in breach for not paying. However, if no fee was agreed, the waters are quite muddy in this case. I would suspect that even though you are the copyright holder, the commissioner asked you to take the photos with a view to later use of them.

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41207 forum posts United Kingdom198 Constructive Critique Points
13 Feb 2013 - 7:21 PM


Quote:
Quote: It is no harder to paint than photograph

Really? It may not be for you but I think you will find it is for most people.

Not at all. It is simplicity itself to paint. I'm sure everyone has done it, at least at school. Getting a meaningful result is altogether another matter.
It is no harder buying a camera, inserting batteries and card, shooting and downloading then printing, than it is buying some paper, paint and brushes and bringing the three together. The 'picture' may be nothing more than daubs, but then some photos are nothing more than snaps. What we interpret the end result as is the important issue.

lemmy
lemmy  71873 forum posts United Kingdom
13 Feb 2013 - 7:24 PM

Apparently, before flogging a few pictures for a likely paltry sum, you will need to employ a lawyer, who will cost you far, far more than you can ever earn from flogging a few pictures.

An honest lawyer would advise you, I think, don't bother Sad

lemmy
lemmy  71873 forum posts United Kingdom
13 Feb 2013 - 7:30 PM


Quote: Getting a meaningful result is altogether another matter

OK, I want a recognisable landscape of Dorking seen from Box Hill to frame. Which is easier to make, a photograph of the scene or a watercolour?

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 41207 forum posts United Kingdom198 Constructive Critique Points
13 Feb 2013 - 7:33 PM


Quote: An honest lawyer would advise you

A what?????

Most would advocate that you need their services, then charge you 25 for the phone call!

magic_rainbow
30 Mar 2013 - 6:13 PM

1 per image sounds like you're being taken advantage of. Think about how you value your time and talent and price your work accordingly.

Marta [link removed, against site T&Cs]

Last Modified By Moderator Team at 30 Mar 2013 - 7:03 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.