vince i think the million dollar question is: does he have anything in writing from st about using him and his work.
Giving credit to a photographer
- Thread starter mutabor
- Start date
- Status
vince i think the million dollar question is: does he have anything in writing from st about using him and his work.
TheQuestion said:
no basically...i had no special advantage whatsoever, no money...it was done for free. Photos were given to middle man who is giving to ST. I had no discussion whatsoever either...the event organiser just told us that our photos will/may be used by ST...me and my friend basically downloaded the photos unto a hard disk, passed it to the event committee and then just went our way...the photos however were seperated into two folders with both our names containing the photos we took seperately...
well pray that they have the ethics to credit you and contact you to ask for your permission to print those. else i'm sorry man but tough luck. i hope they do the right thing though.
i have a feeling that it will be credited to NP and not you. Simply because ST doesnt know who shot it.
On a sidenote, those of us who took payment for a shoot, i think u better be cautious when using some shots as portfolio. These shots for a commissioned shoot won't belong to u anymore. Though usually by discussing with the company, u might be able to get some arrangements.
The worst thing to happen here is that u shoot for free or low price, dun have rights to shots, and they dun let u use as portfolio :bsmilie:
correct if its commissioned make sure you get permission in writing that you can use for your port. some clients though will flat out refuse though so depends on your luck.
V
vince123123
Guest
If there is no special advantage, no money whatsoever, then I think an argument can be done to say that there is no valuable consideration given that is sufficient to make it a commissioned work under the Copyright Act.
In such a case, I will argue that only a limited license is given to the organisers for whatever purpose which was contemplated at the time of giving. If at the time of giving, publication in ST was not contemplated, then ST has no right to use the photos, nor does the organisers have the right to give it.
If at the time of giving, publication in ST was contemplated, then it would be up to you to dictate the terms ST has to follow - credits or whatever. If ST does not want to comply, then it cannot use the photos.
To complete the picture, even if at the time of giving, nothing was thought about, you as the copyright holder, can always revoke the license given if at any time you are not comfortable. You can always do this so long as you had not granted a non-revocable license to use.
If you're feeling uncomfortable, then write to the organisers via email to clarify the situation, including stating whatever terms you want and also to say that if they are not complied, you are revoking your grant of license to them.
In such a case, I will argue that only a limited license is given to the organisers for whatever purpose which was contemplated at the time of giving. If at the time of giving, publication in ST was not contemplated, then ST has no right to use the photos, nor does the organisers have the right to give it.
If at the time of giving, publication in ST was contemplated, then it would be up to you to dictate the terms ST has to follow - credits or whatever. If ST does not want to comply, then it cannot use the photos.
To complete the picture, even if at the time of giving, nothing was thought about, you as the copyright holder, can always revoke the license given if at any time you are not comfortable. You can always do this so long as you had not granted a non-revocable license to use.
If you're feeling uncomfortable, then write to the organisers via email to clarify the situation, including stating whatever terms you want and also to say that if they are not complied, you are revoking your grant of license to them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Key words as mentioned by you in RED.
If you were informed and you did not raise any objection or conditions it is very much up to the event organiser to ask or insist on any credit on your behalf. If they just ask ( asking is only a request ) on your behalf, it's up to the press if they will agreed to it.
The local press did not have a habit of crediting photographer unless it's their own or with very specific reason. The press don't care who's the photographer, they just know that they were given an image to use by the event organsier. Any problem from the photographer, they just refer the photographer to the one who gave them the image.
Considering that they are the press, any image supplied to them is taken to mean that they can use the image.
For comissioned jobs, it depands on the nature of the job itself.
If it's for an advertisment ( something which is visible to the public at large ), depanding on the contract itself, the rights to use is assigned to the client but the photographer is still the creator of the image. And as the creator of the image you have the right to use it for your own portfolio, BUT, it's understood that as it's a commission job, the photographer should not allow the image to be shown to the public before the launch of the advertisment by the client.
If the commission job is not published to the public at large, it is usually advisable for the photographer to check with the client first before using it in his personal portfolio.
At the end of the day, it boils down on what is agreeded before the shoot.
Actually, the terms and conditions MUST be agreeded upon DURING the quotation stage. If my clients want total release of copy rights, the quotation will be higher. Agreed, shoot. Don't agreed, don't shoot
V
vince123123
Guest
I'll just add that all is not lost by law, even though the industry practice is as such.
Although if there's any problem with the photographer, ST will refer him to the organiser, that is actually not correct under law, despite it being industry practice.
If for example, the photographer gave the organiser photos under certain terms, and the organiser breached those terms to give to ST, ST's use of the images would be infringing on the rights of the photographer.
That is to say, the photographer (being the copyright owner) will have an independent cause of action against ST. ST will then look to the organiser for an indemnity to cover its exposure to the photographer, but in law, it cannot just shove the photographer to the organiser and wash its hands off.
A lot would depend on how the rights are owned, but from what is narrated in this thread so far, it does appear that the photographer retains copyright in his images. He can stop publication by sending an email to the organiser, and if necessary to ST, warning of infringement if any publication is made without credit (or other conditions the photographer may want). ST should (if they are not legal cowboys) investigate this contravening claim before publication.
Although if there's any problem with the photographer, ST will refer him to the organiser, that is actually not correct under law, despite it being industry practice.
If for example, the photographer gave the organiser photos under certain terms, and the organiser breached those terms to give to ST, ST's use of the images would be infringing on the rights of the photographer.
That is to say, the photographer (being the copyright owner) will have an independent cause of action against ST. ST will then look to the organiser for an indemnity to cover its exposure to the photographer, but in law, it cannot just shove the photographer to the organiser and wash its hands off.
A lot would depend on how the rights are owned, but from what is narrated in this thread so far, it does appear that the photographer retains copyright in his images. He can stop publication by sending an email to the organiser, and if necessary to ST, warning of infringement if any publication is made without credit (or other conditions the photographer may want). ST should (if they are not legal cowboys) investigate this contravening claim before publication.
V
vince123123
Guest
In a commercial situation, yup, T&C should be agreed beforehand.
In the situation of the pass photographer to organiser then to ST case, that is no longer agreed T&C. Assuming the photographer retains copyright, it is a bare license granted which can be revoked at any time or conditions attached at any time. Hence, things are not crystalised at the point of handing over the photographs.
And I thought I saw a comment from Youhong (whcih was deleted)
In the situation of the pass photographer to organiser then to ST case, that is no longer agreed T&C. Assuming the photographer retains copyright, it is a bare license granted which can be revoked at any time or conditions attached at any time. Hence, things are not crystalised at the point of handing over the photographs.
And I thought I saw a comment from Youhong (whcih was deleted)
One question, if the photographer sold his photographs to an agency or magazine. If I were to use a page where permission were grant by the agency, I know I need to credit the magazine. But do I need to seek approval from the photographer who took that photo or credit him?
Thanks
Thanks
V
vince123123
Guest
You should not assume that you can use just by putting a credit - that is a mistaken notion which many many people fall into.
You need to get permission to use, and it is up to the copyright owner what he wants in return for granting you permission.
And where you use a work which potentially has more than one copyright owner, you should check with both.
You need to get permission to use, and it is up to the copyright owner what he wants in return for granting you permission.
And where you use a work which potentially has more than one copyright owner, you should check with both.
sorry vince i m abit confuse.
going by the way the discussion is developing, i think it's a matter of courtesy... the agency can use ur photo w/o crediting u, since the photo in the eyes of the law no longer belongs to u. It's a matter of whether they are nice enuff to tell u or not.. they dun have to, but it's good if they do
as quoted by jkaiser, since the photographer sold or work for the magazine agency or model agency issit that the copyright owner is the magazine agency? and if the agency let say let me use the photo, do I still need to seek permission from the photographer?
i read in a photog magazine..i think, professional photographer? that you should try to sell the rights to use ur photos under a certain set of conditions if there is value.
For example, if i take a photo of a footballer in action, wearing singapore jersey, i can sell this photo to the company, or allow the commissioning company to own the photo. Since there is not much reuse value out of singapore for example.
However if the player is wearing a generic shirt, there is opportunity to sell the photo elsewhere, one can sell the right to use the photo in singapore only, in a certain publication. Any other usage must be renegotiated with you.
Just food for thought...sorry for the OT
For example, if i take a photo of a footballer in action, wearing singapore jersey, i can sell this photo to the company, or allow the commissioning company to own the photo. Since there is not much reuse value out of singapore for example.
However if the player is wearing a generic shirt, there is opportunity to sell the photo elsewhere, one can sell the right to use the photo in singapore only, in a certain publication. Any other usage must be renegotiated with you.
Just food for thought...sorry for the OT
V
vince123123
Guest
If the photographer sold the work to the agency, then you only need to ask the agency.
But can you be so sure that the agency had the full rights and authority to deal with you? What if the agency "THOUGHT" they got full copyright, then they tell you "okay can use"; and end up actaully they dont have the copyright, and you end up infringing the photographer's copyright.
Hence, its how safe you want to play. This is what is called "Due dilligence" in the legal circles.
But can you be so sure that the agency had the full rights and authority to deal with you? What if the agency "THOUGHT" they got full copyright, then they tell you "okay can use"; and end up actaully they dont have the copyright, and you end up infringing the photographer's copyright.
Hence, its how safe you want to play. This is what is called "Due dilligence" in the legal circles.
- Status
