# Second Photog Shooter Copyright Laws



## radosb1920 (Nov 11, 2010)

I have been second shooting for a local wedding studio in NY for almost a year. He hires me as a contracted worker, I am not an employee of his company. The pictures I took for him came out great so I used those photos on my own website to promote my photography. They are NOT for sale, their only purpose is to promote my own talent so that someone will hire me. Now he is demanding that I take those photos off my website because they are "his copyrighted pictures"...I DID  NOT SIGN A THING. I have all original files, with all EXIF data pointing to my equipment and name. For a while I respected his demands, but he screwed me out of 4 jobs so the respect is gone. Do I take these pictures down? If he tries suing (which I should hope not) will they stand in court?


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 11, 2010)

Im pretty sure they belong to him since that is what you were paid by him to do.  I cant post up the source code to software that *I* developed when I was paid by someone else to develop it.


----------



## Studio7Four (Nov 11, 2010)

I assume that you signed contracts for those weddings you acted as second shooter - what did they say about copyright ownership?  In the absence of a contract yielding those rights to him I believe this situation is no different from any client hiring you to shoot.  You own the copyright to those images unless explicitly transferred.  To expand upon this logic, if the primary photographer owns the copyright because he paid the secondary shooter, then in fact the bride and groom would own the copyright because they paid the primary.  I don't think there's anyone on this forum who would suggest that that is the case.  (Especially for wedding photos, the photographer may allow the couple to have practically unlimited reproduction rights, but this is also not a yielding of the copyright.)

The difference with the software example, mjhoward, is that I'm willing to bet that you signed either an employment agreement (when you were hired on as an employee of a company) or a contract (if you work as an independent contractor) that explicitly states something along the lines of "all intellectual property developed on Company time/using Company resources become the product of the Company."  I work as a mechanical engineer and I've had to sign such employment agreements at each company I've worked for.


----------



## radosb1920 (Nov 11, 2010)

_I did not sign anythin_g. I just showed up the days that he needed me, took pictures, gave him my card to extract the photos for use however way he seemed fit (albums, proofs, advertising, whatever he wanted to do).  He would then return the card to me untouched with the photos still on the card.


----------



## Rosshole (Nov 11, 2010)

Let him sue you, unless it isn't worth the bad "press", or reputation you may receive from telling him to piss off.


----------



## Studio7Four (Nov 11, 2010)

radosb1920 said:


> _I did not sign anythin_g.



I don't think he has a leg to stand on.  



radosb1920 said:


> I just showed up the days that he needed me, took pictures, gave him my card to extract the photos for use however way he seemed fit (albums, proofs, advertising, whatever he wanted to do).  He would then return the card to me untouched with the photos still on the card.



If he were that concerned about "his" copyright he would have erased the images from your card when he extracted them. (And this confirms that the images you are using are either straight-out-of-camera or with your processing, so I don't see how he can put a claim to them.)  It sounds to me like he is a bit insecure and can't handle competition so he's trying to put hurdles in your way.


----------



## KmH (Nov 11, 2010)

How can he hire you as a contracted worker, *if you don't sign a contract*. 





> I DID NOT SIGN A THING.


 
Go to www.copyright.gov and search for the rules that define "work-for-hire".

Based on what you have stated and my understanding of "work-for-hire", you own the copyrights to all the images you made, and he cannot sell images *you made* without your permission. Further, he can't use your images for his self-publishing or self-promotion without your permission.

Unfortunately, until you register your copyrights with the US Copyright Office you cannot do much legally. Even then there is a limited window, 3 months.

Since you never signed any documentation, you would even have trouble prevaling in civil court persuing breach of contract.

I continue to be totally amazed at the number of working photographers that seem to be totally clueless about copyright, which is the only tangible asset they have to sell, and the most basic of business concepts, like having a contract.

Your next step should be to schedule a consultation with an attorney versed in intellectual property law. If someone uses your photo without your permission, don&#8217;t sit on your copyright claim.


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 11, 2010)

Well look (or read)....
Don't know about your background but based on your Q you haven't been in the business long enough.
First of all, there's such thing called professional courteous where you as a newbee should have asked if you were allowed to use HIS jobs for your demo purposes. 
Second, clients allow HIM (studio owner) to use images for publicity purposes.
So overall - they aren't yours even if you shot the whole job - think film: you shoot it, deliver it to studio owner and never see the job again unless you ask to see the prints.
Fact that you guys got into a battle doesn't help the situation, but you should take them down. If I'd put another photog's pics on my site W/O asking and he/she found out about it, I'd be blacklisted for studios in the area even if shot the jobs free, all because you broke an unspoken agreement. Hence, it shows that you haven't been in the business long enough. 
His mistake was, taking in to account your lack of knowledge and telling you NOT to use them and rather giving you HIS cards to shoot on.

In this business people get screwed all the time but self respect and honesty will get you a long way. Business isn't what it used to be, clients don't care about work that goes into it as can be seen here so least you can do, is respect the business, the laws (guidelines), let it be a lesson to you and move on.

Good Luck


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 11, 2010)

He won't sue.  And he shouldn't have to.  _Of course_ he has a right to sell the images.

Let's for just a moment forget about law.  Let's talk about what's reasonable.  I have to believe that you went and shot with him knowing full well he would offer the images for sale right along with the ones he made personally.

I'm making a presumption here...  did he not pay you for the job?

Any image made under the direction of, or the employ of another...  well you can't really claim it as yours.  It simply isn't a honest assertion.  I wouldn't think you believe it is.  He asked you to help him, you did, he paid you, you give him the images.  Did you really expect it would be any different?

As for you using the images for self-promotion...  I think you should respect his wishes.  It doesn't matter if he gives you any more work or not.  What matters is who you are and how you behave.  He shot himself in the foot.  Why not take the high road and move on?

I've never had a written contract with any of my helpers.  We simply discuss these sort of things and come to an agreement.  Of course I'm gonna sell his work.  What else would be the point?  I try to be fair.  I do explicitly express that he can use the images for self promotion.  At the same time, I know he wouldn't represent any work he did under my direct supervision as his own.  This part we didn't discuss, but I know him to be a man of integrity.

-Pete


----------



## modlife (Nov 11, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> ...I do explicitly express that he can use the images for self promotion.  At the same time, I know he wouldn't represent any work he did under my direct supervision as his own.  This part we didn't discuss, but I know him to be a man of integrity.
> 
> -Pete



Pete - it sounds like you have a good, ethical head on your shoulders. I agree with everything up until the part about your second having the integrity to not use the photos you explicitly said he could just a few words prior, for self-promotion. I'm not with you on that. If I pay a second without a contract I credit them on the site, lift them up as the shooter and EXPECT them to use the work to self-promote. 

Then again, I am a business man and ALWAYS get a contract.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 11, 2010)

modlife said:


> I agree with everything up until the part about your second having the integrity to not use the photos you explicitly said he could just a few words prior,...



I suppose I wasn't quite clear.  What I mean is:  if I put the camera on the tripod, set the exposure, and have him trip the shutter while I'm posing...  OR...  if I direct him to grab his wide lens, jump in the limo and do some program mode spray-n-pray...  well, that's not really his work.

But if I...  well....  send him after the groom and tell him to get some stuff with the best man, then that's HIS work.

Like I said...  the fellow who helps me now is a level-headed, reasonable guy.  He knows what's his work and what's mine.  So do I.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 11, 2010)

modlife said:


> Then again, I am a business man and ALWAYS get a contract.




I'm a business man too.  When I said we discuss things and come to an agreement...  that's a contract too.  I know...  it's not in writing, but it is a contract.  And if he's not a man of his word, his signature is just as worthless.

-Pete


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 11, 2010)

> And if he's not a man of his word, his signature is just as worthless.


I LOVE THAT LINE!!! :thumbup:


----------



## radosb1920 (Nov 11, 2010)

Thanks for all the input everyone.  
I know this is business and I should be choosing my actions with integrity, but I think it is noteworthy to stress that he acted unprofessionally with me 3 seperate times.  He gave me a list of days that he needed me, I made those days available to help him and made sure i didn't book anything those days.  Each time I would call him a few days before to gather some info, and all three times he said he didn't need me he got another shooter, but he would never even give a courtesy call to let me know. So yes @IgsEMT, integrity is an issue here, but there should be some courtesy towards the employee as well.  I may be unexperienced in _this business_, but I know as a boss of another business, that common courtesy towards your employees goes a _long long way_.  And as for my experience with photography, i think my pictures speak for themselves photography . All of my work is my own creative take, he gave me free reign to get whatever shot I want and he barely taught me anything. You all must know, it is difficult to generate business without a portfolio (especially in this business climate).  About 65% of my wedding portfolio was shot while working for him and without those shots it will be really difficult for me to promote myself and grow...Im pretty sure he is just seeing me as competition and wants to put a few obstacles in my way.


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 11, 2010)

Building portfolio is difficult, however, today it is MUCH easier then 10yrs ago.
Think 10yrs from now, you're hiring someone to work for you and they use YOUR job for self promotion - book a 5k contract b/c you were the one who told them where to stand, ON YOUR JOB, how to pose, ON YOUR JOB and B&G were the most delightful couple... how would you feel about it? or better yet, how would YOUR B&G feel IF they were to find out - go to this newbee and order prints for half price, let's say, then you would charge. He's sell it b/c wants *own* clients and want to make extra $.
It seems that you made out your mind already before posting here. Pretty much everyone told you to take it down and yet you're saying how much of a jerk he is. He screwed you - fine, you feel pissed/hurt- fine, He is a jerk - FINE  (by the way who is he, just want to make sure I don't work for the same  jerk  ) but you're *better* then that, I hope.


----------



## Christie Photo (Nov 11, 2010)

radosb1920 said:


> I know ... I should be choosing my actions with integrity, but I think it is noteworthy to stress that he acted unprofessionally...



And he's a jerk.  I'm guessing you're ten times the man he'll ever be.  Business or not, this guy is no one you want to associate with in any way.

I've met some like him.  When they hire someone, they act as they bought their soul.  You don't need him in your life.

But don't loose sight of who you want to be.  Decide what you can live with.  If this is one you feel you have to fight, then stick to your guns.  But if you can write this off as an unfortunate experience, then wipe his dust from your feet and continue your journey.

Best of luck.

-Pete


----------



## radosb1920 (Nov 12, 2010)

As much as I dislike the guy, Im not out to hinder his business, nor am I trying to take business away from him.  And this is silly, but after I complained to him about the jobs he screwed me out of, he then "unfriended" me on facebook...apparently he doesnt care about burning bridges with me.  I guess I am partially venting here and I thank you all for your insights.  I need to think this over a bit...


----------



## KmH (Nov 12, 2010)

At this point I would really like to hear his version of this story.


----------



## fudsylow (Dec 5, 2010)

Food for thought... from personal experience..
I shot about 30 weddings on a freelance basis when I first started out. Film. Shoot it, give it back to the studio, get paid. Simple.
Put an ad in the newspaper to source my own clients. First client ? Sat with them for an interview, didn't show them a single wedding image I had captured. How ? Told them that for ETHICAL and COPYRIGHT reasons, I was unable to show them my wedding images I had captured for the studio and to represent them as my own. What I did do, was not bite the hand that fed me, and try to profit from weddings that the studio had booked, and paid me to do.....
It is simple ethics.... you should not be using images that you captured at somebody elses wedding, without the permission of that photographer who employed you to capture them.
Respect his wishes, take them down, and go get your own clients ethically and proudly display your OWN work to all future clients....
Takes some time, but it is the right thing to do.


----------



## PetsPhotography (Dec 6, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> > And if he's not a man of his word, his signature is just as worthless.
> 
> 
> I LOVE THAT LINE!!! :thumbup:


 
Sounds good, but it's not true. A signature on a contract is going to be worth a lot to the judge.


----------



## PetsPhotography (Dec 6, 2010)

radosb1920 said:


> I think it is noteworthy to stress that he acted unprofessionally with me 3 seperate times. He gave me a list of days that he needed me, I made those days available to help him and made sure i didn't book anything those days. Each time I would call him a few days before to gather some info, and all three times he said he didn't need me he got another shooter, but he would never even give a courtesy call to let me know.


 
Well after the first time, is it really his fault or yours??


----------



## Christie Photo (Dec 6, 2010)

PetsPhotography said:


> IgsEMT said:
> 
> 
> > > And if he's not a man of his word, his signature is just as worthless.
> ...




Oh, but it is true.  All a judge can do is re-affirm what what we already knew...  signature or not.  If you're dealing with a less-than-scrupulous person, it's time to part company.

-Pete


----------



## Paul Ron (Dec 6, 2010)

[/QUOTE]It is simple ethics.... you should not be using images that you captured at somebody elses wedding, without the permission of that photographer who employed you to capture them.
Respect his wishes, take them down, and go get your own clients ethically and proudly display your OWN work to all future clients....
Takes some time, but it is the right thing to do.
[/QUOTE]


What seems to missing here, as hinted in the above post, is who has the client's contract. The client is the customer of the primary photographer and you are his employee. You accepted money to do a job, that makes a contract with certain expectations of the scope of your employ. You were hired to shoot pictures at a wedding for the cutomer that hired the primary photogrpaher, not his helpers. Your work is now his to fill his customer's contract, wedding pictures.If your pictures came out lousey and he lost certain shots are you goiong to take the blame n pay him for damages? No, the primary eats the damages since you are only a helper, not liable to the primary contract of the customer. Who gets sued or loses the client? YOU... as a result of your neglegence?

Now, if you want to use the pics as "your" examples, you should then use the primary photographer as your reference to your prospective customer, who in turn will vouch for you and show your work under his business title but is not obligated to do so as the primary that hired you for that job. After all it is his customer, not yours so you have no right displaying it as your work when you were never hired by the client to shoot the wedding. 

OH and any customers generated as a result of your displaying that wedding should be the primary phtogs, not yours, since he was contracted to shoot that job and it represents the quality of HIS work, not yours. 

Now go get our own customers n stop trying to screw the primary that gave you the opotunity to make some money n get some experiance. 


.


----------



## PetsPhotography (Dec 7, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> PetsPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > IgsEMT said:
> ...


 
The character of a man aside... a signature on a contract is the key to one party or the other collecting some money. Verbal agreements can be binding but difficult to prove.

Im the case at hand... two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Christie Photo (Dec 7, 2010)

PetsPhotography said:


> ...a signature on a contract is the key to one party or the other collecting some money.



A signature on a contract is the key to winning a JUDGEMENT.

COLLECTING money is a whole other action.

I "get" what you're saying.  

What I'm saying is the character of a man IS what matters.  Would any sensible person enter into an agreement, with or without a signed contract, if it's likely the other party has no intention of keeping his word?

In the matter here (second shooters at weddings), if either photographer is not trustworthy, it doesn't matter what agreement is made...  verbal or written.

-Pete


----------



## ghache (Dec 7, 2010)

hes affraid that if he sells more of the shots you took than the shoots he took, you will get the referal business of these clients if they find out through your portfolio that YOU took the shots. Hes insecure.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 7, 2010)

Things may have changed but the last time I checked an oral contract was as legal as a written one. The problem with an oral one is proving what was in the contract... Unless you have witnesses, you're pretty much SOOL and that is why doing business on a handshake has gotten so rare.

Now, you live in the US, a country "ruled" by lawyers and the country with the most laws on the books, so you need to learn to play the law game. And the first thing to understand about the law is that what it says and how it is interpreted in the courts are 2 very different things.

Although it is correct that a reading of the "work for hire" law does not seem to make this such a case, I strongly believe that that is exactly how it would be seen by the courts. In favor of the studio.

And it would be helped by how things worked in the film days. As mentioned by one response, in the film days you would have handed your films to the studio (contracted shooter) and that would have been the end of it. You would have owned nothing more than a pay check for the day. In today's world, a good lawyer would use this to show established custom in the wedding photography market... and you would lose if sued.

But no matter what the law is or is not, I have to agree with Pete. This, to me, is more a case of personal ethics than one of law. You shot for this man, handed over the images, end of story. Get over it.

Whatever else is going on between you two is another story altogether although I can understand his reaction. I wouldn't be happy with you either.


Now, you have another legal problem here even though I don't think anyone mentioned it. Do you have model releases to use the wedding shots on your website?

This of course is another murky area of photo law but a website can and will be construed as an advertisement by anyone wanting to sue you over illegal use of their image. Could they win? That, as usual, will depend on who's got the best lawyer, lol.


Oh, by the way, why are you using wedding shots on your website if you are not trying to take business away from him? If you are trying to book weddings, that is exactly what you are doing.


----------



## RL. (Dec 12, 2010)

Unless explicitly stated/understood by both parties the rights to the photos to belong to the person who took them regardless of circumstance...whether under the employ of someone else or not.  Thinking the "primary" own the copyrights to images his second shot when it was not made clear or legitimized in writing is presumptuous and ridiculous.


----------



## RL. (Dec 12, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Things may have changed but the last time I checked an oral contract was as legal as a written one. The problem with an oral one is proving what was in the contract... Unless you have witnesses, you're pretty much SOOL and that is why doing business on a handshake has gotten so rare.
> 
> Now, you live in the US, a country "ruled" by lawyers and the country with the most laws on the books, so you need to learn to play the law game. And the first thing to understand about the law is that what it says and how it is interpreted in the courts are 2 very different things.
> 
> ...



While I do agree he should give the raw images over to the primary, I think he still retains ownership and thus should be able to display them in his site.  Also, just because he books a wedding does not necessarily mean he is taking business away from "that guy" as much as taco bell is taking burger king's business because I chose to eat there on a particular day.  Maybe I just don't like burger king, or american food in general, or perhaps I've never heard of burger king or there wasn't a burkger king when I was looking for food...see how logic goes(burger king = a metaphor for "that guy" aka primary shooter).


----------



## FiveAlarmPhotography (Dec 13, 2010)

I would just go talk to a lawyer and tell him your situation.


----------

