Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Who owns the image?

Photographers and cinematographers should have no ownership of anything they take while being paid for it -- it's called work for hire. And if you're a smart producer whatsoever, you make sure to spell that out in the contract / deal memo they sign: ALL work done belongs to you, strictly work for hire.

It is silly that someone would be paid to do something, then still own the rights to what they did for pay. Makes no sense.
 
Jonathan L. Bowen said:
Photographers and cinematographers should have no ownership of anything they take while being paid for it -- it's called work for hire. And if you're a smart producer whatsoever, you make sure to spell that out in the contract / deal memo they sign: ALL work done belongs to you, strictly work for hire.

It is silly that someone would be paid to do something, then still own the rights to what they did for pay. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Right Jonathan and every person who sings a song should never get a royalty? They should only get paid if they sing live.

Relax. It's been a great conversation. Your tone is wrong.

Step back.

David
 
It's not a matter of tone, it's a matter of simple logical facts. A singer should be paid for CDs sold because it's their work, and they are paid for that. And by "their work" I mean quite literally THEIR work! A movie is not the work of a DP, not even close, they are just one of the members of the team, and certainly a very important, highly valued one. But it doesn't make sense for them to own the footage, unless they want to work for free, and donate the footage to the project for some sort of cut of the movie, who knows. That'd be complicated as heck, haha.

I appreciate there are a lot of DPs here, but have a reality check, please.
 
OK.

You are right.

Let's close up this thread.

David
 
In the end it is a matter of who finally owns copyright of the completed work and how it is licensed. Mostly that is a matter of contract between participants in a project, regardless of the medium.
Still photographers have traditionally been much more assertive about maintaining ownership of their images and controlling their use via license.
Suzy was approached by a young photographer who offered to photograph some of her original paintings and print them at no up front cost with them splitting the profits from any sales. Of course he insisted on owning 100% copyright to "his" images of her work. Needless to say, she turned him down.
 
Jonathan L. Bowen said:
A singer should be paid for CDs sold because it's their work, and they are paid for that. And by "their work" I mean quite literally THEIR work!
Click to expand...

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the duties of a DP, AND music production. There are Cinematographers out there who must be considered authors of a film in equal standing with any producer, writer or director. Likewise, there are singers out there who's entire career (Songs, style, marketing, and persona.) is entirely the creation of a producer.

The point is that some artists are more involved in critical descision making than others, and their level of involvement can vary from team to team. There are group dynamics to consider here, so broad and sweeping generalizations about who should have rights really have no place in this discussion IMO.
 
Jonathan L. Bowen said:
It's not a matter of tone, it's a matter of simple logical facts. A singer should be paid for CDs sold because it's their work, and they are paid for that. And by "their work" I mean quite literally THEIR work! A movie is not the work of a DP, not even close, they are just one of the members of the team, and certainly a very important, highly valued one. But it doesn't make sense for them to own the footage, unless they want to work for free, and donate the footage to the project for some sort of cut of the movie, who knows. That'd be complicated as heck, haha.

I appreciate there are a lot of DPs here, but have a reality check, please.
Click to expand...

Not everyone who shoots with a camera is a DP or even working on a movie. The music business is a good model to look at. Intellectual Property, and rights to such, work about the same for visual arts. A producer or record label can hire a musician to create music for the label or for a compilation album or even to contribute to a feat film and that could be done as a work-for-hire arrangement and often is. Or a cinematographer or independent filmmaker could shoot edit, and finish a project all on their own and distribute it through a publisher or studio, just as a band could sign with a record label for distribution and still retain rights. There are a multitude of possibilities out there. Not every arrangement is a work for hire arrangement. Even when there are studios and producers involved, it's not always that cut and dry. But in the world of movie making, typically the DP and/or cinematographer do hand over all rights or are contracted in a work for hire arrangement as what they shoot is only one piece to an eventual whole.

And yes, sometimes on low-budget productions, a DP or shooter will do it for a low rate, even for free, in exchange for residuals or a cut of profits down the road. Many times that is the only way for low budget productions to get talent and crew onboard is to offer shared ownership and deferred payments. The problem with that is it becomes a gamble for those involved. If the project never completes or if it bombs, then they may get nothing.
 
Jonathan L. Bowen said:
Photographers and cinematographers should have no ownership of anything they take while being paid for it -- it's called work for hire. And if you're a smart producer whatsoever, you make sure to spell that out in the contract / deal memo they sign: ALL work done belongs to you, strictly work for hire.

It is silly that someone would be paid to do something, then still own the rights to what they did for pay. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

There are two different copyrights in the music industry: the copyright for the song or work itself and the copyright for a performance.
Musicians are pretty much free to perform live any song anytime they want. Copyright fees for the song itself are covered by blanket license fees paid by all performance venues. Every public venue that offers live or recorded music , restaurants, clubs, theaters, etc, pay ASCAP/BMI based on a per seat fee rate. Unfortunately the blanket fees are paid out to the songwriters based on radio or TV airplay percentages, so most see little or nothing unless the piece is very popular.
If a musician wants to record a song for distribution, they negotiate and pay a royalty fee, but they are entitled to all further proceeds from the performance recording and own copyright to that. Of course these rights are often sold to other parties, like the producers or the record companies.

What a photographer or cinematographer should or should not own of his work, and whether he retains any ownership rights in a completed product is strictly a matter for contract negotiation.
The problem in an industry that is being "democratised" by ever broadening access to high quality equipment at ever lower prices and diluted by ever increasing numbers of underemployed and poorly organized "professionals" is that one's ultimate bargaining power is severely compromised.
 
David Rasberry said:
There are two different copyrights in the music industry: the copyright for the song or work itself and the copyright for a performance.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more than two types. Those are the primary two types for known recording artists. That doesn't even begin to cover the multitude of other possibilities from songwriters to corporate jingles, movie scores, etc..

What a photographer or cinematographer should or should not own of his work, and whether he retains any ownership rights in a completed product is strictly a matter for contract negotiation.
The problem in an industry that is being "democratised" by ever broadening access to high quality equipment at ever lower prices and diluted by ever increasing numbers of underemployed and poorly organized "professionals" is that one's ultimate bargaining power is severely compromised.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed on all that.
 
Chris Pickle said:
Why would you want to close the thread? Because someone doesn't agree with you? There are others that are chatting in this thread.
Click to expand...


No Chris,

It's not about agreeing or diagreeing, it's actually about contributing.

I've seen enough threads to know when one is starting to go south. I may have been to harsh but one thing that never bothers me is if someone disagrees.

It's the totalitarian statements that get me.

David
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
And yes, sometimes on low-budget productions, a DP or shooter will do it for a low rate, even for free, in exchange for residuals or a cut of profits down the road. Many times that is the only way for low budget productions to get talent and crew onboard is to offer shared ownership and deferred payments.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. Now, more than ever the means exists for boutique film studios and enough content is made that a new form of digital distribution is a real thing.

You might see some boutique studios come together.

It has been done before. The founders of UNited Artists were: Mary Pcikford, DW Griffiths, Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks and William S. Hart who formed the company after being boned by the studios they were working for.

They were all artists.

David
 
Ownership

Ownership

There are obviously many different circumstances that come into play here, and some passionately held viewpoints. However, the law is very clear here. Copyright is automatically vested with the person operating the camera (still or film) ....Unless they sign it away with a work for hire or other agreement.
Jeffrey
 
after googling a bit I found some example "work for hire contracts"

is there anyone here on reduser that has an example of a work for hire contract they use? cheers
 
MikeHedge said:
after googling a bit I found some example "work for hire contracts"

is there anyone here on reduser that has an example of a work for hire contract they use? cheers
Click to expand...

Mike,

Are you looking to make people sign it or is it one you are going to sign?

PM if you can.

David
 
David Rasberry said:
In the end it is a matter of who finally owns copyright of the completed work and how it is licensed. Mostly that is a matter of contract between participants in a project, regardless of the medium.
Still photographers have traditionally been much more assertive about maintaining ownership of their images and controlling their use via license.
Suzy was approached by a young photographer who offered to photograph some of her original paintings and print them at no up front cost with them splitting the profits from any sales. Of course he insisted on owning 100% copyright to "his" images of her work. Needless to say, she turned him down.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the photographer's ownership of his images would not have diminished Suzy's ownership of her paintings. He would have no right to sell or display those images without her consent. Owning the image does not mean that you own all the rights necessary to use it.

A client of mine recently paid a significant settlement to an artist whose painting was in a gallery window they used in an ad. They had clearance from the photographer and the gallery, but the gallery did not have rights to the painting that was in their window.
 
David Battistella said:
All very valid points.

A DP could be construed more as a lead guitarist or a soloist in the orchestra. I'm saying that maybe people in KEY roles could be viewed that way and then at some point there is a cutoff and after the cutoff you'd be dealing with engineers.

KEYS -
Let's say these people represent the band...
Exec Prod. Producer. Director. DP. Editor.

And the departments represent the engineers.

David
Click to expand...

I can't really go with you here, David. One of the reasons that copyright law allows work-for-hire contacts for motion picture production is that there are so many contributors that it would be impossible to sell a film if they all had an ownership stake. And say a DP demands ownership of the images -- how would that work? The producers couldn't make the film because they wouldn't own the images, but the DP couldn't use the images either, because he wouldn't have rights to the performances the script.

But moving to your band analogy -- a band are just performers. They have a stake in the particular recording, but none in the song unless they are co-authors. The band are in a position much more like actors in a film. The director is somewhat like the producer of a record. The writer is akin to the composer. The DP is really in a position much like the engineer who records the performances -- the DP does the same, only with pictures. If the DP takes a percentage instead of salary, then he has made an investment in the film that warrants an ownership stake. But if he just takes his check, then I just don't see it.

And FWIW not everyone in a band is equal. If you buy the rights to a Who song, you'll pay a lot of money to Pete Townsend, but none to the rest of the band. If you buy the performance, you'll pay the whole band (and you'll pay Peter again, too).
 
This was a fascinating thread to read! Thanks everyone for contributing. :-)
 
IMHO the word ownership is directly related to creation & payment - the later being the dominant factor. If someone pays You to create something - they own it, unless You have specifically negotiated a contract stating otherwise. I despise the attitude of some photographers who claim to "OWN" the photos taken during production fully paid for by the client - including the photographer's fee...

My standard contract (for both stills and motion) is that my client (who pays me to shoot the footage) retains full commercial rights upon the completion of the final payment (normally 50% deposit - 50% against final delivery). I retain a non-commercial rights allowing me to showcase the footage in my REEL, website, etc... Sometimes, if their budget is really low - we negotiate a contract where they own the footage for a specific project (such as a specific TVC or feature film) and I retain rights for all other uses (such as footage library, using same shots for other projects, etc...). My clients are always happy about this...

Just my two cents...

Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top