I took about 1000 pictures at an international casino tournement.
I was paid a small fee to do the work and knew that there were likely to be used in several magazines the world over.
Nothing was agreed before hand as to who owns the pictures that I would take. So who owns them? I always thought the photographer owned them, but the organisers are saying that they should own the pictures as they paid me to do the work.
Any advise please greatly appreciated.
Andrew
http://www..gov/
It looks like both you and the folks that hired you are in the same boat: should have figured this out in writing beforehand. It's easy, it's professional, and it saves headaches later.
I was doing business over the phone with an ad agency, and we didn't take the time to get everything down on paper before the job started. After I did the work I sent my invoice, and the guy was a little shocked to see that my bill was $1440 when he thought my "day rate" was $500. I never told him my day rate was $500, I don't even have a day rate. I had told him the first 2 hours would be $500, and that there would still be travel charges, additional hourly charges, useage fees, fees for digital editing, etc... It was a misunderstanding, but after he checked around and realized he was still getting a great deal at $1440 he paid up. Now when I do work for them we've got it all down on paper.
:shock: Heh, I got paid $50 to do a few shots of a building for a rededication ceremony, and I was thrilled. Can't wait until I'm established enough to charge real fees.
http://www..gov/
It looks like both you and the folks that hired you are in the same boat: should have figured this out in writing beforehand. It's easy, it's professional, and it saves headaches later.
I was doing business over the phone with an ad agency, and we didn't take the time to get everything down on paper before the job started. After I did the work I sent my invoice, and the guy was a little shocked to see that my bill was $1440 when he thought my "day rate" was $500. I never told him my day rate was $500, I don't even have a day rate. I had told him the first 2 hours would be $500, and that there would still be travel charges, additional hourly charges, useage fees, fees for digital editing, etc... It was a misunderstanding, but after he checked around and realized he was still getting a great deal at $1440 he paid up. Now when I do work for them we've got it all down on paper.
I was paid small fee of less than 141.078 EUR (about 173.780 USD) for 4 days work (approx 3hrs 30mins per day). I spend my own time rotating and editing the pictures in software.
I was supposed to take the pictures at set times (i.e 2pm - 6pm Weds, 4pm - 7pm Saturday etc.) however I did turn up a lot in my own spare time, including showing up for a whole day when I was not meant to be there, or worked after the suggested time, and I took a lot of pictures in this extra 'personal' time. Surely I own the pictures that were taken then!?
It just so happened that the final day was rescheduled so that I worked between 2pm and 6pm instead of the agreed 6pm to 10pm.
The 'final' game finished at 5.55pm. Ok - so did I take all the pictures of the final game in my own time??? In which case do I own the pictures???
I am totally new to this, and it would have been great to have organised and negotiated a contract before hand, but the organisers were so busy organising accomodation for the players and runway times at the local airports for private jets, etc. etc. that nothing was agreed.
Hmm...
Confused Andrew
(thanks for all the response so far!)
Just because you were paid does not mean you are their employee. All of my contracts state that I am an independant contractor. You should probably talk to a lawyer.
That said, I'm not an expert but I _think_ they own the photos for the use you agreed upon beforehand. After said use, they are the photographers, as they were your creation. (like any work of art)
So basically they are your photos with your credit as photographer, but they get to use them in the magazines.
I'm sure it's not too late to get a contract, if you're dealing with reasonable people.
:D IMHO I'm still working for 1/2 price!
A photographer who is employed by a company to take pictures does not won the rights to the photographs taken on the job. That is considered work for hire. All photographic rights belong to the company. EX: If Paul HIRE's Tony Steele to help shoot this calendar, the photographs, rights, and negatives are own by Paul's company. Period.
Some employers require employees who are hired as photographers to sign a "work for hire" contract. Even it there is not a contract the employer still owns all rights, including s, to all creative works produced on the job.
Contract photography which is negotiated between a photographer and a client (not an employer and employee) may fall into the same category as works for hire. The ownership should be clearly stated and agreed upon in writing by both parties as the first item in the contract.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
edit
