PhotoMaximum wrote:
Reading that any work done for customers in Canada is automatically considered \"work for hire\" with the customer having the rights to the images is just stunning to me. I could not work that way.
I am constantly educating my clients on copy rights issues. In the US the photographer owns the rights as the \"creator\" of the images unless he/she gives away those rights in writing. If you produce images as part of your job then you have no rights, your employer does. A salaried staff newspaper photographer does not have any rights to the images he shoots, the newspaper does. An independent or freelancer owns the rights to production work, wedding work, model work, architecture work etc, etc.
If an architect hires a freelance architecture photographer to shoot his latest building project then there usually is a contract spelling out the details and the grant of rights. This allows the architect to use the the images for the specific purposes the architect needs - and no more. The architect is not allowed to recoup his photography expenses by reselling the images to the building contractor, interior designer, and building owner etc. If the architect wants the power to do all of this then the photographer will give him the extra rights but charge extra accordingly, sometimes 600% of the original creation fee.
If I shoot a wedding I ask my clients to sign a contract. This includes details that the bride can print and share the images with her family etc for their personal enjoyment. I will NOT allow her to sell the images to the florist, caterer, limo company, banquet hall, dress maker, magazines etc. In other words share and enjoy the images but don\'t try and sell them. I own the copyright to the images in this case.
Very few commercial photographers will release all rights to their work. Its important to understand the issues involved. There have been many, many nasty lawsuits in this arena, but even the US Supreme Court has been consistent in saying that the creator of works owns the copyright unless a contract says otherwise.
The fact that countless shooters who work on the fringes of active commercial photography do not care about these issues is a constant thorn in the side of those who make their living solely from photography. It makes it harder for us to earn a living. The digital age muddies the water even more. I won\'t go into the topic of what all the countless hacks who advertise on Craigslist have done to the industry.
The bottom line: wether you make $50 or $5000 for taking a photograph it is in YOUR interest to care about your rights as the creator of the image. Doing so will make you more professional and indicate to your client that you value your work and take things seriously.
....snip
End of lecture...
Sounds more about the quest for more money than anything else.... and there\'s nothing wrong with that
Nov 05, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Previous versions of pascal03's message #7736829 « Rokinon 85/1.4 Does Model Shoot »
