Questionable Ethics...to say the least

I am STEAMING right now...smoke is very nearly about to start spewing from my

ears! Some of you may have read my earlier posts about a predicament I was

facing as a 2nd shooter. I had been given verbal consent to use the images that

I shot as 2nd shooter for my website then a year later the photographer came

back and accused me of using images that I shot with her for promoting my own

company without her consent.

(See threads: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I3uT&tag=

and http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I4Bq for details)

 

I immediately removed my site and had to build a whole new one from

scratch...she didn't return a single one of my many phonecalls to her.

 

AND NOW...I just went randomly to check out her website and she has a new

design up---featuring MY PICTURES!!!!!! I am in absolute shock and I am so

angry. First she stabs me in the back with my website and now she is stealing

my pictures for promotion on her website! And no, there is not a single doubt

that they are mine. There are images up there that I know she was not anywhere

near me when I shot them, and candid moments that I grabbed in a slit second

and I have the files at home on my hard drive to prove it. I just cannot

believe this. Talk about evil and backstabbing! I would love nothing more then

to splash her name about as a fraud. I'm going to contain myself until I calm

down. I'm not sure yet what I am going to do about this but it's not going to

be ignored.

Oh, and I'm not talking a couple of pictures here and there (not that that would really be acceptable) I'd say a quarter of one of her two featured weddings is my pictures.

I would suggest adding some professionalism to your operation such as getting a contract

instead of a verbal agreement.

I would call a lawyer, if you have the originals then you can prove they are yours and at the least you may be able to have a nasty letter sent to her.

 

But yeah, a written contract, a persons word is just not worth anything anymore.

 

Sad really.

I'm not a lawyer, but you have no leg to stand on. You didn't get her written permission to use the images on your site. And as far as her use of the images you shot, you were working for her at the time they were taken. As such, she has full rights to use those images as the contract with her client allows.

What Dan said. Any employer has the right to use the work of those working for the company to promote the business.

 

Mike

I feel your pain but somewhat agree with Dan.

 

 

Let's review:

 

-get it in writing

 

-- you were working as her employee.

 

Now I'll bet she also didn't have you sign a work for hire agreement when she hired you as

a second shooter, but unless you want to make a federal case about who owns the

copyright on the images you shot, your energies in this case are best spent moving on.

Chalk it up to experience and remeber to get these things in writing.

Michelle, this is a no-brainer.

 

Let it go.

 

Take the Energy that's been created by the act and turn it forward into a positive flow for your work.

 

Let it go. Move forward and use the energy to build your business Up.

Perhaps you could select a small number of your favorites and ask for permission to use them to promote yourself. Try to stay on good terms and don't forget, you were working as her employee.

 

It's not worth pursuing your mission further than you have. Invest your efforts in finding a honorable pro to work for and when you do you can also bring up the fact that many of your images are proudly displayed by another photographer. It's almost like having two web sites.

Im going to have to disagree with the people who have posted above me...

 

Granted you didnt get a contract... This isnt a good idea because it causes these 'angry moments', but insofar as it is beneficial to her, its also her downfall.

 

Technically its the creator of a work that holds the copyrights, (and no they donot need to be registered in order to be established) and withought a contract that says you've signed over the photos rights to her, she is in theory stealing from you.

 

no places in the world are more strict about photography than quebec and france (I happen to be native to quebec), and you cannot publish the image of another person withought their consent... However, regardless of their appearing in a photo, the owner is (always) the person who created it.

 

Does the 'theif' have high resolution files? The negatives? If you can prove that you took those photos, you dont even need a lawyer... Write her a letter saying that she has infringed your copyright and conducted herself deviously. At the very least, you can publish them on your own website afterwards.

I agree with David, the creator retains copyright - unless you signed a contract which states otherwise.

 

I would ask your lawyer to agree terms which allow you to use the photographs you took - which seems like a good compromise.

I see nothing evil. You worked for her, otherwise you would have never had the chance to shoot that particular wedding.

 

Though I agree you own the images, you have little or no right to use them without a model release. So it is really a mute point.

 

One could argue in court who actually owns the images, but the only people that would profit would be the lawyers.

 

If you are so good that she has to use your images, why are you so disgruntled? Talent and business skills will win out in the end.

 

I've second shot roughly 15 weddings and wouldn't think of using those images online. I'll use them only up to the point where I found my own brides.

 

Afterall, none of the 15 I shot were my brides. My marketing skills or images didn't attract them. I formed no real relationaship with them... same can probably be said of your work.

 

Get over it and move on...

If you got these shots working for her, she has the right to use them.

 

If you did not get YOUR OWN MODEL RELEASE from the subjects and they are recognizable, then the images should not be used for publication, advertisinge or website viewing.

 

If the images are those which you took at a wedding which you were hired to do on your own with your own contract and model release from your own customer, then you do have an issue.

 

Othewise, you need to book a couple of weddings on your own and build your porfolio and your websites from that work.

Model release - good point!

 

Oh well you did gain valuable experience - good luck with your future weddings.

Unfortunately, David and Stephen are incorrect. To quote Cornell Law School: "Works Made for Hire ? In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright."

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-.html

If you are willing to spend money on an attorney, do so. If you are going to hire an attorney, I wouldn't take any steps now, because you may hamstring some legal options that an attorney could have otherwise taken later on in the dispute. You don't want to warn her so she removes the prictures before you have proof, unless you can go back to one of the website history archives.

michelle - call her up and ask her to remove the photographs. if she says no, remind her that you did the same thing for her.

 

in the future, have a written agreement.

 

whether or not to get a lawyer involved is your deal.

 

I would suggest that for now, if she refuses to stop using your images, then you can go ahead and use the images that you shot at 'her' wedding for your promotional use - ie. do exactly what you were doing before she complained. the worst case is that she gets a lawyer and then the truth about who is using whose images comes out.

 

I never show the work of seconds on my website OR in my print portfolio unless that second shooter will be shooting that wedding with me. it is not professional.

 

and never work for her again, of course.

I agree with the rest that it's not worth the legal battle, but since it's up for discussion, if there was no contract, what make her a work for hire? What makes it assumed that the rights are give to the primary photographer? I would assume it was if she received pay. But if there was no pay and a contract? Then I would assume she has the same argument to demand they be removed from the photographers web site.

 

Of course the fact that the second shooter doesn't have a model release does limit her use of them too.

Just to add the UK perspective I have to agree with Jennie you simply do not own the copyright although you 'made' the pictures. I did some freelance weddings for Kodak and they produced a lawyer at the first seminar just to 'enforce' the fact LOL!

Chances are, as a second shooter you were "work-for-hire", meaning the photographer has

every legal right to use your images on her website.

 

Unless you guys have something in writing, you'll have a tough time proving anything either

way.

 

The general assumption when you shoot as a second is that the primary can and will use your

images for promotion.

1) There was no contract between myself and the photographer. There is no documentation whatsoever that I was "work for hire". In a legal sense she has no leg to stand on because the lack of contract means I still retain full copyright of images that were taken by me, on my camera (and I have the original files with camera exif information to prove this). I could have been a guest or an interested passerby for all anyone knows.

2) I understand that I cannot display the images that I shot at weddings with her for my promotion. This is because I do not have model releases from the subjects, not because I shot them under contract with her. She has nothing to do with it because as stated above there was no contract between us. I took my images down at her request not for fear of legal action from her, but because of model release issues. If she had hired an attorney at that time, as she threatened to do, she would have been battling for the rights of the B&G's pictured.

 

3) I also took the images on my site down because, while she had said previously that I could have them up, now she was saying I couldn't show them. I was angry and upset about it but I felt it was the right thing to do to respect that. I put new pics up from weddings I have done on my own and I am pretty happy with my site now. I am sorry to let some of the old ones go but I understand that it's the right thing to do.

 

4) I know I should have gotten everything in writing from the beginning. She was the first person I worked for, I'm young, I'm green and I am still learning this business stuff. I have learned my lesson, I do have contracts written and signed now and I am currently working with a wonderful photographer who helps me past the stumbling blocks of a new business rather than putting more in front of me.

 

5) The issue that upsets me here is that she is using my work to represent herself. I would never put someone elses work up and say it was mine. I am actually surprised at how many of you think that this is okay. Maybe if I still worked for her, or if at the very least she had asked me for consent...but what she did was go against her word (I know word is nothing but geez), threaten to sue me, and make me take my photos down, then she uses them for herself. And the girl wouldn't even return my phonecalls--of course I'm angry about it! Those are all pretty awful things to do.

 

6) I don't know if I truly want to pursue this to court but I do know copyright law very well (I work for a stock photography company that is known for it's high rate of collection on copyright infringements, the copyright compliance officer sits 20 feet away from me and we have a lawyer that specializes in copyright on call). What I will do is write her a letter stating my thoughts of the situation backed by legal precedent and requesting that she remove the images that I took from her site. I do have the law behind me and I believe I have morality behind me as well. If she doesn't comply, I will cross that road when I get to it.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

<i>There was no contract between myself and the photographer. There is no documentation whatsoever that I was "work for hire". In a legal sense she has no leg to stand on because the lack of contract means I still retain full copyright</i><P>If you read the link that Jennie gives above, you will see that you are probably wrong. Given that you were paid to shoot, there is an implicit "work for hire" relationship. Given that you have no contract stating right to retain copyright, you are going to have a hard time.<p><i>The issue that upsets me here is that she is using my work to represent herself.</i><p>If you shot for a corporation providing photographic services, you would see the same thing. This isn't any different.

There is good information about copyrights in the US here: http://www.copyright.gov/

 

IANAL, but based on a quick read about works for hire, it looks like there has to be a written agreement in order for it to be considered a work for hire, so if there was no written agreement you might have standing to claim the copyright of the photos you took.

I don't believe anyone has posted that they agree with this woman's actions. Many of us have stated that, legally, you have unfortunately gotten the short end of the stick and, legally, she has every right to present your work on her website. However, this does not in any way mean we agree with her actions. Ethically, it's frowned upon and most photographers will not do such things (i.e., we do not "think that this is okay").

 

I agree with the other posters: Request that, since you no longer have a working relationship with her, she remove your work from her website.

I think that the best advice give in this thread has been: Put the images back up on your site, and if she wants to take legal actions against you, thats when your matter will be resolved...Untill the first photographer wants to pay to file a subpeona, you should do your own thing and ignore her.