MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: KiwiRob on March 30, 2007, 00:46

Title: Could you do this?
Post by: KiwiRob on March 30, 2007, 00:46: I now own all the negitives (and digital files) for the photos of my wedding, there are some great shots which would make excellent stock, I'm just wondering if I can legally upload them as I didn't take them. Anyone have any ideas about this.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: Bateleur on March 30, 2007, 01:08: I'm not a legal expert ... so I stand to be corrected on this ... but I presume you paid the photographer to take specific pictures of your wedding, and he/she was under contract.

If so, then I believe that the photographs belong to you. The photographer's job was what was called 'work for hire'.

It's as if if you work as a photographer for a company, or on a newspaper. They pay you to do the job, and they own the result.

The fact that you state that you 'own' the negatives and digital files seems to back this up.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: eendicott on March 30, 2007, 07:38: Owning the negatives means absolutely nothing. Were the copyrights assigned to you? If not, then you don't own them and you have no legal right to sell them or use them commercially.

Some wedding photographers specifically state in their contracts that you own the copyrights upon delivery but others do not. Don't assume that because it's not in the contract that you own the copyrights. I have shot a few weddings and I specifically retain the copyrights so that I can sell them as stock at a later date ;)

p.s. I also have the bride and groom sign model releases.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: sharpshot on March 30, 2007, 09:20: I am not sure but don't you have to declare you are the photographer with some of the sites? Might be tricky if you are also in the photo?

It is obviously not a rule they stick to, as I don't think that many people get to photograph the earth from space :)
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: CJPhoto on March 30, 2007, 09:29: Quote from: sharpshot on March 30, 2007, 09:20
It is obviously not a rule they stick to, as I don't think that many people get to photograph the earth from space :)
There shouldnt be any photos of earth from space.

Agree though. I would get approval from the agency beforehand on the basis you are not the photographer but you own the copyright. I would probably send them an email with proof and get their approval.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: KiwiRob on March 30, 2007, 10:26: We didn't have a contract with the photographer, actually none of the photographers we spoke to ever mentioned or when asked required a contract.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: sharply_done on March 30, 2007, 11:21: iStock requires only that are the principal copyright holder of the images you post. It is legally acceptable for you to 'grab' anything in the public domain (i.e. anything that does not have a copyright) and sell it. I've seen many "earth from space" and "world map" shots that people have downloaded, jazzed up a bit, and posted for sale. Unscrupulous behavior perhaps. I'm surprised that people pay for something that can easily be had for free.

Quote from: CJPhoto on March 30, 2007, 09:29
Quote from: sharpshot on March 30, 2007, 09:20
It is obviously not a rule they stick to, as I don't think that many people get to photograph the earth from space :)
There shouldnt be any photos of earth from space.

I created my "earth from space" shots entirely from my own images:

(http://thumb8.shutterstock.com/photos/thumb_small/85312/85312,1171629755,97.jpg) (http://thumb3.shutterstock.com/photos/thumb_small/85312/85312,1171458933,1.jpg)
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: CJPhoto on March 30, 2007, 11:40: I know SS cracked down on public domain shots - I think people were uploading nasa shots which are public domain.

I assuem those are composites and that no one actually went into space for any part of those?
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: sharply_done on March 30, 2007, 11:53: Just being creative with a couple of easy-to-get boring shots: 1 moon + 1 window seat + photoshop = "Lookit me, I'm in orbit!"
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: photoshow on March 30, 2007, 13:35: If the work is created by an Independent Contract, such as a Wedding Photographer then in order for the work to be deemed a Work for Hire there must exist a contract that specifically states the work is a Work For Hire.

The rules that determine Work For Hire are pretty specific and can be found in this Government Publication

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Bobby Deal
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: yingyang0 on March 30, 2007, 13:51: Quote from: KiwiRob on March 30, 2007, 00:46
I now own all the negitives (and digital files) for the photos of my wedding, there are some great shots which would make excellent stock, I'm just wondering if I can legally upload them as I didn't take them. Anyone have any ideas about this.
Short answer = No, you can't legally upload them because you don't own the copyright to them.

Long answer = same as first but explains why not a work-for-hire, etc.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: steve-oh on March 30, 2007, 13:59: My understanding is that copyright is automatically the property of the author, so if you have no contract, then you have no copyrights to the images:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc

Rights have to be explicitly granted to you.

-Steve
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: Grizzlybear on April 02, 2007, 06:03: New Zealand is the only country in the civilized world,that grants copyright to the person that commissions the photographs,thereby robbing the photographer of his intellectual property rights. the NZPPI
(New Zealand Professional Photographer's Institute) are trying to get this law changed. Whether you can use the photos for stock,depends of the terms of service for the site you submit to-I believe most require the photographs to be your own work. Regards, Grizzlybear
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: KiwiRob on April 03, 2007, 09:03: fantastic I knew there had to be another silver lining to the New Zealand cloud, the sites I'm thinking of submitting to only ask if you own the rights to the images which I do. Yippee for me.
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: CJPhoto on April 03, 2007, 10:14: have you prepared a responce incase the photog sees the pics and contacts you. Would beat umming and arrhing and then annoying him to the extent that he contacts the sites.

or does he know?
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: Susan S. on April 04, 2007, 00:37: Not the only country in the world - Australia is the same (there's a specific right given for copyright of wedding and other "private or domestic purpose photographs to be owned by the person who commissions the photographs. This does not apply for commercial photography since 1998 when the Act was amended) I would think any sensible photographer in Australia and New Zealand has contracts that assign the copyright to the photographer explicitly - so you need to check the terms of the contract with the photographer who took the wedding shots.

(NB I'm not a lawyer!)
Title: Re: Could you do this?
Post by: litifeta on April 04, 2007, 22:22: I imagine NZ law is similar to Australia ... that is ...

We are not required to register or write "copyright" on anything. The author is always the owner of the work, except

Where you, as an employee or a contractor, are paid to produce copyrighted works for another, but ... there is a catch

Even if you work as a newspaper photographer, and the newspaper "owns" the copyright for the images, you, the author, own the "moral rights" to the images

Moral rights gives the author the freedom to reproduce "examples" of his/her work for the purpose of publishment, (eg) a book about your news photos.

FINALLY: the High Court of Australia ruled in 2003 that the place of publishment of the internet, is the place in which you view the particular web page. An example was a Melbourne banker sued a famous US magazine over comments on his share dealings in the USA. The story was written and published in New York, but the court ruled the banker could sue in Australia since the publication could be viewed there, and it was reasonable for the reader to assume it was meant as local content.

So, even if the law in country "x" says one thing, if the sales of the photo can reasonably be made in country "y", they can sue the pants of you whereever they think they can get the most $ out of you