# Copyright notice



## Newtricks (Mar 13, 2014)

Started taking head-shots for a start-up talent agency, I'm not on their payroll, work for cash and when I choose (I believe this would fall under independent contractor). My question; Would it be proper to put a copyright notice on the files I provide them?

If so where should it be placed and at what opacity?

Anthony

ps I've researched tax & SSI issues.


----------



## Overread (Mar 13, 2014)

By all means in the meta-data for the files you can put your copyright and contact information if you want. That is assuming that in the contract you've signed with them you retain copyright (ergo you're not signing it over to them). If you have not retained copyright then clearly don't do it - if its unmentioned in the contract consider that an important aspect to raise - you want to know exactly where you stand as do they.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 13, 2014)

Overread said:


> if its unmentioned in the contract consider that an important aspect to raise - you want to know exactly where you stand as do they.



Working under a verbal contract (with three impartial witnesses to the deal). When asked about copyright, my contact had no idea what I was talking about, so I asked... may I use/publish the photos in any manner I choose, the answer was yes and we agreed that I retain ownership of all images and they are only allowed to use said images for the promotion of their clients based on the fee paid per shoot. I understand this needs to be righting but know nothing about wording  a contract (and can't afford an attorney).

Anthony


----------



## Braineack (Mar 13, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > if its unmentioned in the contract consider that an important aspect to raise - you want to know exactly where you stand as do they.
> ...




dont worry, khm will post a link for you shortly.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 13, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > if its unmentioned in the contract consider that an important aspect to raise - you want to know exactly where you stand as do they.
> ...


Worth the paper it's printed on and no more!  Write it down, just as you discussed it.  Running things by a lawyer is always a good plan, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.  There are a million examples on line that you can amend to suit your requirements, but get a signature down on paper, JUST IN CASE.  As far as your copyright, if you can get away with a "© Your company name" on the image, I would definitely do it, probably lower, right-hand corner 20% opacity and of course all of your information embedded in the meta data.
©


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> I would definitely do it, probably lower, right-hand corner 20% opacity and of course all of your information embedded in the meta data.
> ©



Ownership & copyright info imbedded in the metadata of every image I take.

Anthony


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 13, 2014)

I've been looking at various on-line contracts today, non of which seem to cover nor can they be altered to cover what I am doing. With an 8th grade education I'm behind the eight-ball.


----------



## KmH (Mar 13, 2014)

You'll also need to keep '_valid in California_' model releases on file if you want to publish or otherwise use the photos to promote yourself.
Like model release law, contract law can also vary by state.
Using generic found-it-inline contracts and model release can in the future jump up and rip your face off.

You didn't need to raise the question about copyright. As you determined you are an independent contractor.
In business it is often better to forgo discussing some topics.
Even if you are an employee, there has to be a signed document, like an employment agreement, that stipulates who owns the copyright to any images an employee produces.

Verbal contracts are legally binding. The trouble with verbal agreements is that later the verbal agreement specifics often change in the mind of 1 or more of the parties involved. If you wind up in court it's a crap shoot.

Doing business without a written contract is like driving a race car while not wearing seat belts.
A contract doesn't have to be a bunch of legal talk. Just word process the agreement in plain english, print sufficient copies for everyone that needs one, and have everyone sign each others copy.

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 13, 2014)

I really am at a disadvantageous here (thank fortune for spell check), dropped out of school after the 9th grade, took the GED & ASVAB and was offered schooling from every branch of the military. I get numbers, I see reason, I Do Not Get People... regardless of my desire to understand my piers, I am an outsider.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 13, 2014)

This really sounds like a mess waiting to happen.

I think it would have made more sense to provide them with the copyright while you retain the right to use the images for promotion. Unless the images have intrinsic value, this arrangement only makes sense in this situation.


----------



## skieur (Mar 13, 2014)

Use steganography and hide the verbal contract info. in the photo.


----------



## Overread (Mar 13, 2014)

A few thoughts;

1) Nearly all clients won't want to "see" copyright on paid for photos - your watermark will not be wanted on any delivered prints nor finished digital files - unless you've agreed to this prior to sending them. Otherwise stick to the meta-data. The only time you'd want to have copyright watermarks is on proofs so that they are disinclined to use them without paying for the full versions

2) Contracts are simply documents that clearly state what each party is agreeing to in full on paper which are then signed. They need not be highly complex documents; just clearly written. At the core of a contract is an agreement, plus you can work in protections for yourself and the other party. 

You may find that it could be easier for you to consult a lawyer on this matter, even if its just to proof-read your written agreement before you and the other party sign it. 

Verbal contracts are legally binding and having witnesses does help - but honestly each person at the agreement will walk away with a slightly different memory of the event and weeks or months down the line might have vastly different memories as to what the specifics are; that's without people trying to add things or twist them. The only time a verbal contract would be "safe" would be if it were recorded as at least then you'd have a clear single version of the events that isn't going to be susceptible to changing its mind or forgetting content (and can be easily referenced after the agreement and also used in court).


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 13, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> Started taking head-shots for a start-up talent agency, I'm not on their payroll, work for cash and when I choose (I believe this would fall under independent contractor). My question; Would it be proper to put a copyright notice on the files I provide them?
> 
> If so where should it be placed and at what opacity?
> 
> ...



Not sure about copyrights but congrats on the job. I'm glad you found a legit company this time. Hope that last one that offered you a job went out of business. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/350684-been-offered-job.html#post3147227


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 13, 2014)

Newtricks, you are doing a perfectly good job of explaining yourself and the agreement in writing to us, here on this forum, in my opinion. If you went ahead and wrote it up as you remember it, I (and I'm sure most others) would be happy to proof it and give feedback, if you can't afford a professional. Then ask your partner to look over it and see if it's how they remember things, and if so sign it.

Although you should know that lawyers aren't necessarily as expensive as you think. Lots of them do free work for people in need, especially if it's as easy as just looking over a sheet of paper for wording. Worth a couple of phone calls to find out, at least.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 14, 2014)

Overread said:


> 1) Nearly all clients won't want to "see" copyright on paid for photos - your watermark will not be wanted on any delivered prints nor finished digital files - unless you've agreed to this prior to sending them. Otherwise stick to the meta-data. The only time you'd want to have copyright watermarks is on proofs so that they are disinclined to use them without paying for the full versions.



I understand.



Overread said:


> 2) Contracts are simply documents that clearly state what each party is agreeing to in full on paper which are then signed. They need not be highly complex documents; just clearly written. At the core of a contract is an agreement, plus you can work in protections for yourself and the other party.



I understand.



Overread said:


> Verbal contracts are legally binding and having witnesses does help - but honestly each person at the agreement will walk away with a slightly different memory of the event and weeks or months down the line might have vastly different memories as to what the specifics are; that's without people trying to add things or twist them. The only time a verbal contract would be "safe" would be if it were recorded as at least then you'd have a clear single version of the events that isn't going to be susceptible to changing its mind or forgetting content (and can be easily referenced after the agreement and also used in court).



I understand this and the varying memory thing is what is troubling me.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 14, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Newtricks, you are doing a perfectly good job of explaining yourself and the agreement in writing to us, here on this forum...



Thanks, not always sure if I'm being clear.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 14, 2014)

There's info. about contracts etc. on American Society of Media Photographers ; I have a book with sample forms that I found out about on their site (the author is Tad Crawford, can't think of the name offhand). If you might be continuing to need to do contracts, maybe it would be worth looking into taking an adult ed. or continuing ed. course on reading or writing skills so you're better able to make sure a contract makes sense and is well written, etc.


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 14, 2014)

Anything you need to know about copy rights is right here..... U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 14, 2014)

Just keep in mind, verbal agreements are usually valid for 30 days.  But of course that is only good if the parties agree upon what was agreed upon.  After that it's all can be trashed, with or without witnesses as each person may have their own interpretation / understanding of what was discussed.

If you can't afford a lawyer, and are perplexed by everything else stated here, just write down in simple bullet points of what you believe the contractual obligations are.
Then a paragraph above of the services you are offering per the below obligations.  This includes what you and your client can do with the photographs. Financial obligations, et.
Then a signing area below for both parties.

This is not a substitute for a nice thorough agreement reviewed / created by a lawyer but it at least provides some more defined scope of a contract so both can be of some specific understanding.

anytime you look at those large contracts just simplify them.  Break then down into sections and understand what each section is about.  Then they become alot more simplier to write/ modify and understand.

Good luck, and good job getting a job like that.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 14, 2014)

Braineack said:


> dont worry, khm will post a link for you shortly.





KmH said:


> Doing business without a written contract is like driving a race car while not wearing seat belts.
> A contract doesn't have to be a bunch of legal talk. Just word process the agreement in plain english, print sufficient copies for everyone that needs one, and have everyone sign each others copy.
> 
> A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things



:thumbup:


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

Read up on liability/model/property releases yesterday on the ASMP website, at first I was thinking the portfolio release might be best for me... then I started thinking, well maybe not. Retire from the motion picture industry I get my health care at the motion picture hospital, there are photo's on and off set of actors dating to the 1920's on the walls there. The last job I did was shooting a lovely young woman who has been in 8 films to date, started thinking the photos I take now could be of interest 60 years from now and a full release might be a better option. What are your thoughts?

ps Not for myself but my son, niece and or grandchildren.


----------



## deveaushawn (Mar 16, 2014)

Geography and politics aside, in Canada, I don't believe adding copyright info to metadata in a photo is sufficient to secure copyright. 

I am a poet and a musician. When I write a poem or a song, copyright exists automatically; however, registering my work with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (for $50 per work!) gives me a certificate stating that I am the owner, which can be used in court as evidence of ownership.

It is much more difficult (perhaps even impossible) to prove ownership without the work being registered.

Does the same hold true for photographs?


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

deveaushawn said:


> Geography and politics aside, in Canada, I don't believe adding copyright info to metadata in a photo is sufficient to secure copyright.



Funny thing, copyright is assumed here in he US, posting copyright information on an original work (even in metadata) is enough, at least from what I've read.



deveaushawn said:


> I am a poet and a musician.



I'm a magician as well, play banjo, fiddle and guitar.




deveaushawn said:


> It is much more difficult (perhaps even impossible) to prove ownership without the work being registered. Does the same hold true for photographs?



I'd like to think not when talking about digital imagery, because the metadata in the RAW file clearly shows when the image was taken and by whom.

Anthony


----------



## manaheim (Mar 16, 2014)

You do not need more than an 8th grade education to handle this.  You're asking the right questions, and as long as you have a couple bucks you can always hire professionals (lawyers) to help.  Even if you DON'T have a couple bucks, most lawyers are involved in programs where they give free help on a periodic basis and may be able to lend a hand.


----------



## deveaushawn (Mar 16, 2014)

Newtricks said:


> Funny thing, copyright is assumed here in he US, posting copyright information on an original work (even in metadata) is enough, at least from what I've read.



Copyright is assumed here as well, however, proving it in court is another matter. 

I haven't looked into copyrighting images, but I suspect that metadata may be sufficient if a photo can be traced back to the actual camera that took the shot?


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Even if you DON'T have a couple bucks, most lawyers are involved in programs where they give free help on a periodic basis and may be able to lend a hand.



Talking to my sister yesterday I learned one of our old school friends is an attorney, I wouldn't presume to ask him for free help with this matter, but asking for a break on his normal fee isn't beyond me.

Anthony


----------



## bribrius (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't know enough about this either. kind of a mess.  I have my name and copy write embedded, but im not sure what good it does. It is done in camera. But The photo can still be copied? so not sure what good copy write embedding does. Also copy write on in camera so anything I export (like to here) that im not concerned about I have it set up to remove copywrite information in processing. so it goes on, and comes off again as why send copywrite on everything? no water marks yet, as I still haven't found a program I can put on watermarks for free with or (ill admit) I have taken enough time to work on finding one and doing it. Part of the reason I keep better photos for myself. I think im paranoid no copywrite or watermark I will have photos I take floating around the net for free and im not sure how I feel about that.


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

manaheim said:


> You do not need more than an 8th grade education to handle this.  You're asking the right questions...



Thanks! I dropped out of school because I was bored... not because I didn't get it.


----------



## deveaushawn (Mar 16, 2014)

Not to muddy the waters, but the following pertains to copyright in Canada. We aren't so different from our southern neighbours, so it might be wise to check your state/federal laws regarding copyright.



> *Copyright on photos and other commissioned work*
> 
> Unlike other Canadian independent creators (creators who are not employees), photographers are NOT automatically the first owners of copyright in their work. Canada's copyright law singles out photographs and some other types of commissioned artistic works for different treatment.
> 
> ...



Source: CAPIC - The Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators, Canadian Photographers, Canadian Illustrators, Photography, Illustration


----------



## KmH (Mar 16, 2014)

Canadian copyright law was recently revised to be more similar to US copyright law.
What is quoted above may now be out of date.
For the current specifics regarding Canada copyright law visit - Copyright Act

_*Note the changes to section 13*_.



> *Ownership of copyright*
> 
> 
> *13.* (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
> (2) [Repealed, 2012, c. 20, s. 7]





> _Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act states that the copyright owner is the one who commissions and pays for the engraving, photograph or portrait. In other words, provided a client or buyer commissions the production of a photograph and pays for such a work, the client/buyer automatically holds the copyright on the photograph and/or engraving - not the photographer or person who created the engraving - unless the buyer and photographer/creator have an agreement to the contrary. The Copyright Act applies this provision to a portrait or other original created on a commission basis, but doesn't specifically define what types of commissioned illustrations this includes.. _


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

I've been looking for Cali4nia specific copy right and Model release law with little to no success.


----------



## KmH (Mar 16, 2014)

Copyright law is federal law, so none of it is specific to California and applies equally to all states.

For California model/property release law -  Find California Code


----------



## Newtricks (Mar 16, 2014)

KmH said:


> Copyright law is federal law, so none of it is specific to California and applies equally to all states.
> 
> For California model/property release law -  Find California Code



Thanks, you've proved to be of invaluable help.


----------



## wendelkerick (Mar 20, 2014)

what if we mention the details in the source (a click able link to the website from where the stuff is taken). 
Does this can change anything?


----------



## Gavjenks (Mar 20, 2014)

wendelkerick said:


> what if we mention the details in the source (a click able link to the website from where the stuff is taken).
> Does this can change anything?


Not for most uses for a default copyright, no. If not specified, all photos are "all rights reserved" which simple attribution is not enough to let you use.

Attribution only makes it officially okay if the owner waived some of their rights by specifically publishing the photo with a special license that says it is allowed to be used with attribution only.
For example, the Attribution-NonCommercial Creative Commons license specifies that you can freely use photos published with that license for anything non-commercial in exchange for merely providing attribution.

But the source has to go out of its way to SAY "hey this is an attribution-NonCommercial CC license photo" or whatever. If it doesn't, then no dice.


----------

