Use of images

[sally_turner]

Hello

 

I have been working as a photo assistant for a photographer for the past 6

months. I started editing images and putting photo books together in the winter

at a set hourly rate. When the summer started he asked if I wanted to be his

assistant for some weddings. I am new to the business and thought it would be a

good opportunity. I went to the first wedding and brought my camera like he

asked. I ended up taking some photos and downloading them to his laptop. He

said I could use these for my portfolio, which I was happy with. I have just

graduated with a BFA in Photo so building my portfolio is great. We never

really discussed compensation- he gave me a check at the end of the night and

it came out to be about my hourly rate I was getting in the winter. I put some

of the photos I took on my own website and in my portfolio. I was careful not

to put any images where specific people could be identified as I did not want

to upset anyone. I have now assisted on three weddings and have 6 more

scheduled. I was recently on his website to see what changes he made and under

his portfolio section he is using images I took and has his name and copy right

on the image. He never asked me if he could do this and we have no contract. I

expected he may use or sell some of the photos as part of the package for the

couple - but I did not expect him to use them on his website as samples of his

work. I am upset and think this is a little underhanded. Am I right to be

upset? or is this something that is common practice? I am new and am still

learning what the "rules" are.

[ellis_vener_photography]

At this point in your career I'd worry more about burnign your bridges than his use of iamges from two or three weddings. But what you and he should do is sit down and work oput an after the fact agreement that both of you can use the same images.

 

The rules are: Get it in writing before the next time. But as assistant those rules will likely be " you the assistant are performing work for hire. Any work created by you the assistant while working for me the photographer becomes the intellectual property of me the photographer."

[christina_taylor_haley]

I have an agreement with my assistants that the studio has ownership of all images produced during my events. Yet, they have limited usage rights and our contract states that all images will give credit to photographer who shot the photograph and neither of us will use these images for advertisement.

 

Good Luck

[William Michael]

We employed assistants, mostly photography students, as casual employees, (comparable to contract hire in the USA, I think).

 

All rights of all images taken by the assistant, during the course of the engagement, resided with the studio.

 

We allowed any image taken by the assistant to be used in their portfolio, provide in the credit, the studio was acknowledged.

 

Apart from inclusion, as part of their whole portfolio, no other use of images taken whilst in employ was allowed.

 

`credit` = `photography by Jane Smith, copyright ABC Studios` or similar wording.

 

All this was detailed in a contract, for each engagement.

 

We had no complaints with this arrangement, in fact, most were exceptionally happy they could use any image of their choice, not just ones we selected to release to them.

 

WW

[surfidaho]

A way out of this would be for you to take his posting of your images as a compliment and express appreciation to him, but insist on tagging the images with your name, followed by the studio name.

 

I post images from my second shooters (not assistants) on my website, but I give full credit to the person who took the picture.

 

Is he tagging the pictures with the studio name, or his own name (or are they one and the same name)?

 

If he's tagging them with his own name, and it's different than the studio name, he's way out of line (in my opinion).

 

If he's tagging them with the studio name, but not your name, he's still doing something a bit underhanded. I wonder why he needs to use your images to promote himself? Perhaps he's not confident about his own work.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[susanne_beerli]

As an assistant, I wouldn't take this too seriously.

 

Two situations:

 

1) If there *is* contract, your employer will probably state that he has ownership and copyright. It's like if I worked for Apple designing the iPhone. Who's logo and copyright symbols are on the iPhone? Certainly not mine. In that case, YOU'D need permission to display those images (even if they're your own) on your website.

 

2) If there's no contract, I'd say YOU are the copyright owner and he implicitely (by nature of your relationship) is allowed use of the images, but does not own the copyright nor ownership.

[mark_parker2]

I wouldn't sweat it. But I might ask him for a website link. That would help you with your google rankings.

[sally_turner]

Thanks everyone for your input. I understand as an employee, what I take he can use- what I have a problem with is not getting credit as the shooter. His studio name are his initials, on the photos he is putting his full name. In a portfolio of 24 images, 9 of them are mine. I developing my own websits and have used some of the same images before knowing they where posted on his site. I guess I need to have a talk with him about credit.

[William Michael]

>>>If he's tagging them with his own name, and it's different than the studio name, he's way out of line (in my opinion).

 

If he's tagging them with the studio name, but not your name, he's still doing something a bit underhanded.<<< (PT)

 

>>> His studio name are his initials, on the photos he is putting his full name. <<< (ST)

 

(and re my previous post)

 

As an employer, and also a photographer, I would not use my name on another`s work: I think such a practice is simply, wrong.

 

But I do / did use the Studio`s name on others` work, (and my work) and per my previous post.

 

Using the Studio`s name of an employee`s work could be viewed as underhanded by some, most likely employees who are passionate and immature in their understanding of the workings of business relationships and especially if what was to happen was not laid out clearly, before hand.

 

BUT common sense / common & ethical business practice has to reign here.

 

In really simple terms an employee is providing the service and is paid for it, the good results of that service are owned by the business, and the errors of that service are also owned by the business, the latter point is often forgotten.

 

The employed newspaper journalist gets the by line, but it is the paper`s copy, the business owns it, and the law suits it might attract: at least where I sit, such is the case.

 

This is a reasonable comparison, I think.

 

The above is a bit esoteric in regards to the original post: in regards to advice, I think you should be comfortable with your employer and be comfortable in his employ.

 

The passion about your work, is quite understandable, and it is very easy for me to write in the big picture, later you will look back and it will be a small issue: but really such will be the case.

 

I advise you sit down and nut out what the rules are for the next six Weddings, be nice, there is really no percentage in not so: simply outline that it is unclear what exactly the arrangements are and that you require clarification.

 

If you feel strongly about the studio name / his name on your work, then say something, but that could burn the bridge. I do not suggest you should therefore bow down to this fact as an undisclosed threat, but simply be aware of it as a possible outcome.

 

Remember it is NOT personal, and avoid the trap of making the conversation personal, it is not the end of the world.

 

WW

[William Michael]

>>> The employed newspaper journalist gets the by line, but it is the paper`s copy <<<

 

sorry that should read:

 

>>> The employed newspaper journalist SOMETIMES gets the by line, but it is the paper`s copy. <<<

 

there were two points I was making here: the inclusion of `SOMETIMES` was reference to and highlights junior staff memebers not getting by line credit, for small issue work.

 

WW

[toddcwilson]

I tend to agree with Ellis on this one. Assumption: this photographer you assisted is established in your market? If that is the case there is the potential for more harm befalling you by doing what is "right." If this person has a fragile ego and unpleasant disposition when corrected it could come full circle and bite you. Although you are "right," you are about to claim some territory in the relationship. Just a thought, I see you mentioned your educational credentials here. Academically speaking, does your formal education exceed that of this photographer? Obviously this individual has more experience, hence the nature of your working relationship as an assistant. I had the following situation occur to me and I will share to let you come to your own conclusion.

 

In working under someone who had a tremendous amount of real world experience and no formal college education, they were easily offended at the slightest of recommendations on my behalf, no matter how politely or respectfully I put them. This person took my insight as a threat, I think, and all I was trying to do was contribute and impart with some of my experience (academic) in exchange for what I was receiving (the benefit of this individuals experience). The relationship became incredibly tense. I only assume there were other factors contributing to this ever growing tense situation as this individual had other failed business ventures with others people (all relationship conflicts, and the other persons fault as it was told to me.) To this day this individual and I do not speak, and we were very good friends up to this point, at least so I thought.

 

Moral of the story, consider the psychology before approaching the situation and then determine the cost/ benefit of whatever you decide to do. People tend to think, "surly this individual will understand my approach, after all, it is right," without thinking about the "psychology" behind the scene - so to speak. Perhaps asking for credit to help you out may be the best approach. Done in terms of,"you are established and regarded highly in the community, and I have learned so much from you. Perhaps you could help me with a little credit for my shots while claiming credit for the instruction and insight you provided me...," or something like that. Just food for thought, I may be way off base ...

[toddcwilson]

Oh, and if you decide to approach the individual and it does go all to hell, thank him for thinking so much of your work that he would lay claim to it as his own. It is always better to stand on the high ground and look down rather than being dead right and looking up;)

[Ian Taylor]

If he's a pro and has to use his assistant's images to promote his work, I'd say it looks good for you in the long run. Just walk away.

[stephen dohring]

First be glad he thought that much of them to put on his site

Second he may have put them up to compliment you, he may not really need them. Third if you feel you are a better shooter and have a better eye maybe just not the experience then you have a case. He owns the rights to use the images though, you were hired for the job and he is letting you use them also that is more than a lot of places so I take the positve route. You also will be getting experience and a starter portfolio and maybe your own jobs. I would not burn bridges, your gut will tell you if something is not right with him and you can make your move when the time is right. Knowing is reputation with other photographes is a good thing if you have not been there long.

[o_brian]

Welcome to the grey, grey world of business ethics and even greyer area of verbal agreements. I spent 15 years on Wall Street and learned an incredible amount about people. Some I'd gladly make a commmitment too with nothing more than a handshake and others I'd never do business with even if I had a contract thoroughly cleaned and pressed. Naturally I would never recommend relying on a handshake, but I'm serious when I say I've done it. As a corollary, I think one of those traits I valued most in superiors/employers/clients/etc was the degree to which they were 'approachable'. Meaning, if I had a problem by error or misunderstanding could I approach that person in a professional way and expect a fair 'hearing' and reasonable response. Not always mind you, but most of the time. There's alwasys a chance the person rips your head off because they just got off the phone with their childs school principal - those calls are never good. If there's a point to this it's that you've got to be able to read people, whether they're your boss or perspective client. Contracts certainly have there place, but the courts are busting at the seams with deals gone bad and lawyers knit picking over semantics.

 

Bottom line: you've worked for the person for at least six months. You've seen the way he treats you, treats clients, and possibly how he treats his own family. You should know if the guy is 'approachable' by now. If he's a prima donna but really knows his business than hang awhile and absorb as much as you can. If on the other hand, he's a fairly decent guy than he just might appreciate you talking to him rather than quiting - something young people tend to do because they let a problem fester instead of giving communication a chance. In any case, you'll have a learning lesson to help prepare you for future events.

 

Wordy as always,

David

[jaimie blue]

To answer the part of your question, "Am I right to be upset," my answer is a straight up YES. I understand working for a studio etc...but I will never understand another photographer putting their name to someone else's work. I worked for a studio inside a resort hotel and the copyright belonged to the hotel and I agreed to that up front, but each photographer got photo credit, but not copyright. I could never take anyone else's image and put my name to it whether I owned the studio or not. I can understand that you are upset. I do not understand why you did not define terms beforehand especially the money. If he is using your images and paying you hourly maybe you should get a commision on your images that sell. I say break away, go out on your own, don't make this guy rich off of your work, or work it out honestly, and expect to be compensated and treated fairly.

[john_h.1]

Perhaps you are ready to go out on your own if your images are good enough that others want to attribute them as their own work.

[surfidaho]

Double W posted a newspaper analogy, where not everyone gets a byline. It's a valid point, but this is not a business with dozens of anonymous people cranking out stories day after day. This is a small number of people working closely together, all of whom are artists, and the web page is the showcase of their efforts.

 

In my opinion, it is better to err on the side of caution and give full credit where credit is due, rather than ruin a relationship over an inaccurate or missing photo credit.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[William Michael]

>>> Double W posted [. . . etc

 

I do not think we have opposed thoughts on this issue. (I do not necessarily think you think we do either).

 

The newspaper analogy was just as best as I could get to place the issue in perspective of the real world, and how important it will be over a (Ms Turner`s) career.

 

 

My position on plagiarism is quite clear:

 

 

`As an employer, and also a photographer, I would not use my name on another`s work: I think such a practice is simply, wrong. ` (op cit).

 

My tone in the thread was to suggest that Ms Turner need not make a `Federal Issue` (slang: get all heated up and expel lots of emotional energy), over this account. IMO there is no need.

 

She needs to decide if she wants to continue working with this man or if they should part company.

 

The point I wish to reinforce is the conduct of the meeting following her decision, (yes, she should decide WHAT she is going to do, BEFORE the meeting) should be business only and in a business tone, without biased emotion or personal issue.

 

Those who can bring these qualities to the meeting table always win, if a battle ensues.

 

WW

 

PS, I think my nick-name `Double W` is cute, thanks.

[toddcwilson]

Correct, and only she knows her employer's disposition (at least I would hope so) going into the meeting. Comes down to need really, if she needs the job and there is a chance this employer may not receive her position well, then suck it and drive on until it is time to move out on her own.