Copyright/ownership in filming

Ben Digedig

Ben Digedig

Well-known member
How do you guys handle this on a commercial corporate basis? I'm aware that I do not hang on to much possession compared to a stills photographer. If I pay a stills guy for a day to film ME the 'footage' is all his and he will overcharge me for prints etc and never EVER give me the 'footage'. Why is it so different in video - or is it?

How do you protect your interests, copyright and material?

D
 
Bump i would also like to know this. I had a photographer shoot my engagement party and on top of paying him for the day i also have to pay him for the prints. The problem is their $5 a freakin 4x6 print, Walgreens does the same for .20 cents. Now im not saying he should go that low but maybe it should be around $1 or 2 and he'll still be making a hell of a profit. He shot 800 pic that day and lets say half were good and i would like to purchase them i would have to pay 5x400 which is about $2000 for the 4x6. That's a rip, and that's not even including the little things like an album and stuff. when i shoot video for a client, they pay for the day and any editing and that's it. they own the footage and could do what they please with it. If you was to take one of the 4x6 prints that the photographer took and copied it like at walgreens first walgreens would not even allow that and second i would get in trouble for copyright from the photographer even though i paid for him to shoot it and paid for him to print it and its a freakin picture of my and my fiancee's face lol.

Lets say Ben or I were to go shoot a music video, now who owns the rights to that. is it the artist, the videographer, or maybe its both?

P.S sorry to jack your thread Ben as you can see i have been wondering about this for while now too.
 
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

My understanding of the issue is this:

The copyright belongs to whoever negotiates for it. Typically, in lieu of any agreement to the contrary, the copyright vests with the person who created the work. However, if the work is a "work for hire" then the copyright vests with the person who hired the artist. The artist in effect signs over all right and title to the copyright, in exchange for the paycheck.

So a still photographer will absolutely keep the copyright if you let him/her. And if you say "no, I'm hiring you, what you're doing for me is a work for hire" and s/he agrees, then the copyright is yours. And if that photographer won't agree, you can always keep shopping around until you find one who does.

I run the risk of angering a lot of photographers by saying this, but I think it's downright wrong for them to "keep" the copyright on hired works. It's just wrong. If you got hired to do it, the copyright should vest with the person who hired you.

In stills stuff like with Olan Mills, it's different in that you may not actually pay them for a sitting fee. You might go there and get your portraits done, and they'll take a hundred shots, and you don't pay anything for that. They do all the work at their risk, and at the end, you have the right to buy some of their finished prints. That's perfectly fine. But if someone hires you, and contracts with you, and pays you, to do the work -- then the copyright should go to them.

And that's pretty much how it is in video at all times, and why the copyright vests with the person who hired you (the client).

If your client is fool enough to sign a document saying that the producer keeps the copyright, well, then... I guess you could do that. But your client would be a fool.

I've always had in my contracts a clause saying that I have the right to exhibit the footage for promotional purposes, award contests, demo reel, etc...
 
Barry_Green said:
I run the risk of angering a lot of photographers by saying this, but I think it's downright wrong for them to "keep" the copyright on hired works. It's just wrong. If you got hired to do it, the copyright should vest with the person who hired you.
Click to expand...

I agree with Barry, though I am a little fearful of the photographer mafia - they are everywhere :)

It's always seemed to me like a huge conspiracy that the photographer holds on to the
master files (or negatives back in the day) and sells you prints. I had this happen at my
wedding and it was like they were holding my memories hostage. Like a kidnapper sending
me one finger at a time till I paid the ransom.

It's an outdated practice, and hopefully (as Barry suggests), if we just shop around until we
find someone who doesn't do it, the rest of the industry will get the message.

Peter

Side note: Years ago a friend (who was just getting into the business) called and asked if
after a shoot he should hang on to the video masters and just give the producer VHS copies.
Then, depending on what shots the producer wanted he would charge accordingly. I advised
him against it, if he ever wanted to work again. True story.
 
Last edited:
On "Leap", I had a couple of actors who had friends that do photography and wanted practice. I told them they could come shoot for my actors and myself if I got some DVDs with all the pics after (there was 10 gb of pics) We got it in writting, and it was good. I personally would never hire a photographer without that stipulation.
 
When I hired a design firm to design my corporate logo, they had language in their contract saying that they reserved the copyright and trademark rights to it.

I said "hell no."

They said "oh, okay." And struck the language out of the contract.

Just ask.
 
The deal is whatever the two parties agree to. Doesn't matter which side you are on. Doesn't matter whether the media is stills, video, film, audio, oil paintings, or cuneiform clay tablets.

If you want your pictures from a still photographer you hire tell him up front that it is a work for hire and that you expect all the originals and rights to be delivered to you upon payment. If they don't agree then find a photographer who knows their place.
 
Great answer Barry - thanks.

Richard - in your post above a stills photographer would assume its all his - custom and practice.... They guy that did my wedding handed it over and didnt charge a four figure sum for a days work with a measly $5k worth of kit!!!

BD
 
I don't care about "custom and practice". A deal is whatever the two parties agree to. I'm the customer and I will get what I want or I will move on to the next photographer (or whatever) who wants my business on my terms.
 
Amen

Amen

Yeah I can't imagine paying someone to take pictures for me, then somehow they own the pictures even though I paid them for the pictures. That just seems hilarious and so backwards. You have to ask for what you want, though, and put it in the contract.

I'd laugh if a guy would turn down a good day's pay because he wanted to own the rights to my event photos or something. That just seems so weird, why would he even care? Oh yay pictures of random people partying or at a wedding, I'm sure those will be useful! And plus they cannot ever be of any use to him. I thought for a second, "Well he could maybe sell them as stock photos if he wanted," then I realized, "No... because you need photo releases and he would not have those forms signed." So they really are totally worthless to him.
 
Still photographers have traditionally retained the rights to their photos because they make their money in printing. If you want hand out 5x7 prints of your kid they print and sell you the 5x7s and make their money on that, not taking the actual pictures. If they gave you a CD with all the photos on it they're giving away a huge potential profit.

That said, I think that's starting to change, especially with digital photography and the ability to print photos from memory cards at WalMart, CVS, Walgreens, etc... But even if you have a photographer who gives you the CD, you have to have a signed letter from the photography stating that you have the right to print those photos if you take them to a retailer like CVS or Walgreens. Without that letter they refuse to print them (because it's assumed you don't have the rights - they assume the photographer retained rights).

I've noticed a lot more photographers are including quotes that transfer copyright and allow you print at home or anywhere you want. Granted, there's an additional charge, but it's because the photographer is giving up their printing income. We do the same with video. If we're doing the editing and post work our shooting fee is less. If we're shooting and giving you the tapes to take somewhere else it costs more, but you own the tapes and take everything with you.

Like Barry said, if you want to own everything when it's done, put it in writing and have them sign it. If they won't move on to the next crew that will.

Michael
 
JonathanLB said:
Yeah I can't imagine paying someone to take pictures for me, then somehow they own the pictures even though I paid them for the pictures. That just seems hilarious and so backwards. You have to ask for what you want, though, and put it in the contract.

I'd laugh if a guy would turn down a good day's pay because he wanted to own the rights to my event photos or something. That just seems so weird, why would he even care? Oh yay pictures of random people partying or at a wedding, I'm sure those will be useful! And plus they cannot ever be of any use to him. I thought for a second, "Well he could maybe sell them as stock photos if he wanted," then I realized, "No... because you need photo releases and he would not have those forms signed." So they really are totally worthless to him.
Click to expand...

It may seem counter intuitive, but the creator of a copyrightable work, ie, a photographer making photographs, owns the copyright to the work EXCEPT when he is a bona fide employee (taxes withheld, etc) acting within the scope of his regular job duties or when there is a written contract that explicitly states the work is created as a "work for hire" using those exact words and transferring copyright to the person paying for the shoot. Otherwise, even though you're paying for the shoot he owns the copyright - what you have paid for is a license. The idea that the photographer owns the rights is not so he can re-purpose the pix and sell them to others - he can't without your release - but so YOU can't re-purpose them and sell them. As an example, your bride-to-be is drop-dead gorgeous, perhaps even a model, and so you do a deal with the wedding dress store to give them photos of the bride wearing their product to use as advertising in return for a free wedding dress. That means the photographer'a work is being used for advertising without him deriving any revenue from it. By retaining the rights, he prevents you from doing that - if the store wants to use his work in its advertising they have to come to him and do all the normal stuff of hiring models, booking studio time, etc and pay his fee for advertising work. They can't buy his work from you and cut him out of the deal. Also, he traditionally makes a good portion of his revenue from print and album sales. By retaining copyright, he prevents you from buying one copy and running off additional duplicate prints at Costco or someplace to send to friends and relatives. Want more prints? Gotta come back to him for them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top