Copyright question

[natatbeach]

Who would images be copyrighted to if:

[LIST]

1. You are employed by a photo studio
2. You take test shots off the clock with compensation being dinner while still employed with above mentioned studio( and do all retouching and digital enahncements that the studio does not offer in house---they usually sent it out)
3. Test shots are used for promotional purposes while employed at studio since company does not offer "on Location" photography
4. Because of your images ---as told to you by a district manager and VP of the company. They get approval from the owner of the national company to start on location photography because of the images taken
5. You no longer work for the company and they are using images from that session
6. Do you have any rights to use any of the photographs for your personal use to promote yourself?

So there's the dilemma ny help is much appreciated.
nat

[Ronnoco]

In some general labour laws, the employer is required to provide dinner, depending on hours worked around the supper hour. In any respect, dinner is considered more like an honorarium, like $200 for giving a speech or doing a presentation. Honorariums are often not-taxible and considered a gift rather than employee wages.

It can therefore be considered that you were NOT paid for doing the photography, since you were not paid overtime wages, despite the free dinner, which may not even have been a gift or compensation, if it was required under labour laws. On that basis you as the first owner of copyright to your photos, would retain those rights and could therefore use those photos in any way, you see fit.

Ronnoco

[adina]

Did the studio set up the session? Were the shots taken specifically for the studio?

[drg]

The million dollar question is what was the nature of your employment?

If it is their equipment, at their behest, and they provided the equipment for post processing, they usually will have 'first rights' to any usage of the photographs.

Were you working under 'at will employment' or under a written contract? If you were ever given a written offer of employment, and it referred to policies of the corporation, therein will lie the answers.

Most studio employees generally are performing 'work-for-hire' and cede all rights to the studio particularly those that stamp some corporate name on the image.

A special case as you have described sounds as if it would fall under the new business/research/development area and still you would be left with little recourse.

Most reputable companies will allow for some 'selected' images to be used for portfolio use or at least provide some references.

[Ronnoco]

The million dollar question is what was the nature of your employment?

If it is their equipment, at their behest, and they provided the equipment for post processing, they usually will have 'first rights' to any usage of the photographs.

Were you working under 'at will employment' or under a written contract? If you were ever given a written offer of employment, and it referred to policies of the corporation, therein will lie the answers.

Most studio employees generally are performing 'work-for-hire' and cede all rights to the studio particularly those that stamp some corporate name on the image.

A special case as you have described sounds as if it would fall under the new business/research/development area and still you would be left with little recourse.

Most reputable companies will allow for some 'selected' images to be used for portfolio use or at least provide some references.

If you have signed a contract of employment, giving up your rights, then you made an error. It makes sense to add or change wording to any contract of employment as a photographer to make sure that it fits with what are the general rights of photographers to the use of their work. It can be done with no problems, but to justify it, you need to know your rights in law and be confident enough to demand that those rights be respected by your employer.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

The million dollar question is what was the nature of your employment?

If it is their equipment, at their behest, and they provided the equipment for post processing, they usually will have 'first rights' to any usage of the photographs.

Were you working under 'at will employment' or under a written contract? If you were ever given a written offer of employment, and it referred to policies of the corporation, therein will lie the answers...

Legally, it does not matter, who owns the equipment, the first owner of copyright is the one who took the picture. Whether you took it at "their behest" or not is equally irrelevant, if they did not PAY you to take the photo. As I already pointed out, dinner does not constitute pay.

Policies of the corporation are equally irrelevant in LAW. If you were not paid in time or per photo to take the picture, then, it is your photo and your copyright, unless you have been sufficiently careless to give up your rights in writing.

You would have been "shortsighted" to sign a contract of employment that specified that any photo whatever that you took during your period of employment belonged to them, whether you were paid or not. If you did NOT do something that "@#+++" then the rights belong to you.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Did the studio set up the session? Were the shots taken specifically for the studio?

Also irrelevant! In law, the bottom line is: "Was the photographer specifically paid on a per photo basis or in salary for the time involved?"

The only other issue is: "Did the photographer sign away his rights as the first copyright holder in some contract and receive appropriate pay as a result?

Ronnoco

[Loupey]

If you have signed a contract of employment, giving up your rights, then you made an error. It makes sense to add or change wording to any contract of employment as a photographer to make sure that it fits with what are the general rights of photographers to the use of their work. It can be done with no problems, but to justify it, you need to know your rights in law and be confident enough to demand that those rights be respected by your employer.

Ronnoco

Come on, Ronnoco, be realistic! Contracts and policies are almost always a take-it-or-leave-it affair. I've hired hundreds of people (in non-photographic industries) and I've never once felt a need to change established contracts and policies for one person.

Nat, my advice would be talk to the studio in a friendly manner to explain your intent and understanding of the situation. I think there is only two outcomes:

1) they say "no" to you, everyone gets upset, lawyers are hired (lose-lose for everyone but the lawyers)
2) they say "yes" to you and both you and the studio get to share the rights (win-win)

If you have a feeling it's going to be #1 before even speaking to them, consider who will have deeper pockets to hire attorneys longer Even if they don't ultimately have a "case", anyone can make anyone else pay someone else big bucks to find that out. Just hope the studio doesn't have an attorney who is on-staff or is a friend of the owner who can work for them on a "favor".

[Ronnoco]

Come on, Ronnoco, be realistic! Contracts and policies are almost always a take-it-or-leave-it affair. I've hired hundreds of people (in non-photographic industries) and I've never once felt a need to change established contracts and policies for one person.

Nat, my advice would be talk to the studio in a friendly manner to explain your intent and understanding of the situation. I think there is only two outcomes:

1) they say "no" to you, everyone gets upset, lawyers are hired (lose-lose for everyone but the lawyers)
2) they say "yes" to you and both you and the studio get to share the rights (win-win)

If you have a feeling it's going to be #1 before even speaking to them, consider who will have deeper pockets to hire attorneys longer Even if they don't ultimately have a "case", anyone can make anyone else pay someone else big bucks to find that out. Just hope the studio doesn't have an attorney who is on-staff or is a friend of the owner who can work for them on a "favor".

Well, Loupey, I changed the wording on a Sears contract with no problem. Hiring lawyers is not always necessary either. Any para-legal can research state, federal, and case law in your particular area.

I agree about being nice and trying the positive win/win situation but in order to "negotiate" from any position of strength, it is necessary to know what your rights are. It depends on your situation too. Some photographers are sufficiently confident to be willing to deal with any situation as it develops and be assertive and polite too. Others are afraid to do anything that they feel, might jepardize their present position or their "reputation". Some more experienced photographers feel that the quality of their work trumps all other issues and if it doesn't in any particular situation, they will readily and easily find work elsewhere.

I suppose it depends on your personal integrity and whether and how much you are willing to compromise regarding your rights, pay, and working conditions to maintain a position with your present employer.

Ronnoco

[natatbeach]

In some general labour laws, the employer is required to provide dinner, depending on hours worked around the supper hour. In any respect, dinner is considered more like an honorarium, like $200 for giving a speech or doing a presentation. Honorariums are often not-taxible and considered a gift rather than employee wages.

It can therefore be considered that you were NOT paid for doing the photography, since you were not paid overtime wages, despite the free dinner, which may not even have been a gift or compensation, if it was required under labour laws. On that basis you as the first owner of copyright to your photos, would retain those rights and could therefore use those photos in any way, you see fit.

Ronnoco

that was my husbands take....since I was off the clock and asked "as a favor" ...thanks

[natatbeach]

The million dollar question is what was the nature of your employment?

If it is their equipment, at their behest, and they provided the equipment for post processing, they usually will have 'first rights' to any usage of the photographs.

Were you working under 'at will employment' or under a written contract? If you were ever given a written offer of employment, and it referred to policies of the corporation, therein will lie the answers.

Most studio employees generally are performing 'work-for-hire' and cede all rights to the studio particularly those that stamp some corporate name on the image.

A special case as you have described sounds as if it would fall under the new business/research/development area and still you would be left with little recourse.

Most reputable companies will allow for some 'selected' images to be used for portfolio use or at least provide some references.

all shots were post processed and equipment all belonged to me...I used my personal camera, memory card, and flas to take the images.... the contrcat spoke of images photographed at the store and for the store's use...it made no reference to pictures taken of employees as test shots ---since it was not a product that was being offered.

[natatbeach]

Come on, Ronnoco, be realistic! Contracts and policies are almost always a take-it-or-leave-it affair. I've hired hundreds of people (in non-photographic industries) and I've never once felt a need to change established contracts and policies for one person.

Nat, my advice would be talk to the studio in a friendly manner to explain your intent and understanding of the situation. I think there is only two outcomes:

1) they say "no" to you, everyone gets upset, lawyers are hired (lose-lose for everyone but the lawyers)
2) they say "yes" to you and both you and the studio get to share the rights (win-win)

If you have a feeling it's going to be #1 before even speaking to them, consider who will have deeper pockets to hire attorneys longer Even if they don't ultimately have a "case", anyone can make anyone else pay someone else big bucks to find that out. Just hope the studio doesn't have an attorney who is on-staff or is a friend of the owner who can work for them on a "favor".

Trying to work around having to ask because I already know how the owner of the company works and operates.... the answer would be no---I guess I was wondering if I even have to ask if it was something that was not specifically photographed for the business ---it turned into something poriftable for them as a result---of the session. doe staht make sense

[Ronnoco]

that was my husbands take....since I was off the clock and asked "as a favor" ...thanks

Your husband has good "legal sense".

Ronnoco