freelance or professional photographers, need your advise...

[Sion]

Welcome to Singapore.

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni, Ai Sui?

 

[Sion]

Asking a photographer to surrender the copyrights of his work is like asking for his soul. But with enough 0 behind a figure, there may be rooms for negotiation.

If a photographer refuses to talk, you could drop him and look for another one more Chin Chai or get a camera and spend years learning commercial photography.

If you know you want to use the photos over a certain time frame, negotiate with the photographer when you hire him for the shoot. I'm sure he/she is amendable for discussion (If he/she takes photography as a business and not as a mission to save the world).

:bsmilie:

 

[mattlock]

sounds good. As for me if it's personal photos E.G. Weddings they can reuse all they want cause i wun lose any money.

This only applies to companies which need photos regularly so they need to contract photographers again to shoot.

just my 2 Cents

you shouldn't be giving away your jpeg for them to reprint all they want though, most photographers earn money through the sale of prints. give them a high quality jpeg and next time they'll be asking the next photographer why he or she doesn't give a high quality jpeg to them

 

[mattlock]

yes anyone have a sample Terms and Conditions? Might be useful for future reference

 

[reachme2003]

agreed.

you shouldn't be giving away your jpeg for them to reprint all they want though, most photographers earn money through the sale of prints. give them a high quality jpeg and next time they'll be asking the next photographer why he or she doesn't give a high quality jpeg to them

 

[reachme2003]

this is good for photographers so long as they are willing to pay 'big time'.

There are simply too much clients out there who want everything.:cry:

 

[reachme2003]

from my little understanding of IP laws here, what you are saying is that it depends on whether the camera is tripod mounted or hand held. hehe!

From my little understanding of IP rights,
if the cam is tripod mounted, the rights go to Mr B. because Mr A is just a camera operator.

however if the camera is in the hands of Mr A. he moves around and gets the shot WITHOUT instructions or advise from Mr B then rights goes to Mr A because Mr B sets the stage and Mr A shoots according to his interpretation of the scene, the rights goes to Mr A.

Did I get the above correct? any IP lawyers? I know there are a few in here.

 

[zekai]

From my little understanding of IP rights,
if the cam is tripod mounted, the rights go to Mr B. because Mr A is just a camera operator.

however if the camera is in the hands of Mr A. he moves around and gets the shot WITHOUT instructions or advise from Mr B then rights goes to Mr A because Mr B sets the stage and Mr A shoots according to his interpretation of the scene, the rights goes to Mr A.

Did I get the above correct? any IP lawyers? I know there are a few in here.

what a stupid way of defining copyright.
mounted on a tripod means just a camera operator....

please do not make yourself look so foolish.

 

[catchlights]

what a stupid way of defining copyright.
mounted on a tripod means just a camera operator....

please do not make yourself look so foolish.

How 'bout this?

Ah Beng ask his wedding photographer: Are you the Camel-ra man? come and take my photo. stand like that can or not?

hehehe.

 

[Sion]

what a stupid way of defining copyright.
mounted on a tripod means just a camera operator....

please do not make yourself look so foolish.

Hahah if a camera is mounted on a robotic tripod that has the ability to conceptualise, compose, decide the lighting effect and direct the model, then the tripod would own the copyrights. :bsmilie:

And the photographer would be called camera mounter?

 

[Pro Image]

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni, Ai Sui?

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni, Ai Sui, Ai U Lui.......

 

[cosycatus]

actually no
even when I am hired or commissioned for a shoot I still own the images
I don't know what "common viewing" is but if the case is brought to court and there's no contract, the photographer owns the "negative", even if someone paid for him.
it's very rare that the photographer actually wholesale has to give up the rights to the image (unless paid a grand amount or in the case of Getty, where a contract is drawn up and a shoot's production is fully paid by Getty)
at least what I'm used to is that I sell the rights to the images for a certain period and then the images can't be used.

interesting question to ask if an assistant takes the photo is he considered to own the photo?
in any case, any assistant who dares to bring such issues to court will never be able to work in that country's photographic field again I'm pretty sure!

you can ask a lawyer, my friend recently got involved with a situation related to this and I had to do abit of checking around

hmm, from what little i learn in IP law, the copyright is conferred automatically to the person who created an orignal work. HOWEVER, if this person is employed by another and in the course of this employment, produces a related work, the copyright belongs to the employer.
So, technically, the person who hires u, ie, u have received a payment for service rendered, regardless of whether a contract is drafted, owns the copyright to ur images, unless otherwise stated

 

[Witness]

section 7 of the copyright act...there's sth under "artistic works"...says sth about photog...

 

[mattlock]

hmm, from what little i learn in IP law, the copyright is conferred automatically to the person who created an orignal work. HOWEVER, if this person is employed by another and in the course of this employment, produces a related work, the copyright belongs to the employer.
So, technically, the person who hires u, ie, u have received a payment for service rendered, regardless of whether a contract is drafted, owns the copyright to ur images, unless otherwise stated

cosycactus, it doesn't really work that way in photography.
It may work that way in big companies for researchers and such, but from personal experience I know specifically that when hired for photoshoots I still own the pictures, the negatives, etc etc etc unless specifically written down somewhere otherwise.
maybe you want to ask your teacher and tell us what he says? would be interesting to hear also.

Any photojournalists from SPH here? Does SPH own the rights to your photos? I'm not familiar with the photojournalism field so it may be a different case with that.

 

[reachme2003]

going by cosycatus's reasoning, SPH owns the copyright. i think it is factual.

cosycactus, it doesn't really work that way in photography.
It may work that way in big companies for researchers and such, but from personal experience I know specifically that when hired for photoshoots I still own the pictures, the negatives, etc etc etc unless specifically written down somewhere otherwise.
maybe you want to ask your teacher and tell us what he says? would be interesting to hear also.

Any photojournalists from SPH here? Does SPH own the rights to your photos? I'm not familiar with the photojournalism field so it may be a different case with that.

 

[arttl]

going by cosycatus's reasoning, SPH owns the copyright. i think it is factual.

I second that. Just that credits will be given to the photographer who took the shot.

Jon

 

[Sion]

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni, Ai Sui, Ai U Lui.......

Ai Pi, Ai Qi, Ai Dua Liap Ni, Ai Sui, Ai U Lui, Ai Haw Sey.

 

[mattlock]

I second that. Just that credits will be given to the photographer who took the shot.

Jon

hrm ok yes I hear that's the case for most photojournalists...

 

[SianZronG]

you shouldn't be giving away your jpeg for them to reprint all they want though, most photographers earn money through the sale of prints. give them a high quality jpeg and next time they'll be asking the next photographer why he or she doesn't give a high quality jpeg to them

i give them 1024 x 768 res photos. around the sizing of desktops. not really high quality in my standards though.... maybe i should drop it to 800 x 600 or 640 x 480?

 

[arttl]

i give them 1024 x 768 res photos. around the sizing of desktops. not really high quality in my standards though.... maybe i should drop it to 800 x 600 or 640 x 480?

It is not a matter of resolution. They can always interpolate the images anytime they want. It is the form of digital file captured in that instance. As for my case, RAW or TIFFs are my best protection.

Jon