Market Practises

[Amekaze]

Been thinking about this issue for a while...

Are there any general terms and conditions you set out to clients before agreeing to a job?
Copyright issues?
Usage of images?
Or maybe even injury/equipment damage coverage (due to nature of work)?

Are black and white for these T&C common?
Or do you usually just go by verbal agreements?

 

[Miki-chan]

In media law, there is usually a contract between both. The contract can alter the copyright issues and usuage of images.
But usually in freelance, the sole owner of photograph still belongs to you, but your client can use your photograph for anything, unless restricted by contract.
Remember about release forms if you're using models too.

Verbal agreements is very dangerous. If you just agreed for a time, especially without a third party witness, then you'd lose the chance in protecting yourself in media law.
So the safest way is to sign contract, and with third party witness I would say.

For more information, check this book out in library:
Media Law in Singapore [2nd Edition]
by Teo Yi-Ling

 

[Amekaze]

Oh yes... release forms eh.
Hmmm... why would you need a third party witness if you're signing a contract?

And just wondering... is it too much to ask the company to cover full/partial damage/injury costs from incidents due to covering their events?

 

[Miki-chan]

It's okay if you don't have a third party witness. But to be safe, having a third party witness would give you a stronger support on your behalf in the court. Isn't that logical?

To me I think it's too much. Maybe you can add a disclaimer to the contract that any lost of photographs due to technical problem is not your fault?

 

[Prismatic]

In media law, there is usually a contract between both. The contract can alter the copyright issues and usuage of images.
But usually in freelance, the sole owner of photograph still belongs to you, but your client can use your photograph for anything, unless restricted by contract.
Remember about release forms if you're using models too.

That's a bit inaccurate. If the photographs are commissioned by a client, the ownership of the copyrights belong to the client by default with exception only in the case of ownership clauses as defined in a contract. Freelance work is still considered commissioned work, and is not exempted from the normal regulations. The term 'freelance' in the usual definition means only: not long-term or regular basis. It doesn't mean that its just a casual employment.

For more information, check this book out in library:
Media Law in Singapore [2nd Edition]
by Teo Yi-Ling

You can read the statute regarding copyrights here under the Copyright Act.
Singapore Statutes Online

Or there's a simplified version at the IPOS website here.
Intellectual Property Office of Singapore

 

[vince123123]

Does the book you quoted say the things you said? If not, you may wish to make that clear as it can be misconstrued to be so.

In media law, there is usually a contract between both. The contract can alter the copyright issues and usuage of images.
But usually in freelance, the sole owner of photograph still belongs to you, but your client can use your photograph for anything, unless restricted by contract.
Remember about release forms if you're using models too.

Verbal agreements is very dangerous. If you just agreed for a time, especially without a third party witness, then you'd lose the chance in protecting yourself in media law.
So the safest way is to sign contract, and with third party witness I would say.

For more information, check this book out in library:
Media Law in Singapore [2nd Edition]
by Teo Yi-Ling

 

[Miki-chan]

well, the book has examples and explanations more in-depth of the media law in singapore. definitely great for reference.

That's a bit inaccurate. If the photographs are commissioned by a client, the ownership of the copyrights belong to the client by default with exception only in the case of ownership clauses as defined in a contract. Freelance work is still considered commissioned work, and is not exempted from the normal regulations. The term 'freelance' in the usual definition means only: not long-term or regular basis. It doesn't mean that its just a casual employment.

Thanks!

 

[vince123123]

So are you're saying that:

1. the book said the statements that you made in #2; and/or
2. that Prismatic is incorrect?

well, the book has examples and explanations more in-depth of the media law in singapore. definitely great for reference.
Thanks!

 

[Miki-chan]

Relax, relax

The book will elaborate more about the clauses and make it easier to understand through examples. So, it'd be good if you can have a read. Just a suggestion.

And, I'm thanking Prismatic for pointing out my mistake.


Commissioned Works s.30(5)
Where a person makes an agreement with another person for valuable consideration to:
-Take a photograph,
-where the work is made in pursuance of their agreement,
-the copyright in the work will belong to the first-mentioned person (the commissioner of the work)

For this section to apply, it must be shown that the work was actually done because it was commissioned, in that someone asked for it to be executed and will give consideration in return for it being executed.

 

[vince123123]

No worries, I have access to the book - I was just puzzled cos your post initially gave me the impression that the things you said came from the book. Now that you have clarified that it is not from the book but your own viewpoint, it is clear now

Relax, relax

The book will elaborate more about the clauses and make it easier to understand through examples. So, it'd be good if you can have a read. Just a suggestion.

And, I'm thanking Prismatic for pointing out my mistake.


Commissioned Works s.30(5)
Where a person makes an agreement with another person for valuable consideration to:
-Take a photograph,
-where the work is made in pursuance of their agreement,
-the copyright in the work will belong to the first-mentioned person (the commissioner of the work)

For this section to apply, it must be shown that the work was actually done because it was commissioned, in that someone asked for it to be executed and will give consideration in return for it being executed.

 

[Amekaze]

So say for example...

A company has an event. And they hire a photographer to cover the event for them.
Based on what you all have been discussing, the copyrights of the images taken during the event will be owned by the company? Unless there is some other agreement between both parties?

So am I right to say as long as a photographer gets paid for a job, he does not own copyrights to the images taken? Are there exceptions to this?