Celebration Studios' (NJ) Bankruptcy

[jmarshall]

<p>Some of you may remember that in early 2008, the state of NJ shut down Celebration Studios, due to numerous violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act. Thousands of couples were left in limbo: some lost deposits for upcoming weddings, others had never received images from weddings dating to 2006 and 2007.</p>

<p>The article contains a good overview of the situation. A couple of scary things for photographers: in some cases, photographers and videographers who'd shot weddings for Celebration were required to hand over the images, even though they were never paid. Also, as a result of the final order, the copyright in the images was transferred to the state. The article says the owner surrendered his rights to the images, but if the actual photographers and videographers weren't paid for their work, were the rights to the images his to surrender?</p>

<p>The most important part for <strong>couples</strong> who haven't received their images: you have until <strong>January 13, 2010 </strong>to claim them from the state Division of Consumer Affairs. "Consumers who contracted with Celebration Studios and have not yet received their photographs or videos should contact the Division by calling (800) 242-5846 or (973) 504-6200, or by emailing <a href="mailto:wedding.photos@dca.lps.state.nj.us">wedding.photos@dca.lps.state.nj.us</a> to arrange for the pickup or delivery of their merchandise."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/morris_county_wedding_photogra.html">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/morris_county_wedding_photogra.html</a></p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p><em>but if the actual photographers and videographers weren't paid for their work, were the rights to the images his to surrender?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Let's say you shoot a wedding, gave the clients the photos and you wound up never being paid, you think you would not own the copyrights? f you shoot an image, agree to let a client use it without payment, is that a basis for you not having a copyright? If you shoot an image for fun and no one pays you for it, do you not own the copyright because no one paid you?</p>

<p>Why would you think you need to be paid, by a client, a freind or anyone before you would have a copyright to images you shoot. Is there something in the copyright act that says payment is required for one to own a copyright?</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>Re-reading your post less hastily this time it apparently asks about an employer paying employees instead of shooters getting paid. Nevertheless, an employer is an employer whether it defaults on paying its employees or not. Again, paying somebody or not, by itself, doesn't determine who owns a copyright. Its the photographer's image unless its part of either a work for hire/employment situation or a written agreement in certain scenerios. Failure to pay an employee creates legal issues but copyright is not one of them. The orginization was either an employer or it was not. Failing to pay wages/salary ect. doesn't change that.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>There's a big article on this today in the local Central NJ print, such as the Home News Tribune, basically what you said. Ahhh, good ol' NJ, if it' not illegal Kidneys, it's construction kickbacks, mayors and assembly members dropping off like mosquitos after the great fog.</p>

[jmarshall]

<p>John -- I may be over-complicating or failing to explain bits and piece I picked up reading the story and those linked to it, so let me try to put it down more logically.</p>

<p>Celebration had a number of locations and a large number of photographers and videographers doing work on its behalf (not clear whether as employees or contractors). When Celebration was shut down by the state, some of the photographs and videos were still in the possession of the people who took them (and who were the original copyright holders), and were therefore not seized by the state. Most of these people had at least some outstanding compensation coming to them.</p>

<p>At some point during the settlement discussions, the owner of Celebration Studios, who was not the actual creator of the images, agreed to forfeit the studio's copyright in the images, to allow couples to get their albums finished, reprints made, etc. The judge ordered individuals who were holding works they created to turn them over to the state for distribution to the couples who had contracted to have the images shot, even though the photographers and videographers had not been compensated.</p>

<p>Now we get to the place where I may have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. </p>

<p>Assuming (and yes, I know what happens when we assume :) ) that the images were created as works for hire or under contract, and further assuming that in the contract the photo/videographer conveyed the copyright to Celebration in exchange for being paid by Celebration, if Celebration did not pay the shooters, was the copyright ever transferred to Celebration? Was the agreement by Celebration's owner applicable to works for which he didn't own the copyright, because he never fulfilled the contract under which he obtained it? How could the judge require the image makers to turn their property over to the state to be distributed ... along with the copyrights ... to the couples? Isn't that some sort of illegal seizure? Do they just lose their rights to the images, and have to stand in line with other creditors at the bankruptcy court?</p>

<p>If the image makers were employees (and I've run a small business, so I know that the mere fact that they were told to be at a specific place at a certain time to do a specific job could make them employees), I suppose that what they created while working was the intellectual property of the business owner. </p>

<p>Don't mean to prolong this. I'm just kind of fascinated by the ins and out of IP law ...</p>