Need advice: photographer watermarked our wedding photos

[cgipson1]

Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant. Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos. It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, watermarked photos.

What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake. Oral contracts are also contracts, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...

1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos. You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

Are you a law student or something? You seem to have a lot of opinions on copyright that a copyright attorney might disagree with. Is is all conjecture, or is there something behind it? Or is this all from that book on photography legal issues I saw you post at one time? Since no one here ever saw the contract, and none of us here are copyright experts (that I know of anyway)... sort of useless to speculate, don't you think?

 

[480sparky]

In the US, only ONE person owns the copyright.... and that is the person who took the photos. Period. End of that discussion.

Copyrights cannot be sold or transferred or traded. Period. End of that discussion.

The photographs are the photographers to do with as he/she pleases. Period. End of that discussion.

No amount of discussion on an internet forum is going to change any of these three facts. Period. End of that discussion.

 

[snowbear]

Copyrights cannot be sold or transferred or traded. Period. End of that discussion.

Not true - per the US Copyright Office: U.S. Copyright Office - Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ)

"Are copyrights transferable?
Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Transfer of Copyright," for a discussion of ownership."

 

[Buckster]

LOL@photographers, fauxtographers and phowannabes pretending to be legal experts on matters of copyright. :thumbup:

 

[480sparky]

Copyrights cannot be sold or transferred or traded. Period. End of that discussion.

Not true - per the US Copyright Office: U.S. Copyright Office - Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ)

"Are copyrights transferable?
Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Transfer of Copyright," for a discussion of ownership."

You are transferring rights, not the copyright itself.

 

[snowbear]

Ain't we a hoot?

 

[KmH]

From the US Copyright Office Circular 12: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ12.pdf

Transfers
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, grant of an exclusive license, transfer by will or intestate succession, or any other change in the ownership of any or all the exclusive rights in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect. It does not include a nonexclusive license.

Since this thread was started Canada re-vamped their copyright laws to be more in line with US copyright law.
It is my understanding that those who commission photography no longer become the copyright owner by statute in Canada.
Canada's Copyright Act

 

[snowbear]

Not to start an argument, but I guess I just don't understand it.

Page 2 of Circular 12 (U.S. Copyright Office) states:

"Owner of Copyright
Only those deriving their rights through the author can own
copyright in the work. The author may transfer all or part of
the copyright to someone else." (Bold emphasis mine)

What am I missing? I read this to say that I can give, trade or sell the copyright of any of my works to someone else. Likewise I can buy or otherwise receive the copyright of someone else's work.

 

[Buckster]

Not to start an argument, but I guess I just don't understand it.

Page 2 of Circular 12 (U.S. Copyright Office) states:

"Owner of Copyright
Only those deriving their rights through the author can own
copyright in the work. The author may transfer all or part of
the copyright to someone else." (Bold emphasis mine)

What am I missing? I read this to say that I can give, trade or sell the copyright of any of my works to someone else. Likewise I can buy or otherwise receive the copyright of someone else's work.

You're not missing anything. Everything you just said is true.

From this book, written by a pro photographer and an actual, accomplished, copyright attorney who specializes in representing photographers: Photographer's Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age (Lark Photography Book): Edward C. Greenberg, Jack Reznicki: 9781600594205: Amazon.com: Books

Following a discussion and clarification on Title 17 of the US Copyright Code, we get this on page 26:

So that's your bundle of rights under the copyright law. They're yours unless and until you sell, transfer, or give away your copyright. Do that and you will lose all control over that image. Do that and, obviously, you're no longer the copyright owner of the image you created. You can't put that image in your portfolio or on your website as and example of your work without the written permission of the whomever you've given, sold or transferred the copyright to. That's why we strongly suggest you never sell, transfer, or give away your copyright - unless, of course, someone wants to pay you an obscene amount of money. And you should know that many successful photographers have, in fact, carefully licensed to clients all rights for an unlimited time, and charged them obscene amounts of money. All the while they've maintained ownership of their copyright - the keyword here is "licensed."

There's also discussion elsewhere in the book about how "Work For Hire" is the devil BECAUSE it transfers your copyright away from you and to whomever is employing you for the shoot.

There is further discussion about "Public Domain" and how work ends up in it. When that happens, you no longer hold the copyright.

The myths about copyright and the law on internet forums is staggering, especially in the forceful nature of those who pretend to be experts when making statements about it.

Period. End of that discussion.

 

[Gavjenks]

Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant. Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos. It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, watermarked photos.

What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake. Oral contracts are also contracts, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...

1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos. You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

Are you a law student or something? You seem to have a lot of opinions on copyright that a copyright attorney might disagree with. Is is all conjecture, or is there something behind it? Or is this all from that book on photography legal issues I saw you post at one time? Since no one here ever saw the contract, and none of us here are copyright experts (that I know of anyway)... sort of useless to speculate, don't you think?

If you notice, I specifically asked if the op would post the contract. Of course it hinges mostly on that.

Regarding oral contracts being enforced, I know its true in the u.s. from lawyer counsel personal expwrience on more than one occasion. Then researched if it was also true in canada, and like 6 out of 6 sites said yes.

Not sure what exactly here you find cobtroversial.

 

[ShooterJ]

I love these threads.

 

[table1349]

If you notice, I specifically asked if the op would post the contract. Of course it hinges mostly on that.

Don't hold your breath on this one there sparky. The OP's last foray in this forum was on 9/28/2011!! :lmao:

 

[Tailgunner]

... would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

This is a near 2-year-old thread. It's unlikely the OP will post anything.

LOL... it IS however pretty amusing when it happens. I've been guilty of responding to an older thread myself ... and without fail, eventually somebody comes along and points it out. :lmao:

Yup, and here it goes again lol

 

[ShooterJ]

:lmao:

 

[TCampbell]

In the US, only ONE person owns the copyright.... and that is the person who took the photos. Period. End of that discussion.

Not necessarily.

See "Works made for hire": http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

The safe play is to make sure your contract includes language which clarifies who will own the copyright.