Copyright ?

Labmanager

arcon5 wrote: »

They would however need permission from the person in the photo if being used for entertainment or commercial purposes. The rules are difference if for example you are recording in a public domain for prsonal use

First sentence is wrong in what it says. Second sentence makes no sense.

MeanParent

mo786uk wrote: »

The person who takes the photo owns the copyright in it.

Not if:

Someone commissions the photographer to take the photo.

or

Someone buys the photos, including rights to re-use the photos.

All depends on the original payment agreement.

FunnySaving

OP - without a written agreement on what the company were paying him for at the time payment was made, I think you'll struggle to prove that there was any clear cut copyright arrangement. What would you/your son actually like out of this situation? Presumably he was happy with the money he got at the time, so is he now expecting more?

Evilm

Sounds like you now have a bad feeling about the company and you want to make havoc for them.

Whether it was cash in hand or not everything said above sounds like he was paid to provide them a service which included them hanging on to the photos in the end for the company's benefit..

Whether they were supposed to be used internally or externally is not really something that matters - unless a formal contract was set up they do have the right to use them however they like.

vax2002

As they would have paid a commercial photographer around £750 and have a strict licence they solicited a cheap job and took the proverbial.
They would argue it was a commissioned rate which included purchasing copyright.
In absence of any contract to the contrary he would have no case.
A short lesson in cheap work.

arcon5

MeanParent wrote: »

Not if:

Someone commissions the photographer to take the photo.

Not the case. Take wedding photographers for example, they own the copyright to all photos taken for the bride/groom/customers but license photos for personal use only. One of the reasons you have to be careful with photographers and make sure you read their terms, view their prices carefully otherwise you could find yourself receive a small number of pictures as part of the contract then paying through the !!!! to buy the rights to the rest or be restricted from reproducing them from anybody other than the photographers.

Terms for photography should be agreed before

or

Someone buys the photos, including rights to re-use the photos.

Though that gives them rights to re-use the photos, copyright ownership doesn't transfer to the purchasee

arcon5

Why not try and opportunitise on it and ask the company to be credited for the photography on their website? Maybe it could see the start of a business in photography for him

serious_saver

The photographer retains the copyright unless it explicitly says otherwise in the terms of the contract. The only exception is for staff photographers, in which case the employer usually holds the copyright under the terms of the employment. If this was done on a freelance basis then it is unlikely that the company would hold the copyright.

The issue here is whether there was any contract at all. It doesn't sound as though there was and it could be difficult to prove what was agreed.

How did he actually deliver the images? Were they sent by email, does he have any form of correspondence that could be used to prove that he delivered them to the company and was the original photographer?

arcon5

serious_saver wrote: »

The photographer retains the copyright unless it explicitly says otherwise in the terms of the contract. The only exception is for staff photographers, in which case the employer usually holds the copyright under the terms of the employment. If this was done on a freelance basis then it is unlikely that the company would hold the copyright.

The issue here is whether there was any contract at all. It doesn't sound as though there was and it could be difficult to prove what was agreed.

How did he actually deliver the images? Were they sent by email, does he have any form of correspondence that could be used to prove that he delivered them to the company and was the original photographer?

Proving there was a contract would be simple. Proving the terms of the contract not so much. The fact services was rendered and money changed hands would be sufficient prove.

A judge would probably base any judgement on what was implied. As an example, if the company said 'we have added some new products to our database and need some product photography' it could easily be assumed using them on their website/sales platform is implied.

Flyboy152

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It may be a different story however if the photos show individuals rather than objects. In this case don't the people photographed have further rights over the photos?

No, they don't.