sonny_beverage

<p>Yes, David, but the other "legal things" they may ask me to do have nothing to do with copyright law. And apparently I should never have used the word "volunteer"...I really meant that loosely, my bad people...obviously I did it on company time, but, ONCE AGAIN, that is beside the point. And as far as using my name, who cares if anyone else's lawyers, police, attorney general, FBI, the President, Elvis, or the Pope see what I am writing here? I have said nothing to slander anyone, or anything that may need to hide in any way, shape or form. Just discussing the facts of a situation and looking for some friendly input from fellow photographers? They can read it, print it, post it, publish it, and broadcast it all they want...what's the problem? =)</p>

<p>Kelly, not sure if you were meaning to point to that particular page regarding the definition of "employee", but that point is not really in question...I was definitely an employee. But that's beside the point...just because you are an employee doesn't mean the employer has automatic rights to your work (unless photography is clearly a part of your job, as in working for a newspaper, magazine, public relations office, etc).</p>

<p>Thanks for the link to the Copyright Law, Kelly! As I said, the work for hire part is fairly straightforward....</p>

<p>Thanks for your response, Kait. The law does state that anyone owns the right to one's photos from the moment they are created. You don't have to create a document to protect them, unless of course you work as a photographer (for a magazine, etc), and in that case, if you take a shot that you want to protect as your own, you would have to make your employer sign the exclusive rights to you. Otherwise, in any other case, the images are yours and yours alone, UNLESS you intentionally sign them over to someone else.</p>

<p>No Jon, to be honest, I am quite relieved to be out of what was becoming a rather unpleasant work situation (poor pay, bad hours, etc) so I have NO interest in getting that job back. And it really has nothing to do with being bitter, so folks, please stop bring that up. As I said, even if I had moved on amicably, I would not have felt comfortable with them continuing to profit on my artwork. And as far as my duties are concerned, you should give the Copyright Act a read, because it does in fact matter that it wasn't in my job description...otherwise why would that clause be there in the first place? A good example of someone who would have photography as "part of their normal scope of employment" would be someone for a newspaper or magazine...in that case is is a given (unwritten) that the photos are the property of the employer. When I was in school I worked as a student photographer - in that case, obviously the photos are the property of the employer..."in the normal scope of employment."</p>

<p>Yes Kelly, it was done on company time, and by "volunteer" I mean I offered to do it. But I think you missed the most important point in all of this. EVEN THOUGH I did this on company time (on the clock, etc.), according to work for hire law, an "unwritten" work for hire agreement would only be valid IF what I was doing was "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" (quoted directly from Section 101 of the US Copyright Law), and if you read the point by point breakdown of my duties in my offer letter, NOWHERE in that document does it say anything about photography, media, advertising, promotion, or contribution to anything remotely related to this type of work. So, the only other way for them to claim the rights to my work is through an actual written agreement, and no one ever drew one up or signed one.</p>

<p>Nope, Kelly, I have no plans of being in the industry at any point in the future, but otherwise that would be a very valid concern, you are correct.</p>

<p>Thanks Brian, I appreciate your addition to the conversation (since that is all I intended to start in the first place - its like watching Sportscenter...really doesn't matter what they say, but it can be interesting none the less!). As far as the "volunteer" bit, your are right, if they knew I was a photog and had asked me first, then it might make things a bit more difficult on my end. And regarding your point on "sour grapes", I honestly don't feel that that has anything to do with it. To be 100% honest, if I had quit the job under perfectly amicable terms, I would still want my work to come with me, and I can't believe anyone else would feel differently. Otherwise, how could anyone not feel a bit used? And as far as "what I want", it really is that simple - I don't want any sort of damages (financial, etc.), I just want them to pull my photos from anything they are using them in, simple as that. As for why it wasn't an issue until now?...the way I see it, if the photos are helping to bring in business WHILE I am employed there (as in on the payroll), then I have no problem with it...in a manner of speaking, anything that helps business is helping my job, my livelihood, etc.</p>

<p>Bob, it really doesn't matter that it's my real name, because if he is in fact in conflict with federal copyright laws (yes, we're talking about federal law, which undoubtedly trumps any meager local labor law), then there is nothing more he can do about it, is there? If he is in breach of such laws, then it's clear that he either has to stop using them/pull them from the website/etc, or face legal consequences. So, no I have no reason to hide my name, or the situation as a whole. I never signed any documents, and he obviously can't make them appear by sheer magic.</p>

<p>Oh I plan to take the advice from my laywer, by all means, and I'm not looking to take "advice" from anyone here, per say...rather I'm looking for people's thoughts or input, as the thread title states. I'm just looking to see what others have to say, such as in some of the other threads I've seen, where people (who apparently know and understand the rather straightforward work-for-hire law) weigh in on the story or situation....I mean as opposed to people just saying "talk to your lawyer" (no offense)...such as in this thread: photo.net/<strong>business-photography-forum</strong> /00QFL9</p>

<p>Thanks, Bob. Though I respectfully disagree in the thought that the issue is all that "complex" - the law says that in order for my employers to have the rights to my work, there must be a work-for-hire agreement...and in order for a work-for-hire agreement to exist, one of two things has to happen: either 1) the work has to be "within the normal scope of employment" (which it very clearly was not - I was being paid to manage the store and it's staff, not as a photographer); in this case, essentially an unwritten work-for-hire agreement would exist.....OR, 2) an actual work-for-hire agreement/document would need to have been drawn up & signed, and as I said, that simply never occurred.</p>

<p>Hey everyone - I've found myself in an interesting situation in regards to some photographic work I did for a now former employer of mine, and any input any of you might have would be very welcome.<br>

For the last 3 months I've been an assistant manager at a large aquarium store. While I was there, I overheard my bosses talking about a new advertising push they wanted to start up, which included brochures, a color photo book for sales/service, a billboard, and a new website. It is important to note that when they hired me they had no idea I was a photographer, and they've admitted this to me several times since. I decided to volunteer my services and equipment (brand new Canon 40D setup w/L & EF-S lenses) to do the photos for them. AND, by the way, no where in my original offer letter's list of expected job duties did it say anything about photography, or anything to do with advertising, promotion, etc.<br>

Long story short, I did all the photo work, which, when it was all said and done, included over 200 digitial photos. The new brochure, color photo book, and billboard have been completed, and the website is currently under construction (incidentally they plan to use the bulk of the images for the online sale of a variety of saltwater livestock). Unfortunately, I have now been laid off, under very vague and suspicious reasoning, no less. At any rate, I feel extremely uncomfortable with the idea that they have let me go but are going to continue to utilize my artwork for their financial gains. I would very much like to deny any further use of my work by the store. I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the "work for hire" part of the copyright law, and here's why I feel I have a fairly clean-cut case:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Though I was on the clock while doing the photos, the photographic work was NOT within the normal scope of the job I was hired for (not to mention I did most of the work, in terms of processing, on my own time!). I was NOT hired as a photographer, and most importantly there was NOTHING remotely related to photography included in the offer letter I was given (and I still have a copy of it, with a detailed list of each of the position's expected duties).</li>

<li>I was NEVER given any sort of document or agreement to sign which would transfer the rights to the work to my employers.</li>

</ol>

<p><br /> I am currently waiting for my lawyer to get back to me on this, but I would love nothing more than to exercise my right to deny my former employer the rights to my artwork. In the mean time, any input you all might have would be highly appreciated! <br /> <br /> THANKS!</p>