If I shoot a family and they purchase photos from me then they own the photos ... Not the copyright. If Aunt Sandy wants a copy of a shot of the baby (for example) 6 years after I did the shoot Aunt Sandy is not paying for an already paid for photo. She is purchasing a brand new photo and as such I deserve to be paid for Aunt Sandy's copy. If the family goes on over to wally world and makes a copy then they are stealing from me and I have the right collect damages assuming I know about. This is where it gets sticky because the family isn't making a profit off the photo or selling it they are merely giving a copy to Aunt Sandy. It's a fine line.HOGWASH!!!
Don't you dare tell Ansel Adams estate that the his estate does not own the copyrights to his work. Don't even think for one minute that if you try to copy one of his works that you don't owe money to his estate for said photo. You may own the photo but you sure don't own the copyright. As an aside ... Mr. Adams had foresight that most never think about in that he set up a lab and taught them how to make prints he insured all the copyrights were filed and protected. He did this so that his estate could continue to produce his work and make money. He also insured the quality and upheld the standards. The copies his lab makes are less valuable than the copies he printed but valuable all the same. He was really a very smart man. Y'all should read about him he was amazing.
I sell my copyrights for several thousands of dollars. You are welcome to purchase should you want to but I do not sell my copyrights lightly. No photographer worth anything does. Did anyone read about Annie Leibovitz near loss of her entire catalog of work because she put her copyrights up as collateral on a several million dollar loan. She got real lucky that someone baled her hiney out and she saved her life's work. But, hey using some of the examples here she's already been paid once for her photos who the hell does she think she is.
If want to purchase a used copy of John Grisham's, A time to kill, he has a lot of nerve expecting to be paid for a copy of his book that he has already been paid for once. What a jerk! When in reality indeed a royalty is paid to him by the seller because ... All together now ... He still owns the copyright to his work.
Paul McCartney lost the copyrights to several of his songs to Michael Jackson in a bidding war for something like 42 million. Every time he sings one of those songs he has to pay Jackson's estate even though he wrote every word. Sucks big ass donkey dick for him.
Some of the comments about photographers and their copyrights are ridiculous.
Ladies try to think of it this way ... If a man pays you for an appointment (yes, I know time only) great. Let's say he would like to see you again he then doesn't owe you anything because, well, he has already paid you once. Using some of the examples above you have no right to charge yet again for something you have already been paid for. Of course, that's "HOGWASH" but you get the idea.
For all the lawyers out there, let's say you wrote whatever and it gets published. Then it gets republished 10 years later you have nothing owed to you because, well, you've already been paid for it once. Also "HOGWASH".
A lady asked me if I could make a copy of a photo of her husband taken when he was about a year old. I can make a copy no problem but I asked her if she would reach into a photographers pocket and steal 20 bucks. She was aghast and said, "Oh no"! But that was exactly what she was asking me to do by making a bootleg copy for her. I charge for copies and I charge for scanning and I even charge by the hour when I am reconstructing photos. Like I said, it's a fine line.
When someone hires me to do photos I am not their employee I am an independent contractor and as such I retain my rights.
Have a great day! Originally Posted by Eve Hennessey
If someone pays you to do a photo session of an event, they have every right to expect to own all the rights to the photos. (Even if the law doesn't say this.)
If you shoot some photos of the local scenery, and someone buys a print, they should not expect to own the rights to reproduce the photos.
However, I have no problem with you retaining the copyright to photos from a paid session as long as the client understands clearly that they don't get the rights to the photos. This means they understand, not that they signed a form they didn't understand. It also means you explained it to them when they scheduled the event, not at the last minute when it's too late to get another photographer.
I'll assume YOU are an honest photographer and make sure your clients clearly understand this ahead of time. I can't understand why some photographers will spring this surprise on their clients and then act innocent when the client doesn't understand after the fact. Why would any photographer not make sure their clients understand ahead of time unless they're deliberately planning to take advantage of their naive clients?
I'll say it again, any provider who pays for a photoshoot and doesn't insist on retaining all rights to the photos is an idiot.
