Papa Smurf
Established
I lurk here and on several other forums and this subject has come up several times. The general consensus (in the USA) is that the photographer retains ownership of the negatives and the copyright of the same, even if he/she was reimbursed for the film stock. The "work for hire" situation is more of a product advertising arrangement where the client pays for all of the materials, props, etc., and the photographer is a temporary employee of the client. Like hiring a carpenter to repair your porch, The carpenter brings his tools and is due compensation, but the client still owns the porch.
How and when the client can use the images is a contractural can of worms. Even veteran Wedding Photographers have sited being ripped off by an unscruplus client. Never release the images until you have been paid is the moral of the story. I would see if I could find either a seasoned Professional Photographer or a friendly solicitor that would talk to you "off the clock". Proving that this guy intended to cheat you might be difficult. It happens, people come up with all manner of scams to cheat the poor working sap that is working in good faith.
I am very curious as to what the Law actually says on this matter. If anyone has to straight poop please rely.
minhhich
Newbie
Hi, why not have a meal at the restaurant and then refuse to pay the bill because the food is not good enough.
S
sfaust
Guest
Partly right Papa Smurf. In the US, the photographer owns copyright by default at the time the image is taken, but with minimal legal protections. Registering that image provides additional protections and benefits, and is required in order to file a copyright infringement suit. Registering the images provides significant protections and is highly recommended. The automatic copyright does little to protect the photographers images in most cases.
Work for hire is typically reserved for employees working for a company (journalists, studio/staff photographers, etc), and the WFH agreement must be in writing. The photographer also needs to fall into 9 specific categories as defined in the copyright law. Generally, self employed and freelance photographers do not fall into those categories, nor are they an employee.
Photographers can enter into WFH agreements while not being an employee, but are generally better off transferring copyright ownership then entering a WFH. With that said, its not in the best interest for a photographer to enter into a WFH or transfer copyright ownership with a client.
Without a written WFH agreement, the photographer automatically owns the copyright regardless if the client pays for all expenses, talent, provided equipment, materials, location, and so on.
In the UK and Canada, I've heard the opposite is true were the client typically owns the work of they hired the photographer and commissioned the work.
Work for hire is typically reserved for employees working for a company (journalists, studio/staff photographers, etc), and the WFH agreement must be in writing. The photographer also needs to fall into 9 specific categories as defined in the copyright law. Generally, self employed and freelance photographers do not fall into those categories, nor are they an employee.
Photographers can enter into WFH agreements while not being an employee, but are generally better off transferring copyright ownership then entering a WFH. With that said, its not in the best interest for a photographer to enter into a WFH or transfer copyright ownership with a client.
Without a written WFH agreement, the photographer automatically owns the copyright regardless if the client pays for all expenses, talent, provided equipment, materials, location, and so on.
In the UK and Canada, I've heard the opposite is true were the client typically owns the work of they hired the photographer and commissioned the work.