copyright problem - urgent

[felicity_bowden]

Hi All, I need some urgent help here.

This week I have spent photographing stills on a Pilot TV series, which I was

asked along to do by an actor friend. the director/producer said if they were

good he would use them on the website and maybe pay me. We had no contract

and he hasn't given me any money thus far.

I uploaded the images onto my website and gave the actors the opportunity to

purchase images of themselves as characters for a nominal fee which only just

covered the cost of printing and posting.

The producer emailed me this email today:

 

Dear Felicity

 

Re. 'Copyright' ****** ***

 

Please remove with immediate effect the images of '****** *** characters /

cast' from your website, that are protected by copyright law. All film/ video,

recordings, images, photography and any live relay belong exclusively to

****** Productions Limited (All rights reserved).

 

****** Productions Limited were of the understanding that the images in which

you took were first to be sent to us for our consideration if we so chose to

use the images, if at all, on our website. Then if so, a commission or a fee

would be discussed with you. You have not been given permission to;

 

A) Display any images on your website

 

&

 

B) Sell the images of characters / cast featured in 'Violent Tom'.

 

You have acted in an irresponsible and unprofessional manner. You have no

claim on any material or on any other person associated with the production.

 

Please remove the images from your website with immediate effect. Failure to

do so will result in legal action being taken against you.

 

If you wish to use the images certain channels must be explored first.

 

Please feel free to contact us regarding the above. END EMAIL

 

I really need to know if it's true that they have copyright of my images, and

if I am not allowed to use them on my website, or to sell them to the actors

for their portfolios. Help urgently needed here!!!

 

Thanks,

 

Flic x

[picturesque]

Consult a lawyer for a definitive answer. None of us are copyright lawyers, but I believe the producer is correct. However, it would have been nice of him to make it clear before letting you photograph, and before telling you that you acted in an irresponsible manner.

[el_fang]

I'm no copyright lawyer either but I disagree with Nadine. If there was no contract, then the pictures should belong to you by default as provided by US copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov). A contract would be required to prove that you either licensed your work to the producer/company or relinquished your copyright altogether.

[craig_gillette]

There is "no understanding" because there is no contract. You and they obviously don't see things the same. The producer allowed you on the set and allowed you to take pictures. He failed to take steps to be sure you and he understood any of the rights or publication issues. Any time I've "visited" any kind of facility or location with company sensitive, proprietary or similar material or material "classified" for security reasons, no entry or visit commenced until cameras were removed or disclosure notices and agreements were executed.

 

They do not own copyright of the images. However, they may well be able to establish rights in much of the subject matter. Keep in mind that while you may be "right" in some ways, you can lose more long term (working relationships, future access, strained relationships with the "actors," etc.) in fighting it and establishing that.

 

They may well have "created" the tangible set designs - copyrighted/able, costuming/make-up (some question as to any validity there), and may well have contractual obligations from any of the actors assiging image rights, etc.

 

I'd suggest registering the images, retain the images, remove them from the site, and advise them that you while you maintain copyright to the images, you respect the interests they may have in the subject matter. Of course, talking to an attorney is appropriate even if they don't choose to be obnoxious about it.

 

 

 

So you have competing interests.

[alec_myers]

Felicity,

 

Firstly, yes, you should take professional advice. Secondly, what country are you in? It may make a big difference.

 

Since it's a limited company that you right about, then you might be in the UK. If you are in the UK then, no, he's *completely* wrong. You own outright the copyright in the images and you don't need to seek or obtain permission before exhibiting or selling them.

 

Do take professional advice, but please don't let yourself be bullied.

[felicity_bowden]

Yes, I am in the UK, thanks to all for you help x I'm pretty sure that I have complete copyright control, however for the sake of harmony I will take them off the website until I have consulted a solicitor.

[alec_myers]

...and if you do take advice, please let us know what you are told.

[felicity_bowden]

Certainly will x

[kelly_flanigan1]

TV and movies are a closely knit family. <BR><BR>There is whats legal.<BR><BR> Then there is what gets one bared from the industry via blackballing. <BR><BR>Maybe you will win a case and it will be the last set you are allowed to shoot stills on. <BR><BR>Images are usually well controlled in TV and movies. If you plan on shooting again on site one must weight the short term gain of selling images versus ticking off the family.<BR><BR> Still shooters who break rules; make noises during shoots are often culled out of the recommended list thru being a thorn; costing money, leaking plots. <BR><BR>What if it technically legal to sell the images; but you get a blacksheep label? <BR><BR>A lawyer may know the law; but may not know unwritten family rules of the TV and movie industry.<BR><BR>

[john_h.1]

See a lawyer. Nothing you are told here is reliable.

[kelly_flanigan1]

John; getting a lawyer involved is a great way to get the family even more ticked off. Its the still photographer then who gets the troublemaker, unreliable marks; if a fight gets started.<BR><BR> TV and movie folks work long hours and work hard making and protecting their products. <BR><BR>Its ok to see a lawyer versed in TV and movie matters. But weigh the worth of a few images versus being marked as a troublemaker if the lawyer is not versed in proper manners.<BR><BR> Shooting stills on a set and then selling the images without any written agreements is begging for an ownership fight; or worse damages and banishment.<BR><BR> One as a still photographer should be a working asset to a producer; not one who is a thorn. <BR><BR>Thorns dont get asked again to dance; Helpers do. This issue is FAR greater than the puny legal issue; its getting earmarked as a troublemaker, one who sues, one who wastes a producers ultra valuable time.<BR><BR> The burn rate in dollars per hour is HUGE on a TV or movie set. The last thing a producer needs is a time wasting lawsuit by a one time still photographer over marketing images shot on their site. <BR><BR>Most all big time studios clearly define ownership and have a team of attorneys ready to char broil any infractions. <BR><BR>Most folks are so hungry to get into the movie/TV business that the last thing they would want to do is burn all bridges. <BR><BR>Producers want control of their TV/movie product; not leaks, dilution of image ownership.<BR><BR>Folks who are just worried over the legal aspect here are missing the bigger picture of ones reputation; in an ancient industry where there is alot of powerfull folks who can ban you for crossing the family. One should present oneself as an asset when shooting stills, films, or videos; not a negative thing that folks will remember forever.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Try doing any of this with ole Disney and see what happens.:)

[photoattorney]

<br />A photographer owns the copyright for images that they create, unless the creation of those images falls into the "work-for-hire" category. A work-for-hire relationship is created in two situations: (1) the photographer is an employee hired to photograph for the employer - an example would be a photojournalist who is an employee of a newspaper; or (2) the photographer is hired to provide photographs for collective works or compilations and signs a written agreement that specifically states that the work is to be considered a work made for hire. Therefore, freelance photographers are subjected to work-for-hire status only when they agree to it contractually.

<br />

<br />

[craig_gillette]

My impression is based on the US for copyright, no clue on ownership in the UK. The "winning the battle, losing the war" issues are almost certainly the same.

[alec_myers]

I totally agree about winning the battle and losing the war. But even if the right thing to do is to lie down and to concede the battle in order to win the war, you still have to know the bottom line. And vague and potentially unenforceable threats of legal action from idiot producers instead of a polite email are not solicitous of a good working relationship from that side.

 

Naturally it's Felicity's call; but all photographers' interests are served every time even one of them (us) learns where we stand.

[john_h.1]

"John; getting a lawyer involved is a great way to get the family even more ticked off."

 

Kelly,

 

There is a gigantic difference between what I said... "See a lawyer. Nothing you are told here is reliable" and what you think I said which apparently is... "Get a lawyer involved and fight these guys".

[bill c.]

Felicity-- Let's put all this in a nutshell. First, he does not own the images or the copyright to them. He did not pay you, he does not have a contract that states he purchased any rights from you, etc. However, in terms of you having the right to use the images because of what is contained in them, there you may have a problem.

 

If you, for example, sold the images to a magazine (at least here in the US, and I'm sure things in the UK are similar), he would not have a legal leg to stand on, as the images were being used to "educate or inform," and in fact would be doing him good, publicity-wise. However, as you are merely trying to sell the images, that is a very strange legal kettle of fish, especially in your situation. In a court of law, very strong arguments could go either way.

 

The person who advised you that getting a lawyer would be inflamatory was correct. What I would do before taking that step (and note that you might like to operate very differently) is contact the producer and tell him that:

 

1. You strongly believe that interpretation of the copyright law is incorrect.

 

2. You believe own the copyright to the images.

 

3. However, you respect his need for control over how his show is presented, and will work out a way that you can get some recompense for your time, effort, equipment and other expenses, etc. Tell him that you were in no way trying to infringe on his work, but the work you did for him was worth something and you got paid nothing.

 

The attitude should be one of, "Hey, you're wrong but I respect where you're coming from, I think I've got a way we can both get some good stuff out of this." If you approach with a compromise, legally that looks good later.

 

I've had "grabby" clients like this, though (one even tried to tell me that I couldn't produce any materials for any other clients similar to what I had done for him). In every case, all the adversarial individuals involved had horrible reputations and when they tried to bad-mouth me, my reputation actually went up.

 

If the person turns out to be a total jerk and won't compromise his (legally untenable) position, don't be afraid to destroy the images and walk away from the situation. In the end, if you don't blow it up, it will remain a small thing. Best of luck, and let us know how it turns out. -BC-