photo copyright

Collabora

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Hence the watermark on the promotional images. And payment for the published ones.

Even published ones i will watermark unless the client has paid for copyright, it wont be as obvious as with promotional free images

lamialex

JReacher1, you are summarising my post in just a few words and it is far from the truth. Where does that come from? I didn't ask for your opinion on what you think happened, did I? I asked about copyright of pictures I have taken and thanks to all the people who have replied and helped on that matter. I know what to do now and lesson learnt.

I am a photographer and learning how to protect my work is what matters here not what you think happened and your judgment on it, thank you.

Marktheshark

It is only your work if you were paid.
You mean protect your photographs.
How you think you can give something away without any terms or conditions and the later regain ownership has been pointed out as virtually impossible .
You start as you mean to go on.
If people want your work, you licence it to them, if they are not prepared to pay then they obviously don't regard you as someone worthy of been paid.
I would have thought gaining a reputation as someone not good enough to produce work of a standard to be paid for is a reputation best avoided for any professional, let alone a photographer.

bod1467

A photographer always retains copyright for their photos*. The only time that doesn't apply is if formal T&Cs are agreed which hand over copyright to another party, otherwise that other party merely gets a license to use them. Such a license can be revoked at any time, again unless T&Cs were agreed to prevent this.

*Unless the photographer is employed by a company, in which case the company would usually own the copyright.

Collabora

bod1467 wrote: »

*Unless the photographer is employed by a company, in which case the company would usually own the copyright.

Depends on your contract with the company. when i did a stint as a photo journalist i had to sign a form giving copyright to any photograph taking while on duty to the newspaper

bod1467

When I said employed, I meant employed - the photographer is an employee with a contract of employment. I did not mean "is contracted to perform a service".

Almost all employment contracts afford copyright and IP rights to the employer.

Collabora

bod1467 wrote: »

When I said employed, I meant employed - the photographer is an employee with a contract of employment. I did not mean "is contracted to perform a service".

Almost all employment contractors afford copyright and IP rights to the employer.

no i was employed directly with them, just that as you are the one taking the photos then the copyright belongs to you regardless if you are employed or not, so the employer needs the photographer to sign over any copyright to them.

These days with newspapers its easier with DSLR camera as the actual newspapers will provide photographers with branded SD cards, so anything on that SD card belongs to the newspaper

hawk30

Collabora wrote: »

no i was employed directly with them, just that as you are the one taking the photos then the copyright belongs to you regardless if you are employed or not, so the employer needs the photographer to sign over any copyright to them.

These days with newspapers its easier with DSLR camera as the actual newspapers will provide photographers with branded SD cards, so anything on that SD card belongs to the newspaper

No it doesn't, it belongs to the employer., as long as it is done during the course of normal duties or is a specific assignment. It's likely that you were either treated as freelance or the company went beyond what they needed to.

bod1467

Collabora wrote: »

no i was employed directly with them, just that as you are the one taking the photos then the copyright belongs to you regardless if you are employed or not, so the employer needs the photographer to sign over any copyright to them.

You must have been an exception then (why does that not surprise me?), because as I said:

bod1467 wrote: »

Almost all employment contracts afford copyright and IP rights to the employer.

Collabora

hawk30 wrote: »

No it doesn't, it belongs to the employer., as long as it is done during the course of normal duties or is a specific assignment. It's likely that you were either treated as freelance or the company went beyond what they needed to.

So the Trinity Mirror Group is wrong and yet again MSE are right.

Not all photo journalist are freelance. It was a direct contract with them, and yes had to sign a form/contract to give them the copyright to pics taken while on duty.