Had an interesting situation come up today. Note - I have no intention of reproducing any of these photographs for profit, this is just a hypothetical situation of what if after the fact. I recently did some copy work for a friend of mine - they needed high quality photographs of their paintings and drawings for their website. It's a strict reproduction of their work. It's a friend, they paid me decently so what ever happens after this point is all good. Unlike a strict client, I tend to be lenient on terms with friends. How does copyright work out in this situation? I know I own the copyright to my photographs, but they obviously own the copyright to their artwork. If they wanted to make prints from my photographs for profit, would they need to pay a licensing fee? I would think they would. I would think the same would be said for myself if I were to sell prints of their artwork (i.e. I'd owe them money) and I would need some sort of model release for each piece.
Just curious what your thoughts are on the matter.
Very interesting. Thank you very much for the link. I asked my friend that if they decide to make prints of the images that I photograph, they remunerate me a bit more but other than that I have no intentions of ever using the photographs.
Why do you think you own the copyright to the photographs? The original author has the exclusive right to authorize copies and derivative works.
If you don't document the agreements about what kind of uses he allows you (and perhaps you allow him) and any payment issues as well, there are a wide range of arguments and disputes that can arise.
You might find a Google search on the terms "slavish copy copyright ownership" interesting. If nothing else, several of the first hits appear to bring up the exact same wording. Perhaps they all copied the same source?
I also understood under US Copyright that unless I sign my copyright away, I retain the copyright to images that I take. I received no instruction from the original author, beside going about replicating their artwork. Very interesting link Craig, thank you. My invoice to them maintains that the copyright to the photographs are retained to myself, and that the client is granted reproduction rights for web and print media use only. As I said, this was for a friend, I'm really not worried about it. But it presented an issue that I've never had to deal with before and I thought others might find interesting as well.
First of all I'm not a lawyer so get legal advise from a lawyer that understands intellectual property. Having said that, yes you do retain copyright to YOUR images of the artwork. That does not mean, however, that you HAVE to be paid for use of the images.
The best time to sort all this out is BEFORE you shoot a job but you know that! And remember, this isn't worth losing a friendship over.
Bill - again, not worried about it. If they decide to make a million copies, whatever. It's their artwork and I'm glad that I could help them. I'd hope they'd pay me a bit more if they're making a ton off the photos. The photos on their site before were horrible - done with their cellphone. I'm happy to have their work shown in the light it should be. I was just curious what to do and steps to take if this ever comes up again. Not something I deal with everyday (I'm a journalist/portrait photographer, not in the reproduction business). Generally I do work things out like that before doing the work. In this case I simply didn't even have a thought about additional copyright headaches go into my mind until everything was over and done with.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Why do you think you own the copyright to the photographs? The original author has the exclusive right to authorize copies and derivative works.
If you don't document the agreements about what kind of uses he allows you (and perhaps you allow him) and any payment issues as well, there are a wide range of arguments and disputes that can arise.
You might find a Google search on the terms "slavish copy copyright ownership" interesting. If nothing else, several of the first hits appear to bring up the exact same wording. Perhaps they all copied the same source?
Photographers who work collaboratively on photo shoots might be surprised to learn that even if they shoot the camera, they are not necessarily the sole copyright owner of the resulting images. A person may become a co-owner in the copyright in a photo -- not only by clicking the shutter -- but also by selecting and arranging the photo’s subject matter, making decisions about composition and camera angles, or by determining the lighting.
And then he said:
Under the Copyright Act, copyright vests in more than one author if: 1) each person makes an independently copyrightable contribution to the joint work; and 2) the parties intend to be co-authors where their contributions are merged into an inseparable or interdependent part of a unitary whole.
In the court case, the writer acted as the produce of a compilation, and indeed, the producer of a compilation owns the copyright of the compiled work--that case satisfied both legal points.
The particular court example does not fit the lawyer's first statement: He's describing scene styling and directing, neither of which is copyrightable.
Two different discussions (or more?) on the blog. The second discussion on the blog dealt with the matter here, didn't read the first one closely, if nothing else, it points out lawyers may approach the same "problem" from different directions and give different advice because of that. The issue the OP has is more along the lines of his creating, in his terms, "a strict copy" at the request of the copyright owner. Does it have sufficient originality on it's own to be copyrightable. Has he passed from the kid at the color copier making a scan and print at "Kinko's" (whoever) to having actually created a new work? Fine while they are friends but what happens when the friendship breaks down or money problems arise?
(On the first he may be proposing the idea that others in the creative process may well claim to be "co-authors," etc. Absent documentation, contracts, agreements, there could be some merit to his position. Certainly many professional production companies paper their productions to try to make clear the ownership of copyright in efforts involving multiple workers.)
The issue the OP has is more along the lines of his creating, in his terms, "a strict copy" at the request of the copyright owner. Does it have sufficient originality on it's own to be copyrightable. Has he passed from the kid at the color copier making a scan and print at "Kinko's" (whoever) to having actually created a new work?
Yes, and I'm not disputing you with regard to the OP. By my reading of copyright law, he would not own the copyright, at worst because his work is merely a "slavish copy," at best, it would be a derivative requiring permission. He has not created a compilation that might be copyrighted as a creation in its own right, nor did the artists agree that they were co-authors in a collaboration.
Then you add to that the OPs friend could have thought the project was a for hire deal and they would retain the copyright... Best to get it in writing... I've always found the lower the legal fees the higher the profits, cheapest to have the terms defined beforehand than to litigate a misunderstanding.
