You own the copyright, but they have control on its usage other than being put in a personal album, or something similar, unless you agree terms.

I have a letter from my company authorising me to take pics on premises and during work.

The deal i have struck is that any pictures i wish to publish either here on this web site or via submission to a magazine where possible earnings are not great then i can once they have approved it and in return they get to use the picture for internal usage subject to me being accredited as the photographer.

If i wish to use the pictures for any purposes with real earnings potential then i have to get the picture(s) approved and cough up for a permit. And by the same token any pictures they see that they want to use for external purposes (advertising etc) then they have to pay me a fee accordingly.

But back to Bills question...

Would the pictures be covered as part of the company - that is would the company be owning & selling them or would the company merely be acting as an agent for you "Big Bill" the photographer? If the company is designed to act as your agent (even though it may be run by you) then the pictures should be copyrighted to yourself. If however the photographer and the company are operating as a single unit then the pictures get copyrighted to the company.

I think that's how it goes. I did look into it once when helping my daughteer with her law degree. It's an interesting subject.

Hope that makes sense - it did to me as i was writing it...

Andrew

---

Never going to be the best photographer in the world, but as long as i enjoy it...

DCmag Team:

Hi all,

Hopefully you've all seen the new law feature in the mag this month - I hope you like it.

I was just wondering if anyone had any specific questions they'd like me to get our legal guru, Linda, to answer? You could post them on this thread or email to me at rachael.dcruze@futurenet.co.uk

Many thanks,

Rach @ DCM

One of the things I am curious about is how does a photographer stand with respect to other the law in other parts of the world when publishing photographs online.  For instance, I think I have read somewhere that under French law every identifiable person in a photo must have signed a consent form before it can be published. (As an aside looking at French photography sites, if this is true it isn't always enforced).  Could such a law be applied to UK photo's taken in the UK but published on the web.

Bit of interesting police filming related fun HERE.

It is in the context of an animal rights related protest so not necessarily something that most peeps on here are necessarily likely tp face.

It properly gets going about half way through.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

hi guys

copyright theft?

i work for a recovery company that dealt with a serious traffic accident,

whilst off duty i took a serious amount of images of the recovery the boss asked for a copy for his record of the incident i have recently discoverd that he has now passed one of my images off as his own to another company that is using it to advertise there company where do i stand????

d.reynolds:

hi guys

copyright theft?

i work for a recovery company that dealt with a serious traffic accident,

whilst off duty i took a serious amount of images of the recovery the boss asked for a copy for his record of the incident i have recently discoverd that he has now passed one of my images off as his own to another company that is using it to advertise there company where do i stand????

I suggest that without seeing a copy of your employment contract - which I would not expect you to share - it will be difficult for anyone here or at DCM to assess how you may or may not assign IP (copyright and/or moral rights etc) to your employers under such. 

I have been watching the ongoing thread on this subject, where you say you only got access to the incident because you were in uniform etc; I have to say in this there is a degree of implied performance of your employment in what you were doing - if you were "off duty" what prompted you to gain access to the scene and take the images? 
When you passed the images to your employers, did you state any usage T&C's that would have overridden your employment T&Cs? If not there may well again be implied provision under, and compliance with, your employment T&Cs.

---

Brian

Flickr Galleries

to try to answer your points

1 the accident happened approx 400 yds from the depot which i work as with any good photographer i carry my camera at all times..

2 my employment contract says nothing about me being eployed in any way as a company photographer

3 with regards t&c i write on all my discs that i burn copyright may not be reproduced in any way without written permission.

I know Wolfman knows his stuff but I'm slightly saddened that the DCM legal team haven't responded.

This could have been the most useful thread ever. But it looks abandoned.

I actually got an email asking if they could use one of my questions in the mag. Maybe they did but I never found out their answer.

---

Kidography. It's like photography. But more fun.

d.reynolds,

I can certainly put this to Linda for you.

So to clarify, you were off duty, not using work photography gear and not privy to the accident because of your work - you were just passing, correct?

Rach @ DCM

Good question Jonathan. I'll ask Linda for you.

Okay to publish your name? Rach

No problem

Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone had any questions for Linda this month?

Cheers,

Rachael

There was a question concerning the clauses in competitions in this thread.

Perhaps a run down on what these various conditions imply would be of interest, taking examples from Flickr, the DCM competition, and others. What "conditions" should raise alarm bells and which are more normal.

For example in the DCM competition:

By you entering a Competition you:
(a) grant to Future Publishing the right free of charge to feature your competition entry in its magazine Digital Camera Magazine and all its licensed editions throughout the world;
(b) irrevocably and unconditionally waive on your behalf the benefit of any provision of law known as moral rights or any similar law in any country, save that Future Publishing shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that you are credited as the author of the entry;
(c) warrant to Future Publishing that such creative material is wholly original to you (in the sense of not being copied), does not libel, defame, cause injury to, or invade the privacy of or otherwise infringe or violate the rights of any third party
(d doesn't seem to exist)...
(e) consent to Future Publishing passing your name and address to any third party to deliver the prize or prizes to you.

Does clause (b) imply that you've transferred copyright of the image to DCM, or what exactly does it "moral rights" imply?

Regards,
Hugh

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

Hi Hugh,

Thanks for raising that.

That clause doesn't mean the copyright is transfered to Future, just that we can use entered images.

Rach

I've just read the legal section in issue 81 with regard to the legal position of taking pictures in France, particulalry of people.

The situation is somewhat more finessed than suggested; the issue of permission does not apply to 'publication' in the sense that the term is understood in the UK, but rather to commercial use.

It is perfectly legal to take a photograph of anything or anyone not subject to a special restriction (ie military bases) provided that it is for personal use. It is also generally accepted that even though idividuals may be identifiable in a crowd scene, such scenes are exempt. Such scenes and even the news reporting exception mentioned in the article are exceptions made for practical reasons.

I wasn't aware of the British newspapers being fined, and I don't know what the case was, so I won't comment on that.

The most significant case here recently, however, was a plaint brought by M. Sarkozy against a manufaturer of voodoo dolls who had a picture of him printed on the dolls' heads. The court ruled that although it was M. Sarkozy's face and it was used commercially without his permission his privacy and commercial rights had not been breached. So it's de facto open season on politicians and celebs now.

Had the M. Sarkozy not been in the public eye, however, I suspect that the decision would almost certainly have been the opposite.

In practical terms during my 8 years living here I have only been asked twice not to take someone's picture - a market trader and a couple of yoofs - the yoofs thought I might have been the plod, and I suspect that the market trader may also have had something to hide . .

France is one of the world's most popular tourist destinations and millions of pictures are taken here every year. Realistically you just need to have good manners and good sense and there is nothing to worry about - most people are more than happy to have their picture taken, but if they're not, just move on. If you're not sure, then ask or chose another subject.

Just like the UK really, but with far fewer jobsworths and less general hostility. And cheaper wine.

---

BPITW 5 times
Tringle WP Gallery
Hinfrance on flickr

Thanks for the clarification Tringle. I am hoping to get to France in the summer after a couple of years without what had been at least an annual trip. reminds me of the only time I was ever halted in my tracks when taking a photo. Out early morning taking a shot of a classic , almost cliched, Breton farmhouse when an old woman came tearing out of the house and yelled at me in old Breton. Finally managed to get her to start communicating in French at a speed I could understand and her beef with the "rosbifs" ( or British) was that they had just about bought up the local village at prices French young people could not afford and then regularly took photos of her house without permission. It had been on front of a Brittany ferries brichure without reference to where it was or any recompense and I was the last straw.

That said after a few more minutes chat with her husband joining us I was soon being shown the interior over a coffee and "given permission" to take as many photos as I wished from the grounds and public road where I had been standing - but they would not appear in them which was a shame as they looked so Breton. Hoping to get to the Vosges in summer and see some of Alsace / Strasbourg again as well as seeing old friends in Epinal.

---

My DCM Gallery

My Flickr Gallery
TBPITW
19th/20th January 10/11th May & 6th /7th December 2008, 3/4th January 2009