freelance or professional photographers, need your advise...

[localhost]

is this clause common for you when someone engaged you to help them take photos?

Copyright of the shoot will be for 1 year usage. For commercial usage of
photos first payment is for the usage of first year. Additional charges
will be
added if customers have to use the photos the 2nd year onwards(by the
time, most
clients will change new photos)

Copyright Law is to protect the photographers and client to prevent
miss use of
photos and to protect the client.

My advice is use the pictures for the first year. If you want to pay for
lifetime
copyright it will cost a bomb. On my end, I'm not suppose to sell the
photos to
other clients and use for my commercial purpose as the cpyright is for you
only.

I thought I pay for the photography service... how come I don't owned the copyright to the photos but the photographer owns it instead and limits me the usage of these photos for a period of time only? Seems like not fair? Or its a common clause that you (freelance photographers) set for your clients?

 

[zekai]

this is standard with professional photograher because we create the image, you are buying the rights to the images from me.

you want it without loading, look in clubsnap.... a lot of amatuer who cut prices and may even shoot for free.

 

[Pro Image]

Yes and no.

Depends on how a contract is draft out.

There is no actual copyright law in Singapore states clearly of who owns a copyright of the photos. Everything has to be drafted out clearly.

If you think it's too expensive to reuse a photograph, why not hire a new photographer to take new photos. This might get you a discount.

As for me, I draft out a contract with my clients. If they are not agreeable with my terms, I will introduced another photographer to them. I hate to haggle all this copyright issues.

As written on your original post, it's a basic contract for our copyright protection.

 

[localhost]

Yes and no.

Depends on how a contract is draft out.

There is no actual copyright law in Singapore states clearly of who owns a copyright of the photos. Everything has to be drafted out clearly.

If you think it's too expensive to reuse a photograph, why not hire a new photographer to take new photos. This might get you a discount.

As for me, I draft out a contract with my clients. If they are not agreeable with my terms, I will introduced another photographer to them. I hate to haggle all this copyright issues.

As written on your original post, it's a basic contract for our copyright protection.

ohh okie... understood. cos i am quite new to this... so i guess its better for me to find out first haha.

 

[Spectrum]

I really admired that in some countries, professional photographers are really well respected people regardless of age or sex group. They all hold the copyrights of each & every images they made even they are paid by the clients. Not like here, where certain clients wants everything from you when they paid you for the job. Really sucks big time!:thumbsd:

 

[ortega]

the T&C is a basic contract and is common
of course different photographers have different T&C

 

[mattlock]

there is copyright law in singapore
a photographer owns the copyrights to a phto taken by him or her unless stated otherwise in a contract

 

[LazerLordz]

There are simply too much clients out there who want everything.:cry:

 

[Wai]

there is copyright law in singapore
a photographer owns the copyrights to a phto taken by him or her unless stated otherwise in a contract

if there is no written contract, by default will the photographer own the copyrights to the photo??


how about this scenerio?

person A used his camera, lenses and lighting equipment and operate the camera to take photo

person B do the styling, lighting and art direction

who will own the rights? is the rights transferrable? assume no written contract at the first place

 

[SniperD]

depends on who contracted who.

If the art director contracted the photographer for the shoot, then again, what spells out in the contract will be in favor of the art director and vice versa.
In the case of NO contract, the common viewing is the client owns the images produced as he/she commissioned it unless again, under the intellectual act, copyrights remains with the originator in a situation where a clause in the contract states so. Verbal agreement is a form of contract also.

All in all, the gist boils down to what your contract includes. No point in the scenerio arguements coz it flips both sides anyway

 

[yanyewkay]

From my little understanding of IP rights,
if the cam is tripod mounted, the rights go to Mr B. because Mr A is just a camera operator.

however if the camera is in the hands of Mr A. he moves around and gets the shot WITHOUT instructions or advise from Mr B then rights goes to Mr A because Mr B sets the stage and Mr A shoots according to his interpretation of the scene, the rights goes to Mr A.

Did I get the above correct? any IP lawyers? I know there are a few in here.

 

[yanyewkay]

and yes.. rights is transferrable. MJ sold his songs to keep maintain his costly lifestyle. and something about sales of some beatles oldies or something like that.. was covered in lectures long time back ;p dun expect me to memorise all the tiny facts.

 

[mattlock]

depends on who contracted who.

If the art director contracted the photographer for the shoot, then again, what spells out in the contract will be in favor of the art director and vice versa.
In the case of NO contract, the common viewing is the client owns the images produced as he/she commissioned it unless again, under the intellectual act, copyrights remains with the originator in a situation where a clause in the contract states so. Verbal agreement is a form of contract also.

All in all, the gist boils down to what your contract includes. No point in the scenerio arguements coz it flips both sides anyway

actually no
even when I am hired or commissioned for a shoot I still own the images
I don't know what "common viewing" is but if the case is brought to court and there's no contract, the photographer owns the "negative", even if someone paid for him.
it's very rare that the photographer actually wholesale has to give up the rights to the image (unless paid a grand amount or in the case of Getty, where a contract is drawn up and a shoot's production is fully paid by Getty)
at least what I'm used to is that I sell the rights to the images for a certain period and then the images can't be used.

interesting question to ask if an assistant takes the photo is he considered to own the photo?
in any case, any assistant who dares to bring such issues to court will never be able to work in that country's photographic field again I'm pretty sure!

you can ask a lawyer, my friend recently got involved with a situation related to this and I had to do abit of checking around

 

[mattlock]

anyway one more thing: as photographers we really shouldn't be giving the rights of our images to someone else, otherwise we'll be losing business in the long run as clients may just keep using the images.

 

[AReality]

Any sample T&C ?
Nice to have one as a reference for new photographers...


.

 

[SianZronG]

anyway one more thing: as photographers we really shouldn't be giving the rights of our images to someone else, otherwise we'll be losing business in the long run as clients may just keep using the images.

sounds good. As for me if it's personal photos E.G. Weddings they can reuse all they want cause i wun lose any money.

This only applies to companies which need photos regularly so they need to contract photographers again to shoot.

just my 2 Cents

 

[Pro Image]

Any sample T&C ?
Nice to have one as a reference for new photographers...


.

There is plenty of samples but depends on how you look at it. Sample can be the one on the original poster.

 

[Pro Image]

There is Royalty Free Photos for a certain period and there is Royalty Paid Photos as well.

Really boils down to how you draft out the T&C. Your client MUST be aware and be clear cut about the copyright of a photo, especially reusing the images again and again.

 

[arttl]

sounds good. As for me if it's personal photos E.G. Weddings they can reuse all they want cause i wun lose any money.

This only applies to companies which need photos regularly so they need to contract photographers again to shoot.

just my 2 Cents

I've stated in my wedding photography contract the following:

"......that all photographic materials (ie. digital files, negatives, trans, proofs ect) shall be the exclusive property of the Photographer. And the Photographer shall own the copyright in all images created and shall have the exclusive rights to make reproductions..... If the Photographer desires to make other uses (ie. commercial uses etc) , the Photographer shall not do so without first obtaining the written permission of the Client."

It's a fact that once a photograph is taken by the photographer, he/she owns the full copyright of the image. The same goes to wedding photography as well. That's why, it'll be best to shoot in RAW as they are a form of digital negatives and will not be given out to clients. Knowing your rights will protect yourself and the value of your works in the long run.

Jon

 

[jsbn]

There are simply too much clients out there who want everything.:cry:

Welcome to Singapore.

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni