Complicated copyright

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by DogHeadGod

You would own the copyright. However, if you had agreed to a payment before hand then you would be commissioned and they would own them.

No. Paying a photographer doesn't mean you own the copyright. If the photog is an employee, and photography is part of their job, then it's "work for hire" and the employer holds copyright. If it's freelance (photog isn't an employee), then the copyright stays with the photographer.

[DogHeadGod]

Originally Posted by jdepould

No. Paying a photographer doesn't mean you own the copyright. If the photog is an employee, and photography is part of their job, then it's "work for hire" and the employer holds copyright. If it's freelance (photog isn't an employee), then the copyright stays with the photographer.

Paying a photographer after the fact on viewing the images would be freelance. "Agreeing a payment before hand" would be work for hire and the copyright would be owned by the payer.

[dakwegmo]

Originally Posted by DogHeadGod

Paying a photographer after the fact on viewing the images would be freelance. "Agreeing a payment before hand" would be work for hire and the copyright would be owned by the payer.

Laws differ from country to country, you could both be correct. I don't know the law in the U.K. but in the U.S. "work for hire" situations have to be spelled out in writing, otherwise copyright remains with the photographer.

[Xposurepro]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

Laws differ from country to country, you could both be correct. I don't know the law in the U.K. but in the U.S. "work for hire" situations have to be spelled out in writing, otherwise copyright remains with the photographer.

Interesting thought and something that should be looked into for our non-american friends. I personally can't see a country having laws that gave the copyright to the client so easily. It would completely eliminate the process of selling prints to the client .. but you never know. If it is a law in anybodies country, it's something that needs to be addressed and changed promptly.

[Sime]

Originally Posted by DogHeadGod

You would own the copyright. However, if you had agreed to a payment before hand then you would be commissioned and they would own them.



DHG

Not true... Not unless you signed them away. Don't confuse usage rights and copyright. (Freelance, which is what this was)

Sime

[Jim Poor]

Another potential wrench in the works is that many companies have policies that ANYTHING you create on their time or on their dime belongs to them. It is a bit deeper than work for hire, but you'd have to check your companies policies.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by DogHeadGod

Paying a photographer after the fact on viewing the images would be freelance. "Agreeing a payment before hand" would be work for hire and the copyright would be owned by the payer.

I freelance. My fees are spelled out in advance (as they should be). I own my copyrights.

Originally Posted by Xposurepro

Interesting thought and something that should be looked into for our non-american friends. I personally can't see a country having laws that gave the copyright to the client so easily. It would completely eliminate the process of selling prints to the client .. but you never know. If it is a law in anybodies country, it's something that needs to be addressed and changed promptly.

Copyright isn't just a national thing, you're also getting into the Bern Convention.

[FrankLamont]

Yes, as said previously to DogHG: the artist owns the copyright, but gives certain usage rights to the client.

[dizwold]

Originally Posted by Stupid

Can Nikon claim ownership to my photos because they make my D3?

_

that is stupid stupid lol!!

[dizwold]

i think i would have borrowed the card from the camera for a little bit
mike