Uploaded by Michael Gilliland on September 11, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Know your Rights as a Photographer
In this video Jared from froknowsphoto.com explains a little about ownership and copyright law regarding the photos that you take. Basically if you take it you own it unless you have made other arrangements. If someone pays you to photograph and turn over all the files you are pretty much giving up all the rights to the those images. If a band asks you to come shoot their show regardless of being paid or not you OWN all the rights to those images unless you tell them they can have the rights. It is good practice to make sure that all your agreements are written and not just verbal.
In this video Jared from froknowsphoto.com explains a little about ownership and copyright law regarding the photos that you take. Basically if you take it you own it unless you have made other arrangements. If someone pays you to photograph and turn over all the files you are pretty much giving up all the rights to the those images. If a band asks you to come shoot their show regardless of being paid or not you OWN all the rights to those images unless you tell them they can have the rights. It is good practice to make sure that all your agreements are written and not just verbal.
You left out something else too (no disrespect to you) it’s all about jurisdiction. Any photo taken from 2 places: any official public settings and any place you have a right to be belongs to you. You can any take picture of any government building if you’re in public domain or where you have permission. My advice is to get a “permit” before you shoot. I do it all the time. Cops just walk off shaking their heads maybe because I’m a PI and they really hate us.
Also this is a grey area, posted restrictions. If you see a sign saying that you are being photographed by traffic or crime cameras, those are your safety zones. The only drawback to that is if a crime is happening and you capture it you MUST report it or you will get charged for failure to report a crime. Photographers get hit with it all the time. Then you have peeping Tom laws, and day and a life laws they can be a bitch to prove in court behind jurisdiction and privacy as well.
I recently took photos during a wedding of a relative (family). I told the couple that I will post the photos online (on flickr) so that everyone in the family could see them and the couple could download them. However, the mother of the bride threatened to sue me because I did not seek permission from her. I posted a few photos and in fact most photos were my own family (my daughter, my son, wife etc) during the wedding. Any thoughts? I have since remove the photos.Tq!
I would like you to comment on what our rights are taking photo’s in public. Police here in Kansas City are getting increasing difficult on people with camera’s. I have been told that I can only shoot in one spot for 15 minutes. Would you talk about our rights as photographers in public and private places. I have also been treated like a criminal for taking my camera out in a shopping mall. The securtiy there asked me to leave the premises.
I’ve had similar treatment from security in a shopping centre/mall. These are “private property” according to the security and any management types. Just so happens they’re open to the public and their entire purpose is to be accessed by the public. Sometimes, writing a letter or calling the management well in advance and outlining what you’d like to do and how it’ll be used… can get you permission. If you have to agree to certain conditions then it may be better to find a different location.
street photography and photographs of people where no permission/release from the person is obtained seems a tricky area. I for one would never wish for my ‘likeness’ to become someone else’s photographic property just because they clicked a camera at me in the street or at an event (night clubs, award ceremonies etc). So it’d be interesting knowing where the legal stance is on that one.
as an add-on to this, when you post media (in this case, photos) to online services, be sure to read the fine print on rights, some sites declare that once you upload them, they become the owners. In ALL cases, read the fine print for media ownership.
I had a shoot yesterday for Willis Tower (Formerly Sears Tower) and they paid extra money to have exclusive rights to those images. They are giving me credit on the website, but it was agreed that I am not to put it online anywhere. Get absolutely everything in writing, really.
Because if you say it in a normal tone at a normal speed you run the words together and it sounds like frono’s photo and it is confusing, so he makes a point of separating the words entirely and changing the intonation of each word so they are distinct. For marketing and branding purposes it helps to do strange little things that make people remember you too.
She gave you consent to shoot her because she knew you were taking model shots and she willingly entered into them. There is nothing she can really do about a public showing of the pictures, for instance if you put them in an art gallery or a photo book or your web galleries. The model release gives permission to use their likeness in advertising, so if you try to sell that photo to a magazine they likely won’t print it without a release from the girl.
That is highly determined by the “owner” of the landmark. For instance, the Eiffel Tower has no daytime restrictions, but in Chicago you can’t take pictures of landmarks without a permit. You need to specifically check the rules for each landmark. It can take a lot of research and calling around to know for sure. On the other hand, people take pictures of landmarks and make money off them all the time and they get away with it even when they shouldn’t, so it depends on your personal ethics too.
If a parent of each girl cosigned a contract that states you are giving them something in exchange for money, then it is a valid contract and they owe you the money if you gave them the product. If you mutually chose to void the contract, they need to return all of the product to you. The digital pictures are part of the return, meaning they need to delete digital copies but you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify. If you didn’t void the contract, they owe you the money for the product.
In the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the work. You own the copyright on that picture. Now, whether you can get the picture from the camera or not could be an issue, and how you prove that you actually took the picture is just your word against his. So you do own the copyright, but it doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do unless you have a lot of access to the camera to get your pictures off before the other person claims they are his.
Unless you had an extremely incompetent lawyer, the judge would have to discharge a case that had no evidence that the person was under 18, except in the extreme circumstance that the photos were so obviously of a very young child that no jury would argue that there was any cause for doubt that they were under 18.
Hello Jared,yesterday I went to a football stadium and tried to take a panorama of the stadium (inside the stadium). But I was stopped by the security guard and he told me I can’t take the photo of the stadium with the dslr as it infringes the copyright. I don’t understand it, I got my own camera and I own the photo I took, that’s what I told him. But he said the is copyright to the professional photographer they hired. You understand what I meant? So, I can’t take any photo next time?
The law in Denmark is …. well you own the rights … but you CAN’T publish them unless you have a agreement from the person. And if the person on the picture says that you have to delete the image .. you have to 😮 Not fun for street photography
You left out something else too (no disrespect to you) it’s all about jurisdiction. Any photo taken from 2 places: any official public settings and any place you have a right to be belongs to you. You can any take picture of any government building if you’re in public domain or where you have permission. My advice is to get a “permit” before you shoot. I do it all the time. Cops just walk off shaking their heads maybe because I’m a PI and they really hate us.
Also this is a grey area, posted restrictions. If you see a sign saying that you are being photographed by traffic or crime cameras, those are your safety zones. The only drawback to that is if a crime is happening and you capture it you MUST report it or you will get charged for failure to report a crime. Photographers get hit with it all the time. Then you have peeping Tom laws, and day and a life laws they can be a bitch to prove in court behind jurisdiction and privacy as well.
What if she didn’t have the model release forms? Thank you
Hi Jared,
I recently took photos during a wedding of a relative (family). I told the couple that I will post the photos online (on flickr) so that everyone in the family could see them and the couple could download them. However, the mother of the bride threatened to sue me because I did not seek permission from her. I posted a few photos and in fact most photos were my own family (my daughter, my son, wife etc) during the wedding. Any thoughts? I have since remove the photos.Tq!
I would like you to comment on what our rights are taking photo’s in public. Police here in Kansas City are getting increasing difficult on people with camera’s. I have been told that I can only shoot in one spot for 15 minutes. Would you talk about our rights as photographers in public and private places. I have also been treated like a criminal for taking my camera out in a shopping mall. The securtiy there asked me to leave the premises.
What do you want shot? You should not spend money for equipment without any bother what you want shot.
i shoot jpeg because my computer is slow.. FML
Portrait, Landscapes, Night, outdoor stuff mainly
Great Advice thanks for the Info!
I’ve had similar treatment from security in a shopping centre/mall. These are “private property” according to the security and any management types. Just so happens they’re open to the public and their entire purpose is to be accessed by the public. Sometimes, writing a letter or calling the management well in advance and outlining what you’d like to do and how it’ll be used… can get you permission. If you have to agree to certain conditions then it may be better to find a different location.
street photography and photographs of people where no permission/release from the person is obtained seems a tricky area. I for one would never wish for my ‘likeness’ to become someone else’s photographic property just because they clicked a camera at me in the street or at an event (night clubs, award ceremonies etc). So it’d be interesting knowing where the legal stance is on that one.
what makes him get sued for that much?
as an add-on to this, when you post media (in this case, photos) to online services, be sure to read the fine print on rights, some sites declare that once you upload them, they become the owners. In ALL cases, read the fine print for media ownership.
I had a shoot yesterday for Willis Tower (Formerly Sears Tower) and they paid extra money to have exclusive rights to those images. They are giving me credit on the website, but it was agreed that I am not to put it online anywhere. Get absolutely everything in writing, really.
Thanks!
Because if you say it in a normal tone at a normal speed you run the words together and it sounds like frono’s photo and it is confusing, so he makes a point of separating the words entirely and changing the intonation of each word so they are distinct. For marketing and branding purposes it helps to do strange little things that make people remember you too.
She gave you consent to shoot her because she knew you were taking model shots and she willingly entered into them. There is nothing she can really do about a public showing of the pictures, for instance if you put them in an art gallery or a photo book or your web galleries. The model release gives permission to use their likeness in advertising, so if you try to sell that photo to a magazine they likely won’t print it without a release from the girl.
@BoldtCave That makes sense. I still think it sounds strange.
That is highly determined by the “owner” of the landmark. For instance, the Eiffel Tower has no daytime restrictions, but in Chicago you can’t take pictures of landmarks without a permit. You need to specifically check the rules for each landmark. It can take a lot of research and calling around to know for sure. On the other hand, people take pictures of landmarks and make money off them all the time and they get away with it even when they shouldn’t, so it depends on your personal ethics too.
If a parent of each girl cosigned a contract that states you are giving them something in exchange for money, then it is a valid contract and they owe you the money if you gave them the product. If you mutually chose to void the contract, they need to return all of the product to you. The digital pictures are part of the return, meaning they need to delete digital copies but you need a lawyer in your jurisdiction to verify. If you didn’t void the contract, they owe you the money for the product.
In the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the creator of the work. You own the copyright on that picture. Now, whether you can get the picture from the camera or not could be an issue, and how you prove that you actually took the picture is just your word against his. So you do own the copyright, but it doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do unless you have a lot of access to the camera to get your pictures off before the other person claims they are his.
Unless you had an extremely incompetent lawyer, the judge would have to discharge a case that had no evidence that the person was under 18, except in the extreme circumstance that the photos were so obviously of a very young child that no jury would argue that there was any cause for doubt that they were under 18.
excellent information…
The person who told him that he couldn’t use the photo’s sounds Bipolar.
Hello Jared,yesterday I went to a football stadium and tried to take a panorama of the stadium (inside the stadium). But I was stopped by the security guard and he told me I can’t take the photo of the stadium with the dslr as it infringes the copyright. I don’t understand it, I got my own camera and I own the photo I took, that’s what I told him. But he said the is copyright to the professional photographer they hired. You understand what I meant? So, I can’t take any photo next time?
The law in Denmark is …. well you own the rights … but you CAN’T publish them unless you have a agreement from the person. And if the person on the picture says that you have to delete the image .. you have to 😮 Not fun for street photography
It’s their area … the control who to take photos … not you 🙂