canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => Canon General => Topic started by: Chris_prophotographic on June 19, 2013, 09:46:11 AM

Post by: Chris_prophotographic on June 19, 2013, 09:46:11 AM
I get a message after a event shoot...

"Also, my understanding is that when we hire a photographer for an event, photo shoot etc. that we own the rights to the photos, as we may want to use them in promotional materials etc. "

I'm here in Canada let me know I thought we don't loose our rights unless we actively give them away. I thought in general its used in good faith and if they would want to go on long runs of print material or the image becomes Iconic for them maybe talk about rights/ a per usage cost.

thanks folks for wading in.

Post by: unfocused on June 19, 2013, 10:11:54 AM
U.S. and Canadian law may be different, but since no one else has responded I'll wade in.

It depends on the relationship. Generally speaking, an employer owns the rights to anything an employee produces. For example, a newspaper owns the rights to all the photographs taken by its staff photographers. Or, as another example, if you work for a university and you take pictures at a conference sponsored by that university they own the pictures.

Contractual relationships are different and governed by the contract. For example, most wedding photographers are not "employees" of the couple getting married, they are instead selling their services to a client. The client only owns whatever the contract states.

Confusion and conflict comes in when there is no explicit contract or agreement. That's why it is best to always have everything understood up front.

Without knowing the specifics of your situation, it's not possible to sort this out. But, there wouldn't be any automatic ownership granted to an event sponsor, unless specifically stated in the agreement or terms under which you are shooting. In this case, it sounds like the event sponsor is essentially saying that if you do shoot the event, they own the rights to the photos. The implication is that if you accept the assignment, you are also accepting those terms.

You need to talk to the event sponsor and come to agreement with the terms, otherwise, if you accept the assignment and they have notified you that they believe they have the rights to the photos, you may have unwittingly agreed to a contractual relationship that you didn't intend.
Post by: awinphoto on June 19, 2013, 10:28:43 AM
It all depends on the contracts, if there were contracts, understanding beforehand of the event, and compensation.  Typically, contract photos are the photographers, UNLESS there was a contract or other info stating otherwise, AND, contracts that usually grant usage/copyright to the purchaser, usually pays a higher premium for those rights...  Also if there was explicit expectation one way or the other before hand or an understanding, whether it be verbal or in writing, then that could affect the copyright also... SO... we would need more info before giving a recommendation. 
Post by: alexanderferdinand on June 19, 2013, 10:38:04 AM
Speaking as an Austrian.
Its always better to clear this facts in a contract before the shooting.

With no contract here: the employer gets the pictures, the rights stay in posession of the hired photographer.
You have been hired to make the pictures.
Post by: Chris_prophotographic on June 19, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
I think in CANADA it may be different...
Post by: Chris_prophotographic on June 19, 2013, 12:10:34 PM
More than happy with usage, but for a bigger use than was intended for the photos is what this seems to HINT at.

Come shoot some photos of the event paid simple work.....oh yeah those photos now done we are going to use to promote our company and revamp our complete look. print them and make them part of 3 kinds of media.

this can and does happen, nothing was signed, im happy to work with folks no need to be all lawyerly just hope they realize what is law and id like to see or hear peoples ideas on CANADIAN law? :) thank you
Post by: jthomson on June 19, 2013, 12:35:27 PM
Here are some general guidelines about who owns copyright on photographs and illustrations in the absence of written agreements to the contrary. When photographers/illustrators create photos, portraits or engravings (in the case of illustrators, portraits only):
 ◦When creators produce a work for themselves, they own the copyright.
 ◦When creators produce a work as part of their employment, including apprenticeships, the employer owns the copyright.
 ◦When created on a commissioned basis, the person or company that commissions the work owns the copyright once they have paid for it in full. If the client who commissions the work fails to pay for it, the copyright remains with the creator.

This is based on canadian copyright law.  The company is correct, they own the rights to what they commissioned unless  you have a contract that explicitly states that the photographer retains the rights.
You should look at gettng some standard contract documents  that allow  you to retain your rights. 

Just googled some more and apparently this was changed late last year.

General Copyright information: Photographs
At Last, Canadian Photographers Own Their Copyright.
The Professional Photographers of Canada (PPOC) and the Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators (CAPIC) would like to congratulate all photographers in Canada on this important date and pivotal achievement in the photographic industry. As of Nov 7, 2012, Canadian photographers officially own the copyright to all of their work whether the photograph is commissioned or not, thanks to the new Copyright law.

Post by: daltech on June 19, 2013, 12:40:32 PM
Hi Chris,

I'd suggest for you to speak to a lawyer in your province.

But, here's some information: (

Also, you need to tell us more, were you hired, so paid by these people to take photos, or it was like what I do, invited to take pictures at an amateur sporting event and from there I sell my pictures ?

If you weren't paid for your time, but invited to come and take pictures at this event, they are totally yours. If they hired you, paid you by hour or flat rate to take pictures at this event, they own the pictures, that's what they hired you to do. It's like somebody who write code at Microsoft, he never owns that code, it was part of his job, for what Microsoft paid him/her for. Same thing, you get hired to take pictures, you do that, for them, on their behalf.


Bernard (From the Ottawa area)
Post by: alexanderferdinand on June 19, 2013, 12:43:20 PM
No contracts in Canada?

Post by: Chris_prophotographic on June 19, 2013, 12:57:51 PM
So according to Canadian law in Nov 2012 photos are mine regardless that's good to know,  i just wanted establish that i love playing far and give a bit more just don't want to get used and having a huge usage of things/rights for years to come with out a tiny piece of the action :)
Post by: Wilmark on June 19, 2013, 01:04:56 PM
The original poster hasnt made it absolutely clear that he was paid for the work other than "paid simple work". SO they hire you, and pay you now you want to be paid extra because you think they can use the work other than what you thought they were going to use it for. I think if this is the case the photographer is unreasonable in the absence of a specified contract. WHat business is it of yours what they do with the photos, if you were paid?

Quite unlike the numerous examples of those who think they can rip off a photographer by using his work without permission, just because he has fun doing what he does.