photographer's copyright


Status
Not open for further replies.

eadwine

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,937
0
0
38
east side
#1
was wondering, where does it state that despite taking pictures for a client, when they want to use the pictures taken for online use, it is another type of copyright? and particular charges be made?

Is there a place/site we can go look thru?

thanks
 

Soyuz

New Member
Oct 16, 2004
5
0
0
#2
I dont really understand your question. Can you clarify?
 

eadwine

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,937
0
0
38
east side
#3
errr.. k i try my best to explain

I know that when someone hires you, the copyright of the photo still belongs to the photographer , am i right?
And if the client wants to use the pictures for online web usuage, as the photographer, do we have the right to tell them they have to pay us to use it for online purposes despite paying us for taking the pictures in the beginning?

What im trying to find out is that, where does it state that the photographer has the right to charge for photos taken, used online by the client
 

zig

Deregistered
Sep 14, 2004
281
0
0
37
woodlands baby!
#4
yes.... first you charge the client a service fee... that is just the shooting alone... the pictures belong to you..
and then you charge the usage fee.... the fee the client have to pay to use YOUR pictures..
remember this is intellectual property we're talking about here.

let say the client tells ya he wants to use the beer pictures you've shot for a 3 month run on the magazines..and he pays you X amount of money...to use it for that specific purpose.

and y amount money if he wants to use it on the internet .

of course this is the ideal situation. and everything should be in black and white .
 

#5
as above, Zig's reply is your answer. Perhaps our lawyer friends can come in again to shed some more light? :D

Eadwine - that of coz is the ideal situation where your work will be paid for both the shooting and the usage so package your pricing accordingly after 1st checking with your client if they are using it for commercialism
 

yunghans

New Member
Sep 15, 2004
69
0
0
Queenstown
www.scarlethome.com
#6
I think it all depends on the terms between you and the party who hires you. It can be both ways and the term should be clear to both party whether it's for limited usage or unlimited.

Work for hire typically owned by the employer, however artistic works typically owned by the author of the work, so if there's no clear agreement, it can really goes both ways.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#7
Actually zig's answer may be misleading.

In the absence of any terms, copyright belongs to the person who commissioned you if it is for valuable consideration. You'll need specific contractual terms to make it the way you want it to be.

zig said:
yes.... first you charge the client a service fee... that is just the shooting alone... the pictures belong to you..
and then you charge the usage fee.... the fee the client have to pay to use YOUR pictures..
remember this is intellectual property we're talking about here.

let say the client tells ya he wants to use the beer pictures you've shot for a 3 month run on the magazines..and he pays you X amount of money...to use it for that specific purpose.

and y amount money if he wants to use it on the internet .

of course this is the ideal situation. and everything should be in black and white .
 

blimmer

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
306
0
0
#8
do you require a lawyer to draft out the agreement/contract? Or is there a template of some sort to refer to?

Clubsnappers who have sold stock to Getty images and such could you advise? Thanks
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#9
if it's that important to you, pay a lawyer to do it.

blimmer said:
do you require a lawyer to draft out the agreement/contract? Or is there a template of some sort to refer to?

Clubsnappers who have sold stock to Getty images and such could you advise? Thanks
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#10
First para seems accurate, second doesn't...


yunghans said:
I think it all depends on the terms between you and the party who hires you. It can be both ways and the term should be clear to both party whether it's for limited usage or unlimited.

Work for hire typically owned by the employer, however artistic works typically owned by the author of the work, so if there's no clear agreement, it can really goes both ways.
 

#11
from what i know....the employee's work will be owned by employer if the employee is being paid/fund or use any resources provided by employer. In this case, if no form of agreement stated, the work should be owned by employer. Unless it is a charity event that no one is paying you....

correct me if i am wrong...
 

eadwine

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,937
0
0
38
east side
#12
tantingchin said:
from what i know....the employee's work will be owned by employer if the employee is being paid/fund or use any resources provided by employer. In this case, if no form of agreement stated, the work should be owned by employer. Unless it is a charity event that no one is paying you....

correct me if i am wrong...
We can look at it in a few ways, the "product/s" are provided by the employer but the equipment used belongs to us..then how/where do we draw the line?
 

#13
tantingchin said:
from what i know....the employee's work will be owned by employer if the employee is being paid/fund or use any resources provided by employer. In this case, if no form of agreement stated, the work should be owned by employer. Unless it is a charity event that no one is paying you....

correct me if i am wrong...
i mean if the employee is being paid/fund OR use any resources provided by employer....either one...

in this case, employer pay the employee to produce thing...so employer own the product...
 

eadwine

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,937
0
0
38
east side
#14
tantingchin said:
i mean if the employee is being paid/fund OR use any resources provided by employer....either one...

in this case, employer pay the employee to produce thing...so employer own the product...

somehow still we can look at it in alot of ways.
scenario: employer tells me to take photo of a busstop. he post busstop picture online, does it mean he owns the busstop since u said he provided the resources.... in this sense...the employer doesnt own the busstop.

was reading in Digital PhotoPro Mag, Jan/Feb 2004 issue in an article
this photographer quoted
"..according to the Law, if you create it, you own it"
 

AReality

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
4,458
0
0
VisualJournalist.net
#15
eadwine said:
was reading in Digital PhotoPro Mag, Jan/Feb 2004 issue in an article
this photographer quoted
"..according to the Law, if you create it, you own it"

Digital Photo Pro Magazine from which country? U in which country?
 

blurblock

Senior Member
May 30, 2003
3,827
0
0
ytphoto.clubsnap.org
#16
eadwine said:
We can look at it in a few ways, the "product/s" are provided by the employer but the equipment used belongs to us..then how/where do we draw the line?
The question here is ....... when you used the equipment to take the pictures ..... were you employed by the employer to take the pictures? If it is, then the copyright belongs to the employer, portriats or pictures with models is excluded from this clause.

Correct me if I am wrong.
 

blurblock

Senior Member
May 30, 2003
3,827
0
0
ytphoto.clubsnap.org
#17
eadwine said:
somehow still we can look at it in alot of ways.
scenario: employer tells me to take photo of a busstop. he post busstop picture online, does it mean he owns the busstop since u said he provided the resources.... in this sense...the employer doesnt own the busstop.

was reading in Digital PhotoPro Mag, Jan/Feb 2004 issue in an article
this photographer quoted
"..according to the Law, if you create it, you own it"
There is a better article that describle the copyright law in Singapore ..... please read chapter 63 of the Singapore Statues.
 

Darren

ClubSNAP Admin
Staff member
Jan 16, 2002
8,606
26
48
Melbourne
#18
Quoting from this page from IPOS (Copyright Ownership and Rights) :

IPOS said:
OWNERSHIP

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.

The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.

Special situations for certain professions:

Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.

Photographer or artist: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.
From the above, if the photograph is taken for (commissioned by):
a) a person - copyright belongs to the person.
b) an object owned by XXX - rights owned by photographer unless transferred to XXX; or YYY is XXX didn't request for ownership transfer.

In the case of a person, the law is pretty clear -rights belong to the person, unless the photographer puts in the contract or sales agreement that the photographer has rights to re-use or re-sell, in which case, the photographer has to get the commissioning party to sign a model release.
 

SkyLooker

New Member
Apr 4, 2005
61
0
0
#19
if you think they should not use your photo to publish it online, first thing to do is demand them to remove it online and then talk about the damage costs.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#20
There is no exception for portraits or pictures with models.

blurblock said:
The question here is ....... when you used the equipment to take the pictures ..... were you employed by the employer to take the pictures? If it is, then the copyright belongs to the employer, portriats or pictures with models is excluded from this clause.

Correct me if I am wrong.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom