# Paid shoot and photo rights



## Noiresque (Mar 20, 2010)

Hello all!

I was wondering, when you shoot, for example promo pictures for a band you charge them your hourly or session fee for the work. Because they pay for it does that mean that the rights are automatically transferred to them, or do the rights to the pictures remain with me unless they specifically request to purchase right on additional charge.

If the band paid for the shoot, should they be allowed to use the pictures as they with in print? What is the standard practice

Thanks in advance!


----------



## ThornleyGroves (Mar 20, 2010)

Basically i've done a few DJ shots, for david guetta, bob sinclar, and then a few shots for some major singers like calvin harris, ian brown, tokio hotel. As i've been paid for the photos, they are then free to use those photos of them for any reason, be it their website, leaflets, poster etc, however i can't post them where i wish without telling them etc... So therefore they generally tend to have the majority of rights...

check Tom Groves Photographer - TG IMAGES for some of my shots of dj's, and singers etc...


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 20, 2010)

What? since when does paying you for the session etc. mean that they get to use the images however they want? 

My understanding is that you keep the copyright, and most of the time you will have them sign a model release as well allowing you to use the images how you see fit (for the most part). 

Typically for bands etc. I would think in your contract there would be a clause for specific usage rights, such as for a cd cover, up to unlimited usage rights, with the more rights they are paying for the more you charge them.


----------



## Noiresque (Mar 20, 2010)

That's what I thought also, that the copyright stays with you unless stated otherwise


----------



## skieur (Mar 20, 2010)

NateWagner said:


> What? since when does paying you for the session etc. mean that they get to use the images however they want?
> 
> My understanding is that you keep the copyright, and most of the time you will have them sign a model release as well allowing you to use the images how you see fit (for the most part).
> 
> Typically for bands etc. I would think in your contract there would be a clause for specific usage rights, such as for a cd cover, up to unlimited usage rights, with the more rights they are paying for the more you charge them.


 
Needless to say, this is where a contract is an absolute MUST, so that the rights issue is spelled out and not open to any interpretation.

skieur


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 20, 2010)

^ Agreed ^


----------



## pcacj (Mar 20, 2010)

I have never done this, but if I apply "logic" to the equation and blow off everything else it seems to me...

When you hire a model and pay her/him for the session, you retain all rights to the photos. Therefore, if an entity hires you and pays you for a session, then it would seem logical that they are owners of the product of that session.

If I am hired to create a stained glass piece for someone, it is theirs.  I do not dictate how they use it.  Not saying that a contract could not be created that attempts to do just that, but it doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## KmH (Mar 20, 2010)

US copyright law and the copyright laws in other countries aren't the same.

So, you need to be careful with online intellectual property law advice. Your best bet is to consult with a local attorney trained in the sub-specialty of intellectual property.

It's my understanding that in Canada, the entity paying for the images owns the copyright, unless it's agreed to differently in a written contract signed by both parties.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 20, 2010)

Good point KmH, I didn't even both looking at where the OP was from. 

In any event, as has already been mentioned, this is where a contract comes in handy. Simply spell out agreements that work for both of you and you should be alright (though contacting a lawyer is never a bad idea).


----------



## KmH (Mar 20, 2010)

Noiresque said:


> Hello all!
> 
> I was wondering, when you shoot, for example promo pictures for a band you charge them your hourly or session fee for the work. Because they pay for it does that mean that the rights are automatically transferred to them, or do the rights to the pictures remain with me unless they specifically request to purchase right on additional charge.
> 
> ...


Your's and Tom Groves's business model sounds more like the business model for retail photography, but it sounds like you are actually doing commercial photography, an entirely different business model.

Commercial photographers here in the US charge a creative fee for their time and talent to make the images and then license the images for very specific usages.

I would explore how commercial photographers price their work in your part of the world.


----------



## KmH (Mar 20, 2010)

pcacj said:


> I have never done this, but if I apply "logic" to the equation and blow off everything else it seems to me...
> 
> When you hire a model and pay her/him for the session, you retain all rights to the photos. Therefore, if an entity hires you and pays you for a session, then it would seem logical that they are owners of the product of that session.
> 
> If I am hired to create a stained glass piece for someone, it is theirs. I do not dictate how they use it. Not saying that a contract could not be created that attempts to do just that, but it doesn't seem to make sense.


Yep, Logic doesn't apply. 

What country do you live in and how do they handle intellectual property?


----------



## pcacj (Mar 20, 2010)

KmH said:


> Yep, Logic doesn't apply.
> 
> What country do you live in and how do they handle intellectual property?




Hi KmH - I am your neighbor....I live in Wisconsin but do not do any photography for money.  Have a long way to go before I could even think about that.


----------



## skieur (Mar 20, 2010)

KmH said:


> US copyright law and the copyright laws in other countries aren't the same.
> 
> So, you need to be careful with online intellectual property law advice. Your best bet is to consult with a local attorney trained in the sub-specialty of intellectual property.
> 
> It's my understanding that in Canada, the entity paying for the images owns the copyright, unless it's agreed to differently in a written contract signed by both parties.


 
Yes, but it seems in Canada to be directed toward the commissioning of a portrait. The issue and matter of interpretation is...what is being paid for?....time, the photo, related rights? And that section is subject to a contract that spells out precisely what is being paid for by the customer.

Use a specific tight contract and there will be no problems.

skieur


----------

