Assistant Photographer's Copyright to images years later

<p>I was notified by an assistant I hired in early 2009, that he/she wants all raw files from the weddings he/she shot and wants all images he/she shot taken down from anything my company has images on. I did not have this assistant sign over rights to the photographs, but did have a verbal agreement and did pay the assistant for their time. I've since deleted all raw files I did not use, I do still have the images this assistant shot that I kept. It was a bad agreement I understand now, as all my assistants sign a contract when shooting for me, however the terms upon were agreed at the time of hire and payment was accepted. because the clients agreed images would be placed on my website and blog, not the assistants, i'm concerned i'm going to have to go back to all the clients to ask for their permission now to grant this assistant usage on his website.</p>

<p>I've since contacted a lawyer myself, but would love any input anyone has on an assistants rights to images if they accept payment for their work and then years later want the raw files, any used files to be taken down off my website, etc.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>How many years later? If the assistant has implied agreement to the situation by not disputing it, that might set a precedent.</p>

<p>Erica -</p>

<p>Since nothing is in writing - it's going to be difficult to prove or disprove - so you end up in a I said / They Said - situation.</p>

<p>Since you've already deleted a number of the files - it is going to be impossible to comply with the ex-assistant's complete demands, but you can comply with some of them. </p>

<p>What I would do is<br>

1) Send them a DVD with copies of all images that they shot. Indicate that the images are for their personal use only and if they wish to use them for promotional purposes - they, not you, will need to contact the couples.<br>

2) Remove all of their images from your hard drives and backups. <br>

3) Remove all of their images from your promotional materials and destory any copys that you have.<br>

4) Explain to the ex-assistant that they are getting "All" of the files that you have in your posession and that you have over the years deleted all the rest.</p>

<p>Keep in mind - I'm not a lawyer - so my advice is based on what I would do - absent a written assignment of copyright to me or my studio.</p>

<p>Technically - A verbal agreement (assuming you said that all rights (including usage and copyright) go to you / your studio - then you have an enforceable contract - the problem is that you get into a "I remember you said..." situation and that's not fun.<br>

Dave</p>

 

<p>Steve - The wedding work the assistant worked was May/June & July 2009. I haven't heard from him until January 2011. In the email the assistant sent me, he states "another photographer friend told me I still own my photographs I shot for you and I want you to stop using any and all of them immediately". Our work agreement ended a bit sordid, as the assistant was not delivering usable images and therefore, I had to cut him from the remaining 2009 jobs that remained. A sore spot I'm sure.</p>

<p>David - I have contacted a lawyer and he said the exact same thing - no contract, verbal only, no real terms to decide. The fact that the assistant accepted the payments is like saying, "i agree to our terms, thank you for paying me for my time, bye". To bring this up later, when I don't ever highlight, use his images, etc, is a bit disconcerting.I really do not want to give my clients information to this assistant as this assistant seems unprofessional and disrespectful. The Assistant's email to me was rather interesting to say the least. I want to distance myself from him, having him contact my clients will definitely be overstepping client/photographer privileges I feel.<br>

May I ask if there are written contracts online for assistant copyright sugjects? I now am hyper sensitive, as I've built a name for myself and 100% do not want to tarnish my or this assistant's respectability.</p>

<p>Since it is his word against yours, I will bet the attorney will say to do nothing. Give him/her nothing, doing so is admitting on your part that he has a case against you. In the future make sure any paid assistant signs a work for hire agreement.</p>

<p>The fact he was working as an assistant, presumably under your direction kind of proves he was not a fully competent photographer, and could not have produced those photos without your input.</p>

<p>Back in the days when I had a good attorney, his advice was almost always, "Make the other guy do all the work to get what he wants, you only have to show that he is wrong in any point to win. He has to prove he is right in every point to win."</p>

<p>Another point to consider, if you had been doing work for hire, what would your assistant's rights be in this case.</p>

<p>My thought is that if he had come to you and asked, "Can I put those shots up on my webpage credited, "copyright Your Studio, Photographer Me, 2009" you would have agreed instantly. Instead he tries to do a rip on you.</p>

<p>Think of it, if those are his photos by right, you owe him the money you were paid for them. This can keep on going forever. Have your lawyer right him a stern letter saying you hired him to do a work for hire and he has no rights other than the payment he received for the points. In the mean time register the copyrights on the photos so he has to take you to federal court if he persists.</p>

 

<p>Tom - Thank you for your input. That's pretty much what my photographer friends, the legal council I've contacted and my ad agency friends have said. It's always nice getting some professional input as well from other photographers.</p>

<p>I think his email spoke of an immature way of sticking it to me for my complaint that I couldn't understand the images he was delivering to me. In his email to me he stated, "I've begun reaching out to lawyers but would like to have you hand over my images and deal with this in a discreet manor"...which leads me to believe, no...no you haven't spoken to a lawyer.</p>

<p>I'm in a lull-season and haven't the money to really put into a lawyer to take care of this slight Mignon. If anyone has any lawyers that have advice they'd offer, I'd gladly love to hear it. I want to be respectful to the assistant still, as I do understand his ownership requests...but it's overall the manor in which the assistant is coming at me now, a year and a half later.</p>

<p>Erica, googling your name 5 hours after you started this thread, brings up your Pnet member page as the 14th hit. There's every chance that number will rise and, shortly, the thread itself will be high on a Google search for your name. Be careful what you say here and how you say it. Not only might your adversary be looking in, but so will potential clients.</p>

<p>Well, I think if you've been using the same images for 5 years it maybe time to update?</p>

<p>So - it was only 2 (more like 1.25) years ago that he worked for you - ..hmm.. not quite years in my book. </p>

<p>And if the images were "Unusable" why did you use any of his images on your page or in your material? </p>

<p>I try to freshen up my page every 3-4 months. New images, new faces, etc... </p>

<p>Unlike the others - I disagree about giving him nothing - far too many bad things can happen if the relationship is already bad. I'd give him the images - take them down from my site and send him a certified letter with the disc of images - saying we're done - no further payment or compensation or images. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>You need to read the Library of Congress Copyright website portions that deal with ownership of copyright and especially the material dealing with "work for hire." There are frequent questions on the various forums that deal with the "Who owns the copyright?" type questions and a common factor is none of the parties involved looked out for their own rights nor did they take the necessary steps to properly document their working relationships. </p>

<p>One can't create a work for hire out of sheer nothingness years after an event. Either it qualified as a work for hire at the time or it didn't. This is important reading. If nothing else, to help you formulate questions you might want to ask a real attorney.</p>

<p>http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf</p>

<p>I would suggest, that under no circumstances, delete any more of the files in question until you've resolved this and are sure the other person has received the files and they are not corrupted, etc.</p>

<p>The bride-and-groom would be the ones to OK the use of any wedding images on a web-site and/or for advertising the then-assisting photographer's current line of photography. You may consider sending that information to the requesting photographer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, first of all, it was not THAT long ago, at least not enough to justify anyone considering this "the past", even in this, fast-paced digital age. That is why I always keep all my assistant's files for at least 2 years (and, for important events, 5 years) after the event. But anyway...</p>

<p>I think the assistant may have gotten the term "copyright" and "usage right" confused. The copyright for those images is his and has been from the moment he pressed the shutter button on his camera and if you have been using his images on your promotional material or your website without attributing it appropriately, then he does have a legitimate source for complaint. This is important - do not disregard this. Now, as for usage rights, this most likely falls under the premise of your verbal agreement which, if memory from my law classes back during my degree serves me right, is sort of finalised the moment you provided and he accepted full payment (you did pay him in full, did you not?) Of course, and I don't mean to stress you out here, he could potentially claim that your agreement was for a series of weddings which you, by dropping him, negated without adequate compensation. This could become a valuable ammunition for him should this ever be escalated. In that case, you would have to provide proof (in terms of comparing the images he showed you when you hired him and demonstrating sufficient drop in quality with the images he delivered on the job) of your assessment to terminate your relationship. Therein, the burden of proof, unfortunately, lies with you (hence the "keeping all files for 2 or more years" approach) not him.</p>

<p>However, let's hope it does not go there. Remove his images from your site and promotional material, KEEP copies of the RAW files (because it is your agreement and oblilgation to your CUSTOMER, first and foremost) and send him all the images you've kept immediately. You do not need to give him the name or other details of the customer(s) - why did you think you had? How can he approach them if he does not have their contact information? (or, more to the point, why would he approach them? using what pretext?)</p>

<p>Keep everything professional, communicate EVERYTHING, from this moment on, in writing (e-mail is sufficient as it is, for the past few years, equally strong in the eyes of the law as a registered letter), avoid any confrontational attitude and approach but be firm and resolute. Do not accept any claims he may make - he does not have any on the jobs already completed and paid for. And no, I do not think that by sending him copies of the images you're somehow accepting he has a claim - he should have had copies right after you had downloaded the images on your system anyway...;-)</p>

<p>Good luck</p>

<p>Barring specific advise from my own lawyer to the contrary, I would remove his images from my website and any advertising but keep a copy of them and would ignore his request/demand for copies of 'his' images and/or information about 'your' clients. My position would be that keeping up with his images is not your responsibility since he was an employee and not a client.<br>

I would contact a lawyer for advice before taking or failing to take any action.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

Marios wrote that the copyright belonged to the assistant "from the moment he pressed the shutter button...." While it

is true that someone owned the copyright from that moment, it is not clear from the facts presented by the OP whether

the copyright owner was the photographer or a person (such as the OP) who commissioned the work. Craig's point

about reading the rules about works for hire is excellent.

 

 

And Tom offers a good default stance: demand evidence of ownership and assert ownership yourself, and see where

the other party takes matters. The costs to the assistant of even exploring the claim may deter further efforts,

particularly if you unambiguously claim ownership of work for hire, if that is indeed the nature of the agreement you

had with him.

<p>I suppose this a good time to suggest reading about registering a copyright and the potential penalties, etc., for false statements on registration, etc. It seems pretty likely that there wasn't a clear "work for hire" situation, particularly lacking a written employment contract and the casual nature of the assistance-ship. Claiming ownership when you don't know you own it is a waste of time and going to cost attorney's fees to assert/protect (and the "loser" may get to pay any winner's fees as well).. Send him the pictures and walk away from this. </p>

<p>Are these pictures of any value to argue about? The OP may or may not have contact with the subjects, there may or may not be an existing release (even if there is, the question of being able to sell them/use them is clouded by the ownership question), without a release there's limited or no "stock" sales value.</p>