Copyright law

[gturner]

I have never understood the limit use licensing structure guys have always pushed on DPS, especially on commissioned shoots. It was never something I have ever come across in my marketing life nor I had Iever heard of it for things like my very own wedding photos.

Here if you pay a photographer to create an image, the image belows to the client. Period.

Here is why...

WHO OWNS COPYRIGHT
Tthe author is the owner, unless employed in a contract of service or apprenticeship.
Where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper or magazine, the proprietor owns copyright only for purposes of publication.

For works created between January 1, 1979 and May 23, 1980, these exceptions do not apply in South Africa, unless the work was done for the state or an international organisation.

Another exception is where certain copyright works (namely photographs, painted or drawn portraits, films, sound recordings and gravures) are made on commission and on payment of money, in which case the person who commissioned the work becomes the owner of the copyright.

[UlpilotSC]

It should be that way everywhere... With an exception. Too bad it's not.
I would like to see it as, if you are paid to make an image (wedding, portrait, etc.) the copyright automatically goes to the one hiring the photographer, with the exception the photographer may use the image in self promotion, portfolio, on the web, etc. Anything but sell it to someone else. More like a joint copyright I guess.
Now if a photographer makes a picture himself, without being hired, he should own the copyright.

In other industries this is the way it works. The guy who worked for pfizer and created Viagra doesn't own the patent, pfizer does. If you are hired by a paper and write an article for them, they own the article. A Boeing engineer doesn't own the design for a new wing shape he invisions, Boeing does.
I'm not sure why photographers hold on to copyrights when they are paid by someone else.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by gturner

I have never understood the limit use licensing structure guys have always pushed on DPS, especially on commissioned shoots. It was never something I have ever come across in my marketing life nor I had Iever heard of it for things like my very own wedding photos.

Here if you pay a photographer to create an image, the image belows to the client. Period.

Here is why...

WHO OWNS COPYRIGHT
Tthe author is the owner, unless employed in a contract of service or apprenticeship.
Where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper or magazine, the proprietor owns copyright only for purposes of publication.

For works created between January 1, 1979 and May 23, 1980, these exceptions do not apply in South Africa, unless the work was done for the state or an international organisation.

Another exception is where certain copyright works (namely photographs, painted or drawn portraits, films, sound recordings and gravures) are made on commission and on payment of money, in which case the person who commissioned the work becomes the owner of the copyright.

I don't know where "here" is but in the U.S. "work for hire" is a much more strictly defined term.

What poorly written source are you quoting from? It's full of typos and misspellings.

[Jim Poor]

Originally Posted by UlpilotSC

It should be that way everywhere... With an exception. Too bad it's not.
I would like to see it as, if you are paid to make an image (wedding, portrait, etc.) the copyright automatically goes to the one hiring the photographer, with the exception the photographer may use the image in self promotion, portfolio, on the web, etc. Anything but sell it to someone else. More like a joint copyright I guess.
Now if a photographer makes a picture himself, without being hired, he should own the copyright.

In other industries this is the way it works. The guy who worked for pfizer and created Viagra doesn't own the patent, pfizer does. If you are hired by a paper and write an article for them, they own the article. A Boeing engineer doesn't own the design for a new wing shape he invisions, Boeing does.
I'm not sure why photographers hold on to copyrights when they are paid by someone else.

All the examples you mention are employees of a company rather than independent artists. BIG difference.

[Brian Mullins]

*groan* - another copyright discussion?

First, copyright laws are defined by country, and they vary from country to country, so when discussing copyright law, you need to specify WHERE you live/work to have a sensible discussion.

And copyright is there to protect creative works. If you are in the full time employ of someone, then it makes sense THEY would own the copyright to anything created. However, if an artist is commissioned to create a work of art - be it a sculpture, painting, photo, etc, then, rightfully so, the creator owns the work and can grant "usage" permissions to the client.

Let's say, for example, you create an image at the wedding that turns out to be the next iconic image of our generation. You had a vision, set it up, created it, then finished it off. If the copyright automatically goes to the client, that means they could sell that image millions of times and profit enormously from your work and you only received your single commission. Again, it's different if you are in the full employ of someone but, IMO, the US has it right.

FYI - In Canada, the copyright automatically goes to the client and every wedding photographer, that I know of, transfers it back to themselves via the contract.

[Rentham]

To paraphrase John Harrington, without licensing you are nothing more than a day laborer.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Rentham

To paraphrase John Harrington, without licensing you are nothing more than a day laborer.

How true.......all ya'll go out a purchase John Harrington's, "Best Business Practices for Photographer". I any of you are serious about making money and turn your new found hobby into a money making business, it'll be the best $35.00 investment you'll ever spend.

[andyw]

Originally Posted by UlpilotSC

It should be that way everywhere... With an exception. Too bad it's not.
I would like to see it as, if you are paid to make an image (wedding, portrait, etc.) the copyright automatically goes to the one hiring the photographer, with the exception the photographer may use the image in self promotion, portfolio, on the web, etc. Anything but sell it to someone else. More like a joint copyright I guess.
Now if a photographer makes a picture himself, without being hired, he should own the copyright.

In other industries this is the way it works. The guy who worked for pfizer and created Viagra doesn't own the patent, pfizer does. If you are hired by a paper and write an article for them, they own the article. A Boeing engineer doesn't own the design for a new wing shape he invisions, Boeing does.
I'm not sure why photographers hold on to copyrights when they are paid by someone else.

If you are a photographer "employed" (in the UK that basically means on PAYE) then the company does own the copyright.
However if I, as a freelance photographer, am commissioned to take pictures for a company then I own the copyright unless specifically assigned to the company.

That was fought for long and hard by photographers.
One reason for this was the news media and large publishers stiffing photographers by paying them peanuts for a picture and then syndicating it worldwide and making huge profits from that picture.

There are pros and cons for both ways.
Personally, there are times where it would not make a lot of difference if the company had the copyright. Often images taken for a specific purpose are not going to be saleable to anyone else. However, 99.99% of the time I will keep the copyright even if they are just going to sit in a file. Why? because that is the way it is.

I don't do weddings or portraits but I would not want to release the copyright for them.
How many times have there been posts on here or elsewhere where photographers are moaning about a customer "editing" the shots and totally ruining them?
Copyright is not just about selling work but also about making changes to the images amongst other things.

In the UK there is already a clause in the copyright law regarding "domestic and private" images stating that they cannot be used by the photographer without the permission of the customer.

Licensing is good for the customer and the photographer when done properly.

I am glad that in the UK we have the copyright law we have

[funcrunch]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

How true.......all ya'll go out a purchase John Harrington's, "Best Business Practices for Photographer". I any of you are serious about making money and turn your new found hobby into a money making business, it'll be the best $35.00 investment you'll ever spend.

Seconded. Also recommend reading all the articles at danheller.com which also address copyright, model releases (he has a book just on this subject), etc.

Very tired of people trying to take the rights to re-license my work away from me. If I wanted that arrangement I would have stayed at the desk job I had for 15 years. Regular pay but I owned none of my work.

[gturner]

Sorry, this is South African, thought I popped it in the title.


Here is the section from the act, which, being written in English, not American, may still have typos and misspellings.

Ownership of copyright
21. (1)
(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, the ownership of any copyright conferred by section 3 or 4 on any work shall vest in the author or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, in the co-authors of the
work.
(b) Where a literary or artistic work is made by an author in the course of his employment by the
proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or
apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar
periodical, the said proprietor shall be the owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright
relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical or to reproduction
of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the
owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of section 3 or 4.
(c) Where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait, the
making of a gravure, the making of a cinematograph film or the making of a sound recording and pays
or agrees to pay for it in money or money’s worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that
commission, such person shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), be the owner of any
copyright subsisting therein by virtue of section 3 or 4.
(d) Where in a case not falling within either paragraph (b) or (c) a work is made in the course of the
author’s employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, that other
person shall be the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of section 3 or 4.
(e) Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall in any particular case have effect subject to any agreement excluding the operation thereof and subject to the provisions of section 20.
(2) Ownership of any copyright conferred by section 5 shall initially vest in the state or the international
organization concerned, and not in the author.


Sorry for the groan Brian... who would have thought about posting this topic in the EFP thread on a forum for with global viewership? Silly me.

As you say: Same law applies in Canada:
Ownership of copyright

13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
Engraving, photograph or portrait

(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.


Now if a wedding client refuses to sign back over the images and will only commission the work as per the copyright law on photographs, then what?
Would you turn them down? What will you do with the images of someones weddings down the line?

This is very different to freelance selling images into the marketplace, in which case licensing would be appropriate.


This whole thing came up over breakfast this morning with well established commercial photographer who was bemoaning the difference between the US and SA.
He does shoots for US clients and is always impressed by the fact that the large media houses will call him at the end of a licence period and either extend or mail back all of his submissions.