Copyright question as an employee (not staff photographer)
- Thread starter kaptainkatsu
- Start date
Refurb7 said:
But how does that affect copyright (which was the original question)?
As I understand it in US, if an employee develops a patentable product developed while in employment the patent sometimes rests with the employee, sometimes not depending on terms of contract and what the employee's primary role in the company is. I can see the same thing here.
Without knowing the details of this particular case, the company can ask 'we want a picture that shows we are a happy bunch to work with so please design and shoot a photo session' or they could ask 'can you take a picture of this bunch of people to show what a wonderful group we are'. They are different levels of input that could swing it either way.
Upvote
0
Like the others here, I am not a lawyer nor do I represent the OP.
In general, the individual that composes and/or takes picture is the owner of copyright. The initial questions you're concerned w/ are: A) Was this a work for hire in that both parties agreed to certain terms and both parties signed that agreement. This isn't likely the case based on what the OP stated. B) Was this work created in the general scope of ones employment? If the OP worked at a company whose purpose is creating photographic imagery-LifeTouch, for example- as an hourly employee under the companies direction, then that is viewed as part of their scope of work-purpose of employment- and said employee wouldn't own copyright. Again, this is not the circumstance. C) The next question-which could have actually been asked first-is whether the employee signed an intellectual property agreement which gives the company ownership of all work or ideas in relation to the job performed. If B or C don't apply, a company likely don't own the copyright solely based on the fact it was created during work hours or may contain certain content . Other copyright usage law would dictate how the owner uses content.
I agree w/other members that this will be problematic if pursued and is it really that important to you? Again, it was stated that any agreement should have been stated in the beginning. That advice is "gold". If a photographer has an interest in later usage of images, it's best to educate themselves beforehand on what is involved. Otherwise, it's better to refrain from using your talents.
In general, the individual that composes and/or takes picture is the owner of copyright. The initial questions you're concerned w/ are: A) Was this a work for hire in that both parties agreed to certain terms and both parties signed that agreement. This isn't likely the case based on what the OP stated. B) Was this work created in the general scope of ones employment? If the OP worked at a company whose purpose is creating photographic imagery-LifeTouch, for example- as an hourly employee under the companies direction, then that is viewed as part of their scope of work-purpose of employment- and said employee wouldn't own copyright. Again, this is not the circumstance. C) The next question-which could have actually been asked first-is whether the employee signed an intellectual property agreement which gives the company ownership of all work or ideas in relation to the job performed. If B or C don't apply, a company likely don't own the copyright solely based on the fact it was created during work hours or may contain certain content . Other copyright usage law would dictate how the owner uses content.
I agree w/other members that this will be problematic if pursued and is it really that important to you? Again, it was stated that any agreement should have been stated in the beginning. That advice is "gold". If a photographer has an interest in later usage of images, it's best to educate themselves beforehand on what is involved. Otherwise, it's better to refrain from using your talents.
Upvote
0
+1 The OP needs to explain 'why' the concern over copyright ownership. For any work the OP did that was externally published by the company simple tear sheets and/or actual copies of brochures, annual reports, etc. are expected examples of prior work done. In addition to copyright, to re-sell such work would also require model releases/property releases which likely the OP does not have (if they exist the company would have them). If everything the OP did was strictly for internal company use it would be considered proprietary. Then the OP would have to negotiate some agreement to even show as part of his portfolio.unfocused said:
Again, not legal advice... just opinion.
Upvote
0
As great as Canon Rumors is for gear talk, technique, and travel advice, the Professional Photographers of America is probably the best online for copyright discussions.
Upvote
0
Maybe - if you are NOT satisfied with the outcome of the lawyer/company conversation about the copyright - you will suffer a "damage" in your equipment and the company will have to provide you everything necessary for a future photo assignment...unfocused said:
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
My answer addresses copyright. If the work is done as an employee, then the work belongs to the employer. That means they own the copyright.
I think the OP has given sufficient information to answer the question. The OP writes, "I have taken and edited the photos/videos on company time." Yes, a contract could have change the situation, but the OP has no contract whereby the copyright would be his. He would own the copyright if he were an independent contractor, but he seems to be an employee on the payroll, so, not an independent contractor.
Upvote
0
