View Full Version : Help! Photography contract/legal stuff
Gerry1time
30-04-2007, 12:26
Am selling a painting of mine (but not by me) at the moment, and got a professional photographer to take a photo of it to get it printed on canvas in the same proportions, etc, so I've got a copy of it.
He said he liked it, and wanted to sell prints of it. I said absolutely no way, and he said ok, but i said i wanted him to sign something agreeing to this.
So, anyone know what wording i should use to ensure i hold all the rights to the photos of the image and he can't use them?
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:29
Am selling a painting of mine (but not by me) at the moment, and got a professional photographer to take a photo of it to get it printed on canvas in the same proportions, etc, so I've got a copy of it.
He said he liked it, and wanted to sell prints of it. I said absolutely no way, and he said ok, but i said i wanted him to sign something agreeing to this.
So, anyone know what wording i should use to ensure i hold all the rights to the photos of the image and he can't use them?
you in the uk?
if so sorry but the photographer owns his rights and unless previously agree he doens't have to ask you for permission to reproduce his art work; ie the photograph of your art work ie the painting...
get a contract signed before hand not after the fact.
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 12:30
As long as you paid him to take the pictures in the first place then you own the copyright.
Why not do a deal with him where he does sell prints of your picture. He may have more contacts than you and as you own the copyright of the photographs he did in your employ as it where you can make some money and so can he.
EDITED TO ADD I have just noticed the (but not by me) part of your post. Neither you nor the photographer can sell reproductions of that image as it belongs to the original artist. I thought you had painted the picture. Ignore the first part of my post. If the painter finds out you have sold the painting and made a photographic copy he or she may get the lawyers on the case.
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:33
As long as you paid him to take the pictures in the first place then you own the copyright.
Why not do a deal with him where he does sell prints of your picture. He may have more contacts than you and as you own the copyright of the photographs he did in your employ as it where you can make some money and so can he.
not if he hasn't signed a contract specifiying this he doesn't... the copyright of all images remains with the photogrpaher unless specifically stated as such in the uk...
As long as you paid him to take the pictures in the first place then you own the copyright.
Wrong.
Only true if you employ the photographer - contract of employment, pension, employment rights, PAYE and employer's national insurance, the lot.
Engaging a freelance is not at all the same thing.
Why not do a deal with him where he does sell prints of your picture. He may have more contacts than you and as you own the copyright of the photographs he did in your employ as it where you can make some money and so can he.
You could ask how much extra he'd charge to "assign" all rights in the photos to you. And if he agrees put that in writing.
Of course, though he owns the rights in the photos - until or unless he assigns them - he can't sell them without also getting a licence from the artist, who owns copyright in the painting (unless there was a contract assigning all rights to someone else, like you).
Yes, if you buy a painting off an artist, you own the physical object and have the right to hang it up - but not to sell tea-towels of the image, unless you negotiate that separately.
As (almost) always, there is more than one copyright in the work.
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 12:39
Laptop
I stand corrected on that I thought that paying a photographer to do work was the same as employing an in house photographer.
However if you look you will see I have already edited my post. It seems the painting was painted by someone else altogether so they are the copyright owner and neither the OP or the photographer has any rights therein.
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:40
EDITED TO ADD I have just noticed the (but not by me) part of your post. Neither you nor the photographer can sell reproductions of that image as it belongs to the original artist. I thought you had painted the picture. Ignore the first part of my post.
this is also incorrect...
photographic copyright
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.
museums copyrigth law (precident for photogrpahs of artistic works)
http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm
Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:
"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."
the museum lost the right to prevent corel from using a photogrpah of it's art work ...
I thought that paying a photographer to do work was the same as employing an in house photographer.
And Rupert Murdoch tries to pull the wool over naive photographers' eyes to the same effect :mad:
Hence emphatic response :)
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:44
Of course, though he owns the rights in the photos - until or unless he assigns them - he can't sell them without also getting a licence from the artist, who owns copyright in the painting (unless there was a contract assigning all rights to someone else, like you).
Wrong.
;)
a photogrpah of an art object is subejct to it's own copyright and publishign rights as it's a new 'art work' and therefore subject to all the same conditions as an original art work...
as i've said the whole premis of the bridgewater vs corel case was the museum wanted to say no we control the rights of the image regardless of the format corel said sod of it's a photo of the image we took, you don't have rights over it... they won (it was a case held int he usa but under english law and set's the precident in english law)
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 12:46
Cheers Laptop and Garfield.
Thinking about it a wedding photographer would not make a living if the client owned the copyright so it all makes sense. :)
Gerry1time
30-04-2007, 12:48
Cool, thanks all, so, am i right in thinking that neither of us own the copyright of the image then (certainly wasn't any contract assigning the rights of the image to me when i bought it)? In which case he can no more sell prints of it than i can?
He has said he won't, but would like to get him to sign something on this to which he has already agreed. So do we need to sign something that states that neither of us can sell prints of it?
e.t.a. since the new posts, i do have to get something assigning the rights of the photos to me too then?
a photogrpah of an art object is subejct to it's own copyright
Right. But not the only copyright
and publishign rights as it's a new 'art work' and therefore subject to all the same conditions as an original art work...
Wrong :mad:
photographic slides that the Library had made from original paintings which were in the public domain.
In other words, in that case in the Southern District of NY, the painter had been dead more than 70 years so rights in the painting had expired.
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:51
no probs get hold of the photogrpahers rights and have a look at the copyright site i posted up earlier....
just as no one in a public place has the right to make you delete photographs no one (Not police not public member no offical not securit guard not bouncer etc), indeed doing so is consdierd assault/destruction of property....
well worth it...
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Cut out and keep:
------
Wrong
------
Cut out and keep:
------
Wrong
------And some companions to the series:
------
Right
------
------
Possibly
------
------
Sorry I got it wrong
------
Gerry1time
30-04-2007, 12:55
So, erm, where do i stand?
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:55
Right. But not the only copyright
and reproduction rights you couldn't have a situation where you could resonably own the copyright but not the reproduction rights to anything ... rimply wouldn't work would it...
the reprodcution owner would go to make reporductions you'd say bugger off it's my copyright i don't give permission; covnersely you'd go to make reproductions and the reproductiosn owner would say bugger off you have to pay me x... neither of which is going to happen ....
In other words, in that case in the Southern District of NY, the painter had been dead more than 70 years so rights in the painting had expired.
fair point however it has been carried forward to all photographs of paintings regardless of age (unless you want to start a test case ;) :D)
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 12:57
So, erm, where do i stand?
first off you'd better tell us where you are in the world if you're not in the uk this is all abit pointless...
secondly seek professional legal advice not from a bunch of posters on a website...
you know what has acutally been said between you and the photogrpaher we can only go on what minimal facts we have here... and sumise the rest...
essentailly you could have done this before the shutter was fired in anger now it's a done job you're not going to be able to stop the photogrpaher doign what the hell they want with their shots....
So, erm, where do i stand?I don't think the photographer has any right to sell 'art' reproductions of work without the artist's prior consent, regardless of anything you might sign. Unless the artist's been dead for many decades, of course.
Seeing as you're not the artist, I don't think there's much you can do now though if the photographer wants to flog reproductions.
(awaits lots of large text in reply)
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 13:01
I have just clicked on the link provided by Garfield. http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm and find that a few paragraphs after this statement by a QC expert in copyright thus:
Following the report the Museums Copyright Group has obtained an opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC, a leading copyright specialist, who has no doubt that UK copyright law protects photographs of works of art:
"... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether ... the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting ..."
this final paragraph:
The decision is not binding on courts in the UK, nor is it of overwhelming authority in the USA, but it has caused great concern amongst the museum community which relies on income received from licensing photographic reproductions of objects and works in their collections. Museums are also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and integrity of image reproduction.
It looks like a case of the lawyers get rich while the rest of us pay.
you couldn't have a situation where you could resonably own the copyright but not the reproduction rights to anything ... rimply wouldn't work would it...
Happens all the time, and it does work.
I own a copyright in this post.
Say someone sets it to music. Others perform the piece.
I can't sell the musical version without licences from them as composer and performers.
Equally, they can't sell it without a licence from me as lyricist.
the reprodcution owner would go to make reporductions you'd say bugger off it's my copyright i don't give permission; covnersely you'd go to make reproductions and the reproductiosn owner would say bugger off you have to pay me x... neither of which is going to happen ....
Hardly surprising that I don't understand this, when it's an expression of your not understanding...
[Bridgeman -v- Corel] has been carried forward to all photographs of paintings regardless of age
Cite? Case law?
Gerry1time
30-04-2007, 13:02
Aha, right, so, I'm in the UK, we agreed before he took the photos that he wouldn't sell prints of them and that i could hold the rights to the photos.
and asking people i've never met about legal matters through the internet is a winning model to my mind!
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 13:19
Happens all the time, and it does work.
I own a copyright in this post.erm you don't accorrding to urbans copyright statment the editor owns it ;) and you agree it by signing up for the boards...
Say someone sets it to music. Others perform the piece.
I can't sell the musical version without licences from them as composer and performers.
Equally, they can't sell it without a licence from me as lyricist.
but say you did and this happened this would be covered under musical copyright... not under photogrpahic copyright/colaborative effort etc...
as i have already stated above the photogrpaher retains the rights to the photos copyright and licences unless otherwise state or is in employment (with cotnracts etc) you've even said this yourself....
Hardly surprising that I don't understand this, when it's an expression of your not understanding...
Ad hominens not withstanding... you're still wrong...
Cite? Case law? if you look at the quote you'll see it's appearent which case....
here's the information once again and it's chrolology form a different source...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
The ruling's citation of English and Welsh law prompted the Museums Copyright Group in the United Kingdom (UK) to issue a report on the case in 2004.[3] This concluded that the ruling "is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the United States. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums."
The Group went on to obtain supporting opinion from Jonathan Rayner James QC,[4] a leading copyright specialist who found that, "as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law, and that is so irrespective of whether...the subject of the photographs is more obviously a three dimensional work, such as a sculpture, or is perceived as a two dimensional artistic work, such as a drawing or a painting". UK museums therefore continue to claim copyright over photographic reproductions of items in their collections.[5]
however their claim is apprently untested as yet which is why i suggested that you make a test case if you feel up to it...
e2a link forgot it
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 13:21
Aha, right, so, I'm in the UK, we agreed before he took the photos that he wouldn't sell prints of them and that i could hold the rights to the photos.
in writing?
or jsut verbally...
and asking people i've never met about legal matters through the internet is a winning model to my mind!
nop eit means you're only ever gonna get generalist advice no law practioner would risk their rep or licence on this method of advice deleivery... and you'll also get trained advice (such as mine Laptop is the law bod here) with a general interset, or specific knowledge from experince...
erm you don't accorrding to urbans copyright statment the editor owns it ;) and you agree it by signing up for the boards...
Wrong.
The copyright statement says I own copyright in the post; editor owns copyright in the collection (the selection that is all the ubinned posts that are the u75 bbs).
but say you did and this happened this would be covered under musical copyright... not under photogrpahic copyright/colaborative effort etc...
Wrong.
The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 covers all works, whether written, photographic, painted, sung, banged out on tree trunks... on an equal footing.
Ad hominens not withstanding... you're still wrong...
Wrong.
Pointing out that you misunderstand is the opposite of an ad hominem.
if you look at the quote you'll see it's appearent which case....
Wrong.
Bridgeman -v- Corel dealt with photos of out-of-copyright paintings.
here's the information once again and it's chrolology form a different source...
Wrong.
The opinion from Jonathan Rayner James doesn't support your assertion about in-copyright paintings.
And [for the hard-of-thinking] a barrister's opinion doesn't make law: it can be described as an opinion on what the law would turn out to be if the campaign of the person commissioning it were successful :)
however their claim is apprently untested as yet which is why i suggested that you make a test case if you feel up to it...
Their claim is indeed untested.
But: Wrong. it has nothing to do with your claim about in-copyright paintigns. It's rejecting - campaigning against, in fact - the finding by the NY District Court that there's no copyright in the photo of a painting.
Is this a record?
Aha, right, so, I'm in the UK, we agreed before he took the photos that he wouldn't sell prints of them and that i could hold the rights to the photos.
So you have a contract. He's assigned the copyright to you.
(Actually, you only have a clear-cut contract if you paid him.)
Not something I'd ever advise a photographer to do, but hey.
If anyone's going to give permission for reproductions, they is you and the artist.
Of course, a contract in writing is easier to prove, in event of dispute, than one not...
(If you haven't yet paid him, sending a cheque with a document stating that it is in return for supply of photos and assignment of copyright makes everything watertight.)
erm you don't accorrding to urbans copyright statment the editor owns it ;) and you agree it by signing up for the boards...
FFS. Not this again.
You retain full copyright in everything you write on these boards...
Copyright in each post remains with the author of that post...
Your posts are yours, you keep copyright in them and no-one can legally use them elsewhere without your permission;
but you also grant urban75 a license to reproduce your post via the boards.
Gerry1time
30-04-2007, 14:44
So you have a contract. He's assigned the copyright to you.
(Actually, you only have a clear-cut contract if you paid him.)
Not something I'd ever advise a photographer to do, but hey.
If anyone's going to give permission for reproductions, they is you and the artist.
Of course, a contract in writing is easier to prove, in event of dispute, than one not...
(If you haven't yet paid him, sending a cheque with a document stating that it is in return for supply of photos and assignment of copyright makes everything watertight.)
Legendary stuff, if this board had a reputation ratings system, i'd give you some. But it doesn't, so here's some public thanks. Ta dood!
GarfieldLeChat
30-04-2007, 15:00
FFS. Not this again.
Legal notice follows:
All contents of this Web Site are copyright © 1996 - 2006 urban75. All rights reserved. No portion of this Web Site may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from urban75....
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 15:38
Garfield I hope you had written permission in advance to post that extract from the copyright notice of the boards. :D
AnnO'Neemus
30-04-2007, 15:50
I think there's a related issue regarding the works of Lowry and the Lowry Centre.
If I recall correctly, Lowry's daughter administers the estate and therefore controls copyright, and she won't allow images of Lowry's work to feature on the website. Or something like that. Which makes it a bit hard when trying to draw in audiences, if you can't show them what they're potentially coming to look at.
....*gives up at his willful stupidity.
Stanley Edwards
30-04-2007, 16:30
Point 1.
Copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the original art in the UK. It is a legal right for 50 years. After 50 years the owner/creator has to reapply for copyright.
Neither you (the original poster/owner) or, the photographer has a right to reproduce the image for profit unless A: the original creator has signed over copyright or, B: 50 years have expired and the the owner/creator hasn't reapplied for copyright.
But, then it all comes down to money. At the end of the day the biggest pot wins.
Essentially, the theory states that only an IMAGE and not an IDEA can be copyrighted. Therefore, a photograph of an existing image is an original image. Hence all the rules about not being allowed to photograph pics in galleries etc.
However, if you had enough money to take on Corel or, any other megacorp in such a case you would probably win.
As far as the opening post goes - you do not buy the copyright when you buy an original work of art unless you buy a contract stating so. You only buy the painting/sketch/photograph/whatever. You have no right to profit from reproduction.
And, before anyone tries to say WRONG, RIGHT, WHATEVER. Fuck off - I know my stuff.
Stanley Edwards
30-04-2007, 16:31
Point 2.
There is no point 2.
:)
Hocus Eye.
30-04-2007, 16:41
The copyright on a work in the EU now lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator. Being dead they will not be applying for an extension. However the inheritors of the estate of the creator may do so. As will anyone who has a work which has a new copyright and contains the original work.
Stanley Edwards
30-04-2007, 16:56
The copyright on a work in the EU now lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator...
Automatically granted? That's very interesting if it's true. It's also very young IMO. I think the 50 year rule from creation was/is a good law.
Automatically granted? That's very interesting if it's true.
It is. It's a requirement of membership of the Berne Convention (http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html)
5.2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality;
It's also very young IMO. I think the 50 year rule from creation was/is a good law.
The extension took effect on 1 January 1996.
There is no mechanism for applying to extend copyright in any country other than the USA.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.6 Copyright © 2010 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.