Hey guys, Andy here. Copyright, in regards to photography, is something that I have regular experience of. As someone who loves being a creative, I believe it is reasonable to want to defend my work which includes knowing my rights and how to recognise a rights grab. Has being, perhaps overly, protective of my work cost me commissions; maybe. However not protecting my work devalues it.
Yesterday I had my first rights grab of the year; I received an email from an in-house legal counsel of a client with whom I have a longstanding and amicable relationship. Counsel claimed not to have the correct paperwork in place and sent me a letter in regards to assignation of photographic rights from past commissions. The claim was that it had been the intention of both my client and myself that they would own the rights to the photography and by signing the letter I would therefore rectify the error in the paperwork by legally assigning them the photographic copyright.
The letter was, honestly, a bit of a mess; not only did counsel show little copyright knowledge, there was also a lack of emotional intelligence as to the response assignation of rights would elicit.
To clarify, copyright is an asset to be transferred or sold by the copyright owner with ownership belonging to different parties depending to how work is created; commissioning a creative work is not the same as being employed to create it or buying it.
When you commission, you are choosing someone (usually an independent contractor) to create work for you. They as the author, or creator, own the copyright to the work. This gives them, not you as the commissioner, rights including the right to use, alter and be credited for work produced. The commissioner requires a licence to use the work they have commissioned. It is important to have an agreement or contract detailing the terms of the commission and licence to help manage exceptions and clarify what rights both parties have. Claiming to have copyright without having them transferred is a rights grab.
Comparatively, if work is created under employment, copyright belongs to the employer, not the employed creator. However employees, who work under an employment contract, have employment rights not afforded to a commissioned independent contractor.
Lastly, if you buy creative work, you own a copy of it. While you have consumer rights, which protect you should you be treated unfairly or when things go wrong, paying for a work does not automatically transfer copyright. Copyright ownership is a right separate to the physical work purchased.
My relationship with my client was one based on being commissioned, with fair renumeration, where they had a licence to use my photography. So it was both a shock and also rather amusing to receive communication requiring me to retrospectively assign my intellectual property rights, at no extra fee, to them.
Thanks, but no. However if you’d like the rights, I am open to offers.
andybarnham
I am a portrait photographer based in Cheltenham, UK. Born in Hong Kong to a Chinese mum and British dad, I had an international upbringing while I educated in the UK. I started photography as a hobby while serving as an officer in the British Army.
After my service I turned this passion into a career and became immersed in London's sartorial scene. I am now focusing my camera on portraiture and using this eye for detail which was refined over ten years. As a former Royal Artillery officer it is only fitting I shoot with a Canon camera.
