Hello all. I've got a question about who owns a photo. About a year ago, I began taking portrait pictures for my place of business (I'm a programmer for a law firm). The pictures are used for attorney bios as well as an online directory I maintain. As my skills have improved, I've been asked to take pictures of firm-related events. Recently, a school visited and I was asked to take pictures of the students. Two local newspapers have asked about using the pictures I took for articles they want to run about the event. I asked the markeing director who set this up if we had waivers signed by the students (he assures me they all signed releases releasing the firm from liability, including pictures, before being allowed on the premises). The first newspaper contacted me directly and assured me that I would receive credit as the photographer with any pictures they used. The second paper contacted the marketing director. He asked me to turn over the .raw file to them. When I asked if I was receiving credit in that paper as the photographer, he got very irate. He claims that since I was on 'company' time, the pictures belong to the firm and he can do as he wishes with them and that I'm being unreasonable to expect to be credited. I, however, feel that yes, I was on company time, hence me not charging them to take pictures, but that I should still receive credit as the photographer in whatever publication chooses to use them. What would be your take on this? Am I being unreasonble to expect to receive credit for my work? Also, while the firm has a waiver in place, can someone come back on me personally for using these images to promote the firm? I'm in new territory here and have to meet with the higher ups shortly to discuss. Thanks for your time in reading this! **UPDATE** So we met with the big boss (BB) and really haven't come to an agreement. They said the board seems to have a problem with me doing this on the weekends and they disagreed with me asking for name credit, even if it was as Ciaobella courtesy of Law Firm. The marketing guy (MG) was really agressive about it and said if I had such an issue with it, he'd just take the camera and do events himself and he'd go back to outsourcing the portrait pics again (we were previously paying $90 a pic). Quick background, the firm bought the camera body, however, I bought the lights, background/stands, umbrellas, memory card, battery, case and lens. BB was not aware that all the equipment wasn't firms and seemed to be pretty upset that I had paid for this out of pocket. I also made the point that I counted the number of pics that were on the directory (123) and multiplied it by $90 and I've saved the firm close to $11,000. BB and I talked again later and she asked if they reimbursed me for the lights, lens, memory card and case, would I be still willing to do portraits only. I'm kinda disgusted by the whole thing and told her so. I thought when I got into this that it would be a benefit for the firm to have someone on-staff that could do this. I invested a lot of time and money trying to improve my photo-skills. However, it's turned into a big giant mess and frankly, I'm paid irrespective if I'm running around taking pictures or sitting here typing on forums. This just seems like instead of being recognized for taking some initiative to pick up a new skill, I'm just getting beat down for it. Thanks to everyone that responded though and while I may/may not continue to do pics for the firm, it's not going to stopping me from continuing this as a hobby.