Am I understanding the copyright correctly?

[rwilliams]

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong.. which I very likely may be..

If I take photos of a client, the copyright technically belongs to the client? But if in the consent form, I retain the copyright and they sign it giving me permission, then I own the copyright?

And if they want to use digital images to get prints, I can give them a print release, but still own the copyright myself?

I'm typing up a rough drafts of a consent form and then I'll be giving it to a lawyer friend to look over, but I'd like to have it as accurate as possible from the get go.

Thanks for your help!

 

[AceCo55]

No. You take the photo ... you own the copyright automatically (unless the photo shoot has been arranged as a contract job ... not sure on that terminology)
In almost every case, you would never give away or sell your copyright to a photo.
When someone "buys a photo" you should in fact be selling "usage rights" to that image. The buyer can use the photo for what you stipulate, in what format and for how long.
You might give limited usage for eternity or limited usage for one year. You might stipulate the image can be used on the web and not for print.
All that "usage rights" is up to you and the price.

 

[Overread]

It legalities vary on the specifics of your country and sometimes even your state/region within the country. State what country you are in and we can go from there; however any legal advice you want should really come from a lawyer (you'll want one to go over your contracts and have someone on call should you need legal advise/representation in the future with any issue). By all means ask questions here and search on the internet, arm yourself with some facts and information and then go talk to a lawyer to ensure you've got the full picture (sometimes there are subtle wordings that get left out in general conversation over the internet).

 

[KmH]

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong.. which I very likely may be..

If I take photos of a client, the copyright technically belongs to the client? But if in the consent form, I retain the copyright and they sign it giving me permission, then I own the copyright?

And if they want to use digital images to get prints, I can give them a print release, but still own the copyright myself?

I'm typing up a rough drafts of a consent form and then I'll be giving it to a lawyer friend to look over, but I'd like to have it as accurate as possible from the get go.

Thanks for your help!

There is no location shown in your profile. What country are you in?
In the USA copyright is federal law so it applies the same in all 50 states.

Unless there is a document signed by both parties that states otherwise, you become the copyright owner as soon as the image files are recorded on the memory card in the camera.

A print release is a technically a 'use license'. In effect a use license is a rental agreement. You rent your copyright to whomever wants to make prints of your copyrighted photos.

Copyright is actually a bunch of rights, so your use license (print release) can stipulate very specifically how the client is allowed to use your copyrighted photo.

For instance you can grant the client printing rights for personal use only. You can prohibit altering (editing) the photo, entering the photo in contests, prohibit commercial usage, etc.

For commercial use you can stipulate if the use is exclusive or non-exclusive, how many times and at what size(s) the photo can be reproduced, what media types the photocan be used in, the geographical extent of the use, how long the use license is valid for, and more.

If you want to learn more about US copyright visit the federal US Copyright office web site - U.S. Copyright Office

Print Release - Use License

All images © 2014 {name or studio here}, All Rights Reserved.
This Use License shall be governed by US Federal law and by such state laws that are applicable in the State of _________.

I, [name or studio here], as copyright owner of these images grant a lifetime, personal, non-commercial use license to ____________________and their immediate family to print, or have printed (no larger than (whatever size, if any)), reproductions of these images for display in their home and workplace only.

Online Use

{name or studio here} has provided web sized and watermarked images for exclusive use on the customer and their immediate family personal social networking web site(s).
No other online use is granted.
Removal of the watermark from these web sized images, or any other violation of any of any of these use license terms, will constitute a breach of this entire Print Release – Use License, rendering it null and void in its entirety.

Copyright Information

Please remember that because these images are protected by US Federal Copyright laws they may not be altered, copied, transmitted or used in any way not stipulated above without prior written consent of the copyright owner, {name or studio here}.
These images may not be entered in any photography or other competition or contest without the expressed written consent of [name or studio here]. Commercial use of the images is prohibited.
No waiver by either party of any of the terms or conditions of this license shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of such term or condition for the future, or of any subsequent breach thereof. Waivers are only applicable when they are written. There will be no verbal waivers to this agreement.

The Photographer hereby warrants that he (or she) is the sole creator of these images and owns all rights granted by law.

[Name or studio here]
Address:
City, State:
Phone:
Email:
Authorized Signature:

 

[robbins.photo]

Ummm.. yes, no, and maybe.

As KMH wisely pointed out, these things can vary a lot based on where your located. The legalities involved can also vary quite a bit depending on situation, who or what the picture is of and where the picture was shot. Shooting a picture of someone famous can be different than shooting someone who isn't famous. Shooting on private property can be different than shooting in public. There are considerations such as expectation of privacy that might come into play.

The legalities can also vary based on what you do with the image, for example using it as part of an article or news story is considered differently than using the image for "commercial" purposes, such as advertising or selling the image for such purposes. And really those are just a few of the considerations your dealing with when your talking about copyrights and legal rights. Again as KMH mentioned these things can vary widely from country to country and even from local municpality to local municipality.

So if your looking at a commerical use for these, consulting an actual legal professional who is well versed in the subject is absolutely your best bet, no doubt about it.

 

[KmH]

As KMH wisely pointed out, these things can vary a lot based on where your located. The legalities involved can also vary quite a bit depending on situation, who or what the picture is of and where the picture was shot. Shooting a picture of someone famous can be different than shooting someone who isn't famous. Shooting on private property can be different than shooting in public. There are considerations such as expectation of privacy that might come into play.

None of that applies to copyright.

That all applies to state laws that govern model/property release and publication law when photos of people/property are not used by the people/property owner in the photos.

Being state law, in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions of model/property release, and personality/right-of-publicity laws.
Model release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The copyright owner would have to consider model/property release law when using the photos for self-promotion and self-publication.
In that respect, circumstances regarding how the photos were made would factor in to determining if the copyright owner needs or doesn't need a valid model/property release on file to use images for self-promotion and self-publication.

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

 

[robbins.photo]

As KMH wisely pointed out, these things can vary a lot based on where your located. The legalities involved can also vary quite a bit depending on situation, who or what the picture is of and where the picture was shot. Shooting a picture of someone famous can be different than shooting someone who isn't famous. Shooting on private property can be different than shooting in public. There are considerations such as expectation of privacy that might come into play.

None of that applies to copyright.

That all applies to state laws that govern model/property release and publication law when photos of people/property are not used by the people/property owner in the photos.

Being state law, in the US there are 50 somewhat different versions of model/property release, and personality/right-of-publicity laws.
Model release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personality rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The copyright owner would have to consider model/property release law when using the photos for self-promotion and self-publication.
In that respect, circumstances regarding how the photos were made would factor in to determining if the copyright owner needs or doesn't need a valid model/property release on file to use images for self-promotion and self-publication.

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

Which might be the reason I referred to the "legalities" of using a picture for commercial purposes rather than "copyright" as there is more to it than simply owning the copyright.