Copyright issues when doing freebies - who owns the rights to the photo?

[ted_smith1]

Hi

 

I have searched and read a few posts on this but none of the one's I found quite

answer my query as it is quite unique (I think?).

 

I am currently an amateur photographer who works full time. However, these last

few months I have photographed the pets of friends and family for nothing. More

recently, I have 'put the word out' that I will photograph peoples' pets (as in

the general public) at no charge (until further notice) in return for the

experience. Obviously by doing it that way I increase my client base faster,

learn from real life experience, and generate more varied shots for my

portfolio. Then, when\if I decide to turn pro or semi-pro in the future my

client base will be established. That's the theory anyway. In addition, it

reduces the pressure while I learn.

 

However, the agreement I have come to is that I will not charge for my time or

for the PRINTS I produce for the customer other than asking them to cover the

costs of the printing itself. So they are not paying for the expertise or the

rights to the photograph itself. It is therefore my understanding that all they

are doing is buying a paper based print - not the copyright or overall ownership

of the picture.

 

So for clarity,

 

a) I will be invited into the customers home.

b) I will use my equipment to photograph their pets.

c) I am in the UK

d) I will give them a print(s) of their favourite photos and ask merely for them

to cover the printing costs.

 

That said, do I still retain the rights to the image(s)? Could I, for example,

send them to a pet magazine and have them printed without permission from the

pet owner? Could I use the images on my website without agreement as part of my

portfolio etc etc. I realise their is the obvious issue of courtesy (i.e. if you

ask most people will be fine about it anyway and most people are reasonable) but

I want to know what the law states or at least what most people's understanding

and experience of it are in this respect.

 

Thanks a lot for your time. Sorry for the length.

 

Ted

[r_johnston]

Create from a standard model release form, one which states that you retain all rights to the photos or copyrights and have permission to use them on your website or elsewhere for advertising purposes. Have them sign it. If not willing to sign it, use another persons pets.

 

Hopefully you have a strong liking for animals. Have some experience handling them, or can volunteer to work with an animal shelter to get it. Have had experience in training dogs or other pets, and can use it to get better pictures. You could also go to dog shows, and offer to take pictures of their dogs, but be careful that you do not tread on the feet of a photographer who is paid to do that there.

 

One more thing, you say you are an amateur who works full time. Full time doing what? If you don't have to make a lot of money or support a family, maybe you could apprentice to a local photographer.

[ellis_vener_photography]

you are confusing two things:

 

ownership of the photographs you've created

 

and the rights of the owners whose property you have photographed.

 

Additionally editorial usage is different from commercial (advertising) usage -- at least in the USA-- regarding whether or not a model or property release is needed.

 

 

points a through d that you bring up are irrelevant to these issues.

[alec_myers]

You are in the UK, so you should read this page, the accompanying PDF and the questions and answers below it:

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

 

The basic position in law is that you own the photos outright and are the sole arbiter about what can be done with them. UK law recognises no image rights whatsoever in photographs of objects or people.

 

However under section 85 of the Copyright Designs And Patents Act (1988?) which you can read here:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_5.htm#mdiv85

 

someone who commissions a photograph for private and domestic purposes can object to their publication, not withstanding your ownership. If you feel that this applies to the way you are working then you best get a release as a CYA exercise. You might be able to use this one from Getty as a model:

 

http://contributors.gettyimages.com/img/articles/downloads/Final_Property_Release_0406_UK.pdf

 

Note that statute applies to photos according to the purpose for which the photos were commissioned, and gives that right to the commissioner of the photograph - not the model or anyone (or owner of a thing) that appears in the picture. It doesn't, either, give them any reproduction rights or ownership of the image.

 

You will have to exercise your own judicial judgement to decide whether, absent a payment for the taking of the photograph, you can consider yourself to have been "commissioned" in a legal sense.

 

By the way, even if they pay you a fee for taking the photos, the default position (unless you agree differently) is that you still own the pictures and the above still applies.

 

I also have to say that your plan to turn people for whom you've worked for free into paying customers is suspect - my experience is that once you've given work away for free to someone they consider it to be worth nothing and will never regard you as someone deserving to be paid for the same exercise. ("He did it for free, and now he wants to be paid? Naahh... we'll find another shmuck to do it for free next time!") Good luck!

[ted_smith1]

Hi

 

This is all great stuff and very helpful - thanks.

 

It seems to me that the crucial issue here, in my circumstances (if I were being paid), is section 85 of the Copyright Designs And Patents Act as Alec points out. It states :

 

"A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have-

 

(a) copies of the work issued to the public,

(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

© the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service;"

 

So, if someone hires and pays me to photograph their dog in their home, I am subsequently prevented from using it on my website, for example, showing it in a gallery etc unless they sign a disclaimer that allows me to from the outset? Is my understanding correct?

[alec_myers]

You are not prevented, but they have the right to prevent you. Subtle difference.

[bruce_elliott]

UK based as well. You take a shot of anything and the copyright is yours unless and until you choose to sell it or give it away. That doesn't give you the right to use the photo as you will. Identifiable people... get a model release for complete freedom, pets... get a property release. Do it when you're there... the Getty one linked in one of the responses above should be perfect for your needs. If you go for verbal agreements you'll be fine for your website, but I wouldn't ever rely on it for anything more.

 

Shooting for free..... I understand it, but I wouldn't recommend it. As was said above, they're unlikely to come back and pay later. That said I'd be surprised if there's much repeat business in the pet market. I'd be thinking more in terms of word of mouth. If you absolutely insist on going free I would make it time limited, I would offer one print mounted and that's it. If they want more prints they pay market price for it and when you give them the shots include in the package their copy of the release they signed along with a receipt which details your full creative/attendance fee, processing & print costs and then list the discount which brings it down to the cost of the additional prints. That way when their friends ask where they got their photos from and how much they cost, they don't just hear that you're free, they have your pricing structure.

 

Good luck!

[bruce_elliott]

sorry I should have clarified...... "If you go for verbal agreements you'll be fine for your website, but I wouldn't ever rely on it for anything more." Fine in the sense that if they don't want it posted you can remove it. Not that you can post it and ignore their request to have it removed.