Hi all,

Got question about copyright on photos... Does the main photographer who hires a back-up photographer have the right to use the back-up photographer's pictures in their website?

And what's the difference between a back-up photographer and a 2nd photographer? I'm confused with the term. :)

@ Jill - depends on your arrangement... :)

With the absence of contract, whoever click the shutter owns the copyright. If there is an employee-employer relationship (even for just a gig), the employer owns the copyright.

In general, back-up photographers are there to support the main/lead photographers. Second photographer, on the other hand, could also be a main/lead photographer and doesn't necessarily mean a lesser rank.

It is in my understanding that when a studio/main photographer contracts the services of a backup/second photographer, the employer has all rights to the photos taken.

This is the reason why when a backup is asked by a guest which company or studio she is from, the proper answer would be her employer's studio. Regardless whether she has her own outfit. You give out your employer's card. NOT your own card.

If you want to use the pictures you took, the proper route is to ask permission. No hard feelings when the employer declines. Better yet, clear this matter out before the shoot.

Hope this helps.

Hey Jason! Nice to see you here!

Thanks for the reply guys.

What if there's no contract at all? And what if the photos are being used to promote oneself, not as a company/ team? Wrongfully credited photos, inshort.

Jill, I think it's best if you state the specifics as it sounds like a tricky situation that requires a thorough understanding before any answers are offered.

If the back-up photographer was employed without a contract - I would think that the situation is a little dicier as the backup can always claim that there was no prior arrangement while the 'employer' may claim that there's a gentleman's agreement of sorts.

I'm no lawyer, but from this point on (given that this is now an issue) and the gentleman's agreement is not too gentlemanly na, the relationship has to be 'formalized' in black-and-white na.

I think there will always be a contract between the main and the 2nd or back-up photographer whether it be oral or written since the 2nd or back-up photographer will not accede to the main photographers will. The better question here would be whether or not there was an agreement (stipulation in the contract whether oral or written) between the main and the 2nd photographer as to the use of the photos taken by the 2nd photographer.

I agree with Nick and Earl, that in the absence of "agreement" the person who clicks the shutter owns the copyright except in cases of employer-employee relationship where the employer has a right of control over his employee:Grin:

i have to discuss this internally with pilar. i am also curious as to how this will play out. but as far as no contract is concerned, clicker is owner.

Under obligations and contracts, a contract is the meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one bind himself with respect to the other to give something or to render some service. It may be either oral or written. What is controlling is the agreement between the two photographers as what Earl said:)

@Red - thanks for the clarification. So kahit oral basta't may meeting of the minds then this can be defended in court even if there's no black-and-white. Likewise, in Jill's case above, if there was no prior agreement on the use of the backup's images then nothing can be said about the past but I suppose future use can be 're-negotiated?'

@ Jill

Why not say who did what to you?

@Jerry
Yup, an oral contract can stand up in court and it can be re-negotiated in case of ambiguity or loophole. Of course it would be better if there is a written contract to stregthen your claim.

To my understanding of Jill's query, the main photographer has the right over the photos of the 2nd or backup photographer since he uses the term "hires" which presuposes an employer-employee relationship. :)

@ Jill

The fact that he HIRES you as the the second photographer verbally or in black and white and you heartly accepted the payment for your services, he owns the copyright.
:)

i remember a shot of jill's being used..that of a a beautiful flowergirl with background of green gowns (bridesmaids) as a background... beautiful.

Does this apply with magazines as well? If they commission you to shoot some project, they own the copyright because they HIRED you?

Does this apply with magazines as well? If they commission you to shoot some project, they own the copyright because they HIRED you?

no, it doesn't apply. you retain full copyright. that's how it works on DPP also. we mention that the copyright is still owned by the photographer. :Grin:

all depends on the contract i guess. everything should be clear there pa lang.

@ Nino

And they only get to use the photo once?

@ Nino

And they only get to use the photo once?

Yes. Once. Else, you get paid extra or permission has to be given.

no, it doesn't apply. you retain full copyright. that's how it works on DPP also. we mention that the copyright is still owned by the photographer. :Grin:

Its good DPP clears this to every photographer who submits photos to them. The Hiring thing will only apply in the absence of stipulation or agreement between the main and 2nd or back-up photographer:)

Its good DPP clears this to every photographer who submits photos to them. The Hiring thing will only apply in the absence of stipulation or agreement between the main and 2nd or back-up photographer:)

It's mentioned in the Readers Gallery area. Photographer retains copyright and is and we have non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material submitted.

i remember a shot of jill's being used..that of a a beautiful flowergirl with background of green gowns (bridesmaids) as a background... beautiful.

loved that shot :) hehe!

loved that shot :) hehe!

same here! and i have the pleasure of seeing it (the print) everytime i go to the studio.. hehe! :)

same here! and i have the pleasure of seeing it (the print) everytime i go to the studio.. hehe! :)

Thanks, but wait... there's a print of that photo?

Thanks, but wait... there's a print of that photo?

yup, in the studio at oasis... naka frame :)

yup, in the studio at oasis... naka frame :)

Now, that would be a clear violation if they don't have Jill's consent.

uh-ohh...this is interesting!


peace!=D

Now, that would be a clear violation if they don't have Jill's consent.
jill worked for the studio before guys. right jill?

jill worked for the studio before guys. right jill?

@ John, "worked for the studio", do you mean, shoot for studio "studio"? Because the answer is no. But if you mean weddings, the answer is yes. Do I make sense? :Dum:

Now that you've opened up another topic.. Do I have the right with that framed picture (I think I remember what framed picture you guys are talking about) knowing that it is the main photographer's client? Does the main have the right to put his/her name on the picture of the back-up's/ 2nd photog/ partner? And does this also apply with probono shoots as well?

~~~~
*scratches head* I am here for knowledge, to know my rights on my pictures and the other's rights as well, NOT to heat up any story.

@ Jill

I think that we had better get Louie Aguinaldo in here.

Also, have you told the person concerned about how you feel about your images are used or represented?

Jill, as far as I know you have all the rights since you were the one who took the pictures, even if you use your own camera or the company's camera, you are still the owner of the images. it's just up to you guys about what you have agreed upon with regards to the usage of the images you only took. but still you are entitled to use those images you took without prior notice of the "main", or "business partner" for your personal projects.

P.S
I think Sir Louie Agunaldo is the best person to consult about this matter.

and please pardon my ignorance..sir Jo! what's a probono? hehe..

Pro bono work is work that is done for free, out of love of, gratis et amore, without pay, out of the goodness of your heart, charity work, etc.

I once did a pro bono shoot for Ayala Foundation but I retained the rights to my images. They even contacted me for permission to reuse my images. I gladly allowed them to reuse the image for a different project.

and please pardon my ignorance..sir Jo! what's a probono? hehe..

Oh I see..thanx!

Yo Jo! Yup, sometime last year I think. Let's not go into details on this. I'd prefer to have a broad discussion on the rights. :)

OK, let's wait for the experts to voice out.

Hi Jill. I hope this does not confuse you anymore than you may already be but here is my 2 cents worh since I do hire back up or assistant photographers.

1. if I hire a backup photographer, he/she may NOT use the images for personal use. Why? I paid the person for a job and expect the services which INCLUDES ownership. Most of the clients I work for are very sensitive about being used for propaganda, public display ect and I respect that(even if I know for a fact that the studio or I own the copyright) Now if the backup really has a winning shot and wants to enter it into a competition, if the client does not mind, I give the photographer the go signal for it.

2. If you work for me for free i.e probono, YOU own the rights not me since there was no payment. (not unless otherwise specified that the images may NOT be used for public display)

3. This has to be discussed with the studio/main photographer before the shoot that way you there are no issues later on down the road.

ms. pilar, that was very clear and concise. good pointers for beginners like me. it's good that you (or your studio) already has an agreement or understading with your 2nd photographer (written or otherwise perhaps?) :)

given that scenario, my question would be: "will you put your name as signature (i.e. photos by juan dela cruz) even if the image was taken by your 2nd/backup photog?" or use the name of the studio as sig instead?



just thinking out loud :)

@ Pilar
Thanks for the clarification.

I believe you still shoot B&W film right? Does this rule apply with film users as well? (Is this topic allowed in here) hihi

given that scenario, my question would be: "will you put your name as signature (i.e. photos by juan dela cruz) even if the image was taken by your 2nd/backup photog?" or use the name of the studio as sig instead?


If the studio owns the rights of the images, the studio does not have the obligation to put the name of the hired photographer as the signature. Currently, we do not stamp anyones name on the blow up but if we did, it would be the name of the studio wether the blow up was shot by me or my back up.

@ Pilar
Thanks for the clarification.

I believe you still shoot B&W film right? Does this rule apply with film users as well? (Is this topic allowed in here) hihi


@Jill, i still love to shoot with black and white film (mostly for personal/fine art work). Requests for bnw for weddings is not "in demand" nowadays since it is more expensive and much more laborous but if a client requests for film, the studio owns the negatives whether shot by me or my assistant.:)

If the studio owns the rights of the images, the studio does not have the obligation to put the name of the hired photographer as the signature. Currently, we do not stamp anyones name on the blow up but if we did, it would be the name of the studio wether the blow up was shot by me or my back up.


thanks ms. pilar! :) very informative thread we have here.