Employee, Work for hire, Who owns the copyrights ?

<p>It's infringement if the alleged infringer doesn't have either ownership of the copyright or a licence to use the image from the copyright owner. The fact that he took the picture himself is irrelevant.</p>

<p>I haven't found any actual on point cases so far but read IP attorney commentaries which is somewhat divided. Of those siding with portfolio use as non-infringing, they phrased their conclusions in terms of they "believe" and "probably".</p>

<p>I think the wrong question is being asked. Who actually owns the copyright is immaterial. If the photographer can get something on paper saying he may use the images he took for advertising and this lady agrees to stop impersonating him and continuous to hire him then the problem is solved. The only possible use the photographer has for the images is some advertising. That's it. A reasonable working relationship should not end over something so small.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I think too much has been said for this relationship to be repaired. I may be wrong. And the fact the woman is impersonating the guy during business deals tells me we are dealing with a pretty shady person.</p>

<p>I guess the law may have got more involved and tangled over the years but my impression was that if somebody hires you[ asked you for return or not] to take a photo the copyright is theirs. Therefore the OP is in breach of copyright by using the shots he took without permission. One only has copyright on photos one took of your own volition.<br />In this situation I would suggest the copyright rests with the people being photographed becuase they asked the photographer vis the lady to take them :-) Though in the old days the photographer had the right to retain the negatives and supply prints.... handing over CD's of jpg is a modern aberation to my mind and fraught with hazards.</p>

<p>Seems to me they are squabbling over something that neither own LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess the law may have got more involved and tangled over the years but my impression was that if somebody hires you to take a photo the copyright is theirs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The law is far from that simple. Copyright law in most countries give the photographer automatic copyright ownership except in a few specific cases. If a client hires an independent photographer to take a photo the tog owns the photo*. The exceptions to this would be if you were taking an image as part of your employment or had signed an agreement that specifically gives copyright ownership to the client. As the OP is independent and not an employee of the woman - and no contract was ever signed, the OP clearly owns the copyright. <br>

* The above is true in the USA, UK and most other countries except Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In those countries a clause in their copyright laws means that if a client hires someone to take a portrait and pays them, then the client owns the copyright. </p>

 

<p>LOL that explains why I am of my opinion having only worked in NZ :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As the OP is independent and not an employee of the woman - and no contract was ever signed, the OP clearly owns the copyright.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP SAYS he is independent and may very well be. Nevertheless, we have been given only a few selective details in support of that and not other critical details, that may say otherwise, so we really can't say whether the claim is accurate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LOL that explains why I am of my opinion having only worked in NZ :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>:) Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that laws differ from place to place. This is why it is important for people asking about these issue to make clear where they are based.</p>

<p>It was long time ago when I first post this topic....<br>

<br />As of today Case is closed....<br>

<br />I won 100% win, First: Lady was forced to pay ALL money she owed and Judge said that I could sue her for much bigger money. There was NO work for hire, Judge said this case is absolutely far away from being Work for hire situation. Judge also said to the lady that in his opinion she was bulling me, and she should be ashame that she was trying to use me and trick me in such a disgusting way. <br>

<br />For the record I met her in two different courts district and circuit court, and I could tell you all about... contact me if you need details :) </p>