[designinme_1976]

I reside in the U.S., and would like some advice regarding an even I shot every year. Each year I shoot a concert for a local radio station. It's a major even that usually brings in 20,000 guests, and the bands are well known groups.

Pretty much the deal is a verbal one, and one I have no issue with, but now I am questioning if I have any rights to the photos, and what my rights are. The deal is simple, the company that owns the radio station, the person who pretty much is in charge of the entire EVENT, we will call him MR. ROCk.. about four years ago, asked if I would shoot the event for his use. The deal is, I shoot the event, and give him the images for the companies use, and in return i get experience.

I get full access to the event, to the stage, anyplace I want to go ( it's fantastic experience, though I don't get paid, I enjoy it so much learning each year that I don't mind that ).

Now, the problem is I have been doing this for 5 years now, and the event is coming around the corner. Each year that I shoot this I get friends and friends of friend/family that want prints. They want to pay me to make posters, or canvas prints of my work. I mentioned this to another friend, and he told me I was out of luck. He stated that I have no rights to the photos at all?

So here is my question.. Under the verbal agreement, do I have any rights to the pictures? If friends want copies can I even make them a copy of the picture? Can I post these on a website?

Any help in this regard would be GREATLY appreciated!

[flyer]

If the rights were not specified in the initial talk, and the subject never came up after, I assume the rights belong to the photographer. You give him a disc with the pictures, but you never forfaited your rights. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but that's my take on the subject.

[JonPB]

Practically speaking, I'd say that your legal rights are irrelevant. Since the rights aren't cut in stone, he could sue you for selling your images. You may win if you take it to court, but that would probably cost far more than what you value the images at.

How does the station use the pictures? If they're selling the prints already, then you're obviously stepping on their toes...but I doubt that's the case. They probably just use them for advertising and might not even be aware that people are willing to buy some of them.

I'd say, talk to Mr. Rock. Tell him that you know folks who want your images, ask if it is okay for you to distribute them. If he balks, you can suggest that every image sold include a caption that mentions the radio station and the concert. Or you can suggest to share a portion of your profit from the images. Heck, why not give the station 50% of your profits in exchange for a few on-air referrals to your website where listeners can order prints?

A lot of legal scuffles arise when somebody feels like someone else did them wrong, legality aside. Honest, open communication will prevent misunderstandings. That said, communicating via email would be a good way to get it in writing. ;-)

[Nachodog]

My take on it, is that you've given the station the right to use your photos. You haven't agreed to give away the 'Rights' (right of ownership) of your photos. I think this is especially true because your agreement was verbal, not written AND you aren't being paid.

If a dispute arises and you ever have to go to court over this, it'll come down to your word vs. theirs and I think you as the photographer would be in a better position in this case.

I think it would still be prudent to inform Mr. Rock of your intentions of selling the photographs, but you might be giving up your position as owner of the images if you were to ask if it's ok. If they do have a problem with your selling your photos, then you can ask that the radio station buy the rights to the photos.

Like Yves, I'm no lawyer, but this is how it makes sense to me.

Simple you own the copyright nobody can take that away from you unless you've signed a contract stating otherwise. This is international it's doesn't matter where the image was taken or where you live.

As for selling them unless you have a model release you can only use the photos for editorial or for prints in a limited way really and a few other limited things. The organizers don't have a leg to stand on.

You do have the problem of if you start selling prints the organizers could get a bit cross and not use you again.

Model releases are funny things over here in Blighty you don't need one but try selling a photo of person with out one. It's very similar in the US.

[Wheatfield]

Talk to a lawyer. Copyright and usage rights are two separate issues. You also have to deal with release forms from recognizable people in the pictures.
There will be a difference if you intend to make a profit or are just handing out a few prints to friends.

[Mike Cash]

Year 1 you get experience.

Year 2 you get screwed.

Year 3 you get screwed.

Year 4 you get screwed.

Year 5 you get screwed.

If he was satisfied enough with your output the first time then he damned well ought to be paying you something for each subsequent year. I doubt he's doing this event at a loss out of the goodness of his heart; it's a money-making business proposition or he wouldn't be doing it. Hiring a photographer is part of the cost of doing business.

He sounds like a chiselling bastard and I wouldn't put it past him to put the screws to you if you used the photos for yourself. I'd have a written agreement this year or tell him to go rub Vaseline on somebody else's butt crack for a change.

I agree with Mike, it's about time you made this formal. It may work in both your favours.
All you have to do is sit down and talk.

[MRRiley]

YOU own, the photos, not Mr. Rock or the radio station regardless of whether they granted you "media" access. Access to the backstage areas does NOT constitute "payment" so he can't even say he "bought" the photos.

Lacking any kind of written contract, or any mention of"exclusivity" in any verbal contract you MAY have with him, the photos are yours and yours alone. Selling them is another question which may not be a problem for the reason you think.

1. In a funny way, the fact that you have not been paid actually works in your favor in this case. Had you been paid to shoot the event, the station or the venue could claim ownership of the photos as the product of the work they paid for. Hard for them to claim ownership of something they didn't pay for. And again, access is not generally considered "payment."

2. I'd tell Mr. Rock that you want to sign a written contract this year to provide the station with a limited usage license to the photos you shoot in exchange for complimentary access to the event with full access to the backstage areas. Specify that the photos can be used by the station only for promotional or advertising purposes, but that sales of the photos to 3rd parties must go through you.

I'd still do the event for free, because access to the backstage is a valuable thing and allows you to get photos that the general audience cannot shoot. Your payment will come thru your subsequent sales.

3. Finally, the MAIN pitfall in all of this may actually rest more with the performers than with the station. Depending on what their contract with the station says, you may or may not need some kind of licensing agreement with them to distribute/sell images of their performances. This is different from a "model release" in that many performer's images/persona's and acts are actually copyrighted or trademarked in and of themselves. Thus selling photos of a performance could violate THEIR copyright (not a nice thing for one artist to do to another). Also, unlike a model release, which is generally only required for "commercial use" (such as in an advertisement or similar situation) but NOT for "editorial use (which can cover a whole lotta ground), copyright licensing applies to ALL uses of the person or entity's image.

For instance, people making t-shirts picturing Michael Jackson and then selling them on the corner are violating the copyrights AND trademarks protecting MJ's image.

In the end, it would be in your best interest to talk to a lawyer as Wheatfield suggested. Just make sure it is a lawyer who is familiar with intellectual property/trademark/copyright law. Don't bother with the ambulance chasers or the "I can get you out of a DUI" guys.

Best of luck and if Mr. Rock balks at your new conditions tell him fine and skip the event. They will feel it when they only have crappy P&S photos to show for their trouble and they'll probably call you back next year.

Mike

[khardur]

I can't agree more with both Mike's responses. You've been more than gracious in donating your services, and by any standards you should be getting paid for this, or at least have the opportunity to sell some prints after the fact to recoup some money for the time you spent on it.

[designinme_1976]

I really appreciate all of the great info. I am very excited for this even to come around this year, and though I didn't use pentax is the previous years.. ( Can/Nikon ) I am very much looking forward to using Pentax this year and see what I can do.

I am going to have a chat with my contact.. and go from there about getting some sort of compensation and/or rights to making some sales.

Thanks again for the valuable information.

[MRRiley]

I am going to have a chat with my contact.. and go from there about getting some sort of compensation and/or rights to making some sales.

Just remember. Mr. Rock and the station are the ones getting rights (or more properly a license) to use YOUR photos, not the other way around. As for your right to sell the photos, this is a question that depends on the stations agreement/contract with the performers. You may have to consult with the performers themselves for a license to sell photos of their likenesses/personas/performances. Of course, muddying the waters, the station may indeed have some kind of trademark on the venue, but this most likely won't apply to the performers themselves.

And be careful accepting payment for shooting the event unless you are totally willing to lose all rights to the images. Once they buy your services, in most cases, THEY do indeed own the images (unless your written contract states that you retain the copyright).

[flyer]

Once they buy your services, in most cases, THEY do indeed own the images (unless your written contract states that you retain the copyright).

You always retain the copyrights, unless specified in the agreements. You may loose the rights to profits from the pictures, but the copyrights, unless specified in the agreement, are still yours.

[Wheatfield]

You always retain the copyrights, unless specified in the agreements. You may loose the rights to profits from the pictures, but the copyrights, unless specified in the agreement, are still yours.

Please remember, this is more or less correct in the USA, but in other jurisdictions (such as Canada), this is not always the case.

[MRRiley]

You always retain the copyrights, unless specified in the agreements. You may loose the rights to profits from the pictures, but the copyrights, unless specified in the agreement, are still yours.

Depends on if you are considered an employee or a contractor. If you get into a court battle and a judge determines that you were acting as an employee of the station (in this case) then the station owns the copyright. Same as if you were an employee of a newspaper. Take a photo on company time and the paper owns the image. However, even if you were working as a contractor, it is possible for the judge to decide that the images belong to the station as part of a "work for hire" contract. This is why I suggested that the OP not accept payment for shooting the even since this gives greater weight to his ownership of the copyright. Hard for the station to say he was an employee if they didnt pay him. Frankly, this is why its important to have a clearly written contract and why, if you are involved in a mess like this, you consult a lawyer who knows copyright/trademark/IP law.

Mike