Photographer Won't Let Me Use My Work For My Portfolio

[www.dianahall.com]

I photographed my first two weddings last year and they went well.

The first was definitely a learning experience but the second was

wonderful. I went to a local photography guild meeting and met a

professional that was looking for a second photographer. I showed my

work from the second wedding and she couldn't believe it was only my

second. I started shooting with her and she began booking 2 weddings

each weekend. She goes on one and I go on the other. In the

beginning she was fine with me using the pictures I take for my

portfolio and on my website to try to build my own business. Now she

has said that she heard of someone getting sued for an associate

photographer putting their wedding images on their website and she

will not let me use any images that I take. I feel that this is

unfair and I have spoken with a couple of other photographers and

they don't agree either. Most say that photographers should help

other photographers grow and when I get to that point I should do

the same thing. I expressed my concerns and she got defensive and

stated that it's not right for me use images from weddings they

booked since I wasn't the one who booked them. I can see my side and

hers, however she offered me a full equal partnership beginning next

year. She's become a wonderful friend and it's a great opportunity,

but I wonder if she's not letting me use my images because she

doesn't want me as her direct competition? I'm sorry I wrote a book

here, but I need advise on whether I'm blowing it out of proportion

and this is the norm or not. Also, based on this info should I go in

as a partner with her or not? It's an established business and it

seems like a wonderful opportunity, but I wonder if I wouldn't be

happy just trying to build my own business. I don't know how to

build my business if I can't even show my work though. HELP?!?

[steve_levine]

Eventually we all cross over from being an asset to our mentors,to becoming competition to them!Try to beg ,borrow or steal your own booking and shoot a lot of pictures.

[mattalofs]

Well, whatever you decide, you have some fine work up on your website. It would be a shame not to display it.

[cooper8168]

You're absolutely NOT blowing it out of proportion. Unless you signed something saying

that the photos you take are her property, you can do whatever you like with them

(assuming consent from the subject). You are nothing more than a subcontractor. She

certainly can't take credit for those pictures.

 

<p>This type of thing happens all the time in my

"day" job (music for movies). Certain extremely well-known composers hire lesser-known

composers to share the load on some movies and in some cases to do the entire movie on

the established composer's behalf. Unless the contract clearly states that the music written

by the underling is the property of the hired composer, the underling can use his work on

his or her reel for the purpose of obtaining more work. On a side note, you'd be shocked

at how little music some of the big-name composers actually write themselves! You are

absolutely right, IMO, to feel the way you feel.

 

<p>And if it were me, I'd definitely be my own boss. It's harder work, but the rewards

more than make up for it. I'll never work for or under anyone else again if I don't have to.

[maury_cohen]

Diana,

Of course she doesn't want the competition.

From what you're saying, her business is in much better shape if you continue to work for her.

The business of photography is a totally separate talent from the photography itself, and most photographers don't seem to have the natural disposition to be sharp business-people. If you're one of the rare ones who is strong at both you should go out on your own. If the photographer you're currently working for is really good at business, and you're uncomfortable with business, you may be better off in the long run staying partners.

As far as the portfolio issue is concerned; I'm not a lawyer, but if you didn't sign some sort of contract with her you may have legal ground to pursue using the images you've shot. If you do that it's probably going to destroy what's left of the friendship you have.

[rich_dutchman1]

This is how a lawyer advised me: I use assistant shooters at large corporate events (never weddings), and I have them sign a "work for hire" agreement. In other words, anything they shoot becomes my property. Without it, they own the rights to every image taken.

 

Was she incorporated or registered as a business when you worked together? If not, then you may want to speak to a lawyer. You might be able to make a case that you were in fact business partners.

[ellis_vener_photography]

She should have you sign a work for hire agreement before the next wedding. I can , as

you can, see her point: if both of you are showing the same photos to the same

prospective customer it makes one or both of you look, wekll possibly deceitful.

 

All photographic communities are small and it is a good idea not to start your reputation

with a stain on it. Let her use the photos for the weddings you have shot so far and you

start getting your own clients.

 

 

And remember what Louis B. Mayer (I think it was him) allegedly once said: "Oral contracts

are worth the paper they are printed on."

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Diana - Unless this photographer had you sign a "Work for hire" agreement, or some other paperwork that transfers copyright over to her, the photographs are yours and you can use them with, or without her permission. One thing that some photographers have their second shooter do is put both names (yours and the studio you worked for) on the photos. At this point your "mentor" is SOL on the first two weddings. If you want to keep working with her in the future the two of you have to work something out that's acceptable to the two of you. It's not uncommon for people to freelance for studios for a long time, then decide to go out on their own and have no portfolio of their work. Be careful.

[casey mcallister]

CPA here...not a lawyer. My 2 cents:

 

Were you hired as an employee or independant contractor? If you're an employee she owns the negs, if your getting a lump sum with no payroll tax and the like, then your a contractor and in the absense of any other agreement the negs belong to you.

[asimh]

i think there are 2 different things that may/may not be mutually exclusive. One is your rights. Two, is your friendship/future full partner ship. If you want to stay partners and benefit from each other, than I would perhaps be very careful as to what i'd say/do. But if you are sure you want to leave, than a more agressive tactic might work. just remember, you dont want to burn bridges/referrals you might have. whatever you do, i think being open/communicative would be the best.

[john_h.1]

>>>Unless you signed something saying that the photos you take are her property, you can do whatever you like with them... You are nothing more than a subcontractor. I'm not a lawyer, but if you didn't sign some sort of contract with her you may have legal ground to pursue using the images you've shot<<<

 

While it can be helpful and persuasive to have things in writing, the law of employment vs. contrators is governed by the conduct of the parties and not what is written or signed about their conduct. There is insufficient information here to declare the author as being an employee or a contractor.

 

>>>This is how a lawyer advised me: I use assistant shooters at large corporate events (never weddings), and I have them sign a "work for hire" agreement. In other words, anything they shoot becomes my property. Without it, they own the rights to every image taken.

Was she incorporated or registered as a business when you worked together? If not, then you may want to speak to a lawyer. You might be able to make a case that you were in fact business partners."

 

The same comment as above except that the lawyer probably suggested terms that, if followed, amount in of themselves to a work for hire arrangement. The writing has more evidentiary than dispositive value. Also, incorporation and registration of a business is irrelevent to whether one is or is not a partner, that too is governed by conduct, although the conduct of one or more people filing documents declaring themselves to be in a partnership weighs very heavily.

 

>>>Unless this photographer had you sign a "Work for hire" agreement, or some other paperwork that transfers copyright over to her, the photographs are yours and you can use them with, or without her permission.<<<

 

Agreed, one can enter into a valid contract to transfer copyrights to another. Again, however, the signing of a work for hire agreement, by itself, does not create a work for hire situation.

 

>>>If you're an employee she owns the negs, if your getting a lump sum with no payroll tax and the like, then your a contractor and in the absense of any other agreement the negs belong to you<<<

 

There is a long list of factors that show whether one is a contractor or an employee. The factors are designed to create a picture (if you will) of whether one excercises substantial control over the acts of the potential employee/contractor. The more factors showing control that exist, the more likely they are an employee. The lump sum and payroll tax are not factors that help explain control or lack thereof. There are some jurisdictions, however, that will use the existence of payroll tax and other employment 'trapings' as lone factors among the many others. Even in those jurisdictions, the exixtence of payroll tax 'and the like' will never be dispositive by themselves. Indeed, many legal disputes arise because someone who 'contracted' with another was actually employing the other (after considering the control factors). If the payroll tax itself was the determiner, as asserted here, employers would simply stop the payroll tax process and be able to claim that everyone is now contractors. Obviously that makes no sense.

 

I will digress for a moment. As an attorney, it is interesting to read posts that involving both photography and legal issues. It is frustrating, however, to see well meaning people in the community misstating the law and providing potentially harmful advice in almost every single thread involving legal questions. The only reliable means to obtain valid legal information is to consult and interact directly with an attorney regarding your issue. Do not rely on legal advice given by people on the internet. Do not use my comments as legal advice either. My remarks are offered only as unresearched commentary. If someone came to me with the questions presented here, there would be alot of questions for me to ask and verification of the law before I would give actual advice. Rant over.

 

P.S. William, I frequently agree with your comments despite my comment on yours in this thread. I look forward to seeing more.

 

[neil_browne1]

The pictures are a result of a client booking a studio for the work, not you. The

pictures belong to the studio, you are just hired to shoot the event. If you really

want to partner, just wait it out until you do, but make sure that is what is going

to happen. In the meantime , try to get a few of your own bookings, even try

some friends just to build your own portfolio. Once you have that you can

gradually start marketing yourself even while you are still shooting for

someone else.

[john_h.1]

"The pictures are a result of a client booking a studio for the work, not you. The pictures belong to the studio, you are just hired to shoot the event"

 

While the poster may be working for hire, that status is not determined by the fact that someone booked a photo business to provide photographic services. When a photographer (who uses others to shoot photos), studio or any other type of business is 'booked' to perform a service, the business could accomplish its task by using employees or it may use contractors. Photography businesses may tend follow one model over the other as many businesses do, but it is the circumstances that ultimately govern, not the paperwork.

 

I repeat the rant of my last post here.

[Jerry_]

Another angle: did the lady photographer provide you with the film for the wedding you shot?

 

 

 

A suggeston: take along a model release for your next wedding and see if the bride-and-groom might be interested in signing it. If you can do this, the legal use of the images for your portfolio is satisfactory, but expect flack from the lady that booked the wedding you were sent to photograph.

[john_h.1]

"Another angle: did the lady photographer provide you with the film for the wedding you shot?"

 

This is helpful and relevent because supplying another with equipment to use for a job is one of the factors considered in the employer/contractor balancing test. I agree with Gerald that securing a release from those featured in the photos takes away the lawsuit argument but is unlikely to appease the freind.

 

Regarding the freind saying it's not right to use images from weddings they booked, it sounds like she calls the shots in the business. Assuming you have no independent right to use the images, it is wrong for her to consent to you using the images why? Because of some moral priniple about booking arrangements? Unlikely.

[www.dianahall.com]

Thank you so much for all your answers and help. I've spoken with a few other photographers and they said if I was shooting with them they would have no problem letting me use the images I shot for my portfolio to build my business. I guess my main issue is wondering if this "work for hire" agreement is that commonplace among wedding photographers. At the guild I go to(the photographer I shoot for goes there as well), all the photographers are committed to helping other photographers improve and succeed. If this "work for hire" agreement is in fact commonplace then it would surprise me because it seems hypocritical. This agreement prevents someone from building their business if they can't show their work and that doesn't seem very mentor-like to me. Once again though, I'm new to this and don't know really where I stand. Thanks again!

[ray]

<em>If this "work for hire" agreement is in fact commonplace...</em>

<p>

I don't permit my assistants (sub-contractors) to use any images for their own portfolio. I

do encourage them to generate their own business and I will often refer a client to them if

they are unable to afford me.

<p>

However, it is too problematic to share images with my assistants. If I build an advertising

campaign around client images, then it would be a serious problem if the same images

showed up on my assistants advertising. It would seem like I'm lying about whether or not

my studio even shot the wedding. Also, I'm quite worried about privacy laws -- I'd hate to

be sued by a client because my assistant used the images in some form/fashion that made

my client unhappy.

<p>

Lastly, I want to point out that while my #1 priority is to keep clients happy and run a

profitable business, a close second priority is to act as a mentor to my assistants. When

they are ready to assume the responsibility of running their own business, I guide them

through the basics of setting up a company, running an advertising campaign, booking

clients and executing events by themselves. They may have to start off with low budget

weddings and very small events that I won't touch, but hey, even I had to start off on the

bottom rung off the ladder!

[al_kaplan1]

If I were a studio owner/photographer who also employed others to shoot weddings I would want to make very sure that the clients understood that someone other than myself was shooting that wedding. I certainly wouldn't want to use another photographer's photographs on my studio's website unless they were very plainly credited "to one of our excellent photographers, Jane Doe". To do anything else is deceitful and very misleading to the client. Of course it gets done all the time! It doesn't make it right.

[todd frederick]

I am NOT a studio. i work independently. However, I am pleased to have the kind assistance of a fine photographer, Shun Cheung, work with me on many recent weddings, including my own son's wedding coming up on July 24th. His wife, Louisa, will do the video. She is a truly talented and creative videographer who spends countless hours to get everything just perfect!

 

I give Shun full permission to use anything he photographs at my weddings for his own business, and I share some of my photos to him if he needs them for Louisa's video, so we can produce the best possible product. He helps me, and I want to help him. It's a cooperative joint venture with no rivalry. We share images freely.

 

In my opinion, a wedding is for the benefit of the bride and groom, and whatever WE can do to give them the best possible documentation of their special event, WE will do it. If my working partners need samples from me for his/her portfolio or video for future weddings, I have no problem with that, and vice versa.

 

What your "friend" is doing is both petty and selfish!

 

i suggest that you no longer work with that person.