Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 49

Thread: Photo Copyrights

  1. #21

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Hey,
    does anyone have a sample draft of a copyright statement they could share

  2. #22
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    23,821

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Freewolf View Post
    Hey,
    does anyone have a sample draft of a copyright statement they could share
    how to share? is copyrighted.

    anyway, if you want to use one for yourself, get a lawyer to draft for you.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Freewolf View Post
    Hey,
    does anyone have a sample draft of a copyright statement they could share
    No! You get to buy a copy like everyone else, no free beer in the commerical world of photography.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    新加坡
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    actually I have a different understanding.. I felt that there is a little bit of overlap for 1 and 2 below.

    For example, if I am a freelancer engaged for an event, I am engaged for my "service". Even if I do need to give them some photographs in return, wouldn't I fall into 2, and I would retain the copyright to the photographs?

    But in another example, if I am commissioned to create a family portraiture for someone, I would assume I fall into 1. The copyright of the photos belongs to the commissioner.

    I guess there are not hard and fast way to say who owns the copyright ... haha that's why we need lawyers

    Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, 1. the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

    For other types of commissioned works, 2. ownership belongs to the commissioned party, unless the commissioner and commissioned party otherwise agree.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Icic,

    but say between copyright and credit, though if we are paid to take photos and do not own the copyright to the photos, we still own the credits to the photo right?

  6. #26

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Freewolf View Post
    Icic,

    but say between copyright and credit, though if we are paid to take photos and do not own the copyright to the photos, we still own the credits to the photo right?
    hmm... I would say credit is worthless while copyright is not? (at least in SG?)

  7. #27
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    23,821

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Freewolf View Post
    Icic,

    but say between copyright and credit, though if we are paid to take photos and do not own the copyright to the photos, we still own the credits to the photo right?
    you had been paid for your service, clients don't owe you anything.

    if you want it, can go around tell people that this photo is taken by you.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  8. #28
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    23,821

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by jayque View Post
    actually I have a different understanding.. I felt that there is a little bit of overlap for 1 and 2 below.

    For example, if I am a freelancer engaged for an event, I am engaged for my "service". Even if I do need to give them some photographs in return, wouldn't I fall into 2, and I would retain the copyright to the photographs?

    But in another example, if I am commissioned to create a family portraiture for someone, I would assume I fall into 1. The copyright of the photos belongs to the commissioner.

    I guess there are not hard and fast way to say who owns the copyright ... haha that's why we need lawyers

    Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, 1. the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

    For other types of commissioned works, 2. ownership belongs to the commissioned party, unless the commissioner and commissioned party otherwise agree.
    it is very clear that you take money from customers/clients, they own the copyrights. that is the default.

    UNLESS, you make your customers/clients agree that even they pay you, you still own the copyrights. for this, just make them sign a agreement with you.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  9. #29

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    " 1. Copyright Copyright at Work
    I provide photography services. Do I own the copyright to the photos that I take for my clients? If I don't, is there any way that I can own the copyright? I want to showcase the best photos in my website and brochures.

    In general, clients who pay for your services own the copyright to the photos taken. However, you have limited rights in that if the photos are required for any particular purpose (e.g. a corporate client wants glamour shots of the senior management, to use in its annual report), your clients should tell you and you are entitled to prevent the photos from being used for other purposes.

    In practice, however, many photographers have their own terms of engagement with clients. The parties are free to have their own agreement, which automatically overrides the above default position. Thus, for example, you and your clients can mutually agree that you will own the copyright in the photos but that your clients can use the photos for certain purposes; or that your clients own the copyright but you have the license to reproduce the photos in your website and brochures."

    If you don't transfer the copyright, what has been discuss is correct. However, if the client engage you for a "personal" shoot, but later using the images for "commercial" use, you have the right to prevent the photos from being used for other purposes.

    If you own the copyright, it doesn't really mean that you could use it for any purpose you want, unless it has been mentioned on the contract otherwise.

    The flipside of the law is everything is arguable if it is within the grey area. However, in Sg, if you are dealing with government, you basically can't win as they have a lot of ammunity. So don't even try. With commercial work, don't take the job unless everyone is happy with the terms. Of course, if the $$$ can compensate for the terms, oh well, its not the end of the world right?

    Basically, just exercise caution and if in doubt, talk to lawyer who is specialised in IP.

    Regards,

    Hart

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Traditionally, copyright will ALWAYS belong to the photographer unless they SOLD their copyright in writing. This is called first ownership of copyright.

    Clients do not own the copyright of an image taken by you even if they've paid for it. You're just granting the clients right of reproduction for personal use.

    The only exceptions are:

    1) You're working FOR a company, then the company owns the copyright of your images as you're just their employee assigned to take the photos.
    2) Explicit sale or transfer of copyright ownership.

    You might wanna refer to:

    http://bit.ly/4W1aAQ
    http://bit.ly/7Ke0jR
    http://bit.ly/5UWkdf

    One should never sell their copyrights either, as it robs you of any future income that may be derived from the photograph.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    If I'm not wrong, I think by default, the photographer owns all the copyright to the photographs he or she takes, unless there's an agreement with the client saying that the assignment is work for hire and all the rights are transferred to the client.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by theveed View Post
    Traditionally, copyright will ALWAYS belong to the photographer unless they SOLD their copyright in writing. This is called first ownership of copyright.

    Clients do not own the copyright of an image taken by you even if they've paid for it. You're just granting the clients right of reproduction for personal use.

    The only exceptions are:

    1) You're working FOR a company, then the company owns the copyright of your images as you're just their employee assigned to take the photos.
    2) Explicit sale or transfer of copyright ownership.

    You might wanna refer to:

    http://bit.ly/4W1aAQ
    http://bit.ly/7Ke0jR
    http://bit.ly/5UWkdf

    One should never sell their copyrights either, as it robs you of any future income that may be derived from the photograph.
    Does these laws of copyright applies to Singapore? When we are paid by clients, we are considered as 1) or sell the photograph to the clients as permission to use them?

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by gnohz View Post
    If I'm not wrong, I think by default, the photographer owns all the copyright to the photographs he or she takes, unless there's an agreement with the client saying that the assignment is work for hire and all the rights are transferred to the client.
    Incorrect. ... Congratulations you have just failed the most basic piece of knowledge a professional photographer is required to have. Go and read my post earlier and absorb what it says. Also read the posts by catchlights on the subject.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  14. #34

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Go and read IPOS write up and form your own conclusion.

    As business operator, it is very important to protect yourself if you are in for a long run. Of course, if just going to come in work for very short period of time, all these probably won't matter.

    After all, when people want to sue you, they need to have the reason for it, most, motivated with money. So if you are making money out of it, it is better to protect yourself now then worry about it.

    Regards,

    Hart

  15. #35

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by theveed View Post
    Traditionally, copyright will ALWAYS belong to the photographer unless they SOLD their copyright in writing. This is called first ownership of copyright.

    Clients do not own the copyright of an image taken by you even if they've paid for it. You're just granting the clients right of reproduction for personal use.

    The only exceptions are:

    1) You're working FOR a company, then the company owns the copyright of your images as you're just their employee assigned to take the photos.
    2) Explicit sale or transfer of copyright ownership.

    You might wanna refer to:

    http://bit.ly/4W1aAQ
    http://bit.ly/7Ke0jR
    http://bit.ly/5UWkdf

    One should never sell their copyrights either, as it robs you of any future income that may be derived from the photograph.
    these don't apply in Singapore
    it's taken for granted in certain fields of photography here that you pay for USAGE, but in reality the law in Singapore seems to state quite clearly that Copyright belongs to the commissioning party/client.

    What I do is act as the commissioning party for the photographer, in a sense that my company is engaged by a client for the creation of an overall work and my company engages my photographer to execute the brief (thus I am the commissioning party)

    How well this will hold up in court in Singapore is another matter but it's my way of dealing with the copyright issue.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    these don't apply in Singapore
    it's taken for granted in certain fields of photography here that you pay for USAGE, but in reality the law in Singapore seems to state quite clearly that Copyright belongs to the commissioning party/client.

    What I do is act as the commissioning party for the photographer, in a sense that my company is engaged by a client for the creation of an overall work and my company engages my photographer to execute the brief (thus I am the commissioning party)

    How well this will hold up in court in Singapore is another matter but it's my way of dealing with the copyright issue.
    They don't apply ANYWHERE that is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright of 1971 which covers copyright in pretty much every country that counts. The DMCA says the same thing. It's the usual problem of folks being 50 years out of date.

    The next bit of crap someone will say is you have to have a model release (the only place they are applicable is in the USA for all practical purposes). Though having a release is an added bonus as shows that the person portrayed in the shot was a willing model.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  17. #37

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Don't forget the cases that set precedence to the law that is existed on each country, which call Common Law. This is what happen in Australia, I am not sure if the common law exist in Singapore.

    Can you be sure that you know every single IP cases that happen? In Australia, it is easier as you can search for it, but in Singapore, these things aren't openly discuss. Somewhat a good thing, but bad thing if you want to find out more.

    You can interprete whatever you want, the bottom line is, whatever the law is, it is still better to have the signature on the copyright statement that transfer the right back to the photographer or the company.

    Of course, there are many ways you could do the transfer of copyright without signature, but mostly they stays in grey area. Arguable points cost money... whether you win or lose a case in court, you are face with $$$ lost and time lost which you can't recover much for the latter.

    Here is what I was advised, do what is necessary to cover you and don't do just the minimum.

    Most of us are not lawyer, we might know a thing or two with this issue from information given to us. But there are many things aren't provided, so we, commoner left in the dark, that is why for Sydney, there are majority of office space in CBD are occupied by Law firms.

    You choose what you think fits and how your comfort levels are for this issue.

    Regards,

    Hart

  18. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    146

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    mmmmmm interesting

    thanks for sharing

  19. #39

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Of interest:

    Singer Tanya Chua won rights to her songs against her ex-company.

    http://www.divaasia.com/article/6067

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_288117.html

    It seems that she won based on a clause on her contract because her ex company failed to pay her dues royalties...

    It still takes a high court sue and reappealing to finally win.

    On the subject about common law, will this case sorta set a precedence or at least a reasonable reference?
    Last edited by sjackal; 25th December 2009 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Edit for clarity and to add link.
    WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket

  20. #40

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by sjackal View Post
    Of interest:

    Singer Tanya Chua won rights to her songs against her ex-company.

    http://www.divaasia.com/article/6067

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ry_288117.html

    It seems that she won based on a clause on her contract because her ex company failed to pay her dues royalties...

    It still takes a high court sue and reappealing to finally win.

    On the subject about common law, will this case sorta set a precedence or at least a reasonable reference?
    Generally, yes, but if the case is in similar context. However, this does not give u anything to do with photography copyright.

    To be honest, legal aspect is very complex and it is for everyone best interest to seek professional advise rather than based on what we have wrote here. All we are doing here is sharing what we know and that does not form an advice nor give u an accurate point in the long run.

    Do it if you care, if you don't then its up to you.

    Hart

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •