Need Advice Quickly on second shooter rights
Candid Mug
Registered Users Posts: 32 Big grins
I have been second shooting for a wedding photographer for the past year. I was given verbal permission to use the photos for my portfolio and website to promote my own new business. I also have an email from the photographer telling me to feel free to use them on my website. They are now claiming not to have been aware I was using the photos, but they quite obviously were aware. The use of the photos has been my primary reason for second shooting. Recently, these photographers called me and told me I cannot use the photos on my website or to promote myself at an up coming bridal show. They are also going to be at the bridal show, but I am not using photos from any of the same weddings that they display. I have never signed a contract with these photographers and only had this verbal agreement. I would not have been doing this without the right to use the photos I took and not to be able to use them will effectively shut me down. I have also booked weddings of my own and if all my wedding photos suddenly disappear from my website, this could jeopardize these weddings for me.
I have invested hundreds of dollars preparing for a bridal show and these photos are the only wedding photos I have to display at the show and on my website. I have been told by several other photographers that the photos belong to me since I did not sign a work for hire agreement and the only people that can object to their use is the clients. I do not have a separate release from the clients and the photographers will not allow me to contact them to request one. Nevertheless, I have been told by others that I can use the photos unless someone in the photos objects and then I would just have to cease using them in that case.
Can someone please advise what my rights are to use my own photos and if what I have been told is accurate? Thank you!!
I have invested hundreds of dollars preparing for a bridal show and these photos are the only wedding photos I have to display at the show and on my website. I have been told by several other photographers that the photos belong to me since I did not sign a work for hire agreement and the only people that can object to their use is the clients. I do not have a separate release from the clients and the photographers will not allow me to contact them to request one. Nevertheless, I have been told by others that I can use the photos unless someone in the photos objects and then I would just have to cease using them in that case.
Can someone please advise what my rights are to use my own photos and if what I have been told is accurate? Thank you!!
0
Comments
Even without a contract it is normal and customary in the industry for second shooters to use their images for their own promotional purposes.
While I wouldn't try and contact the clients, the photographers have no ability to control who you contact. It would also be foolish for them to contact the clients and complain.
I would argue that the original model release contained within the wedding contact apply to all the photographers operating under the control of said photographers.
In short if they are getting all huffy..tell them to pound sand.
Sam
Thanks for your reply. I agree; I think that the release in the contract the clients sign should cover all photographers affiliated with said photography business. Even though I am contracted, as most second shooters are, the contract should cover the clients release for MY photos to be used by me. My contract that I have for clients says "Candid FX and associates" which allows anyone shooting for me to use their own images.
My dilemma is in my integrity and reputation. They have been at this a lot longer and know a lot more people. If I "burn this bridge" and walk away; they could affect my reputation. I am scheduled to do several more weddings with them in the next few months, but I see no benefit to doing so if I cannot use the photos. I feel that the verbal contract, as it were, in which these weddings were agreed upon has been reneged on their part, which means the agreements are no longer valid without further negotiation. Basically, after shooting several weddings and engagements for free, I have been accepting very little monetary compensation (basically shooting for minimum wage and editing all my own photos) in exchange for the experience and use of the images. Yes the experience is invaluable, but not worth my self respect. Shooting a wedding strictly for money and not for the artistic endeavor is worthless to me.
What I find most upsetting is the fact that the actual photographer is very supportive of me and has no problem with me using the photos, but his partner (wife) suddenly does, even though she verbally agreed to these conditions from the start as well.
Thanks for your input and for listening.
Ann
Verbal agreements change all the time, and usually not for the better. In the future you should always have contracts spelling out all the details.
As for dealing with problem people, the more headaches, the higher the rates.
I know that it is tough to walk away from gigs, but this is your business and you need to decide what headaches are worth dealing with and which ones aren't. People who change the rules usually have a habit of this.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Website
Quote: What I find most upsetting is the fact that the actual photographer is very supportive of me and has no problem with me using the photos, but his partner (wife) suddenly does, even though she verbally agreed to these conditions from the start as well.
Would it be possible to sit down and talk to the "actual photographer" and basically tell him what you have posted to us? It sounds like the wife sees you as a threat.
From what I remember you have photographed 8 weddings for him for $200.00. It would be insane to think any photographer would do this and give up their rights to use the images in their own portfolio.
Lots of wedding photographers have their own wedding business and still second shoot for other wedding photographers.
They underpay you, (your fault at this point
Yes they can attempt to affect your reputation but it really sounds like you are being reasonable here and at some point you need to stand up for yourself.
Keep us posted.
Sam
and you do not need releases from the original clients for your intended use
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
A wedding falls under domestic use and the fact the photographer was working as an agent of the shooter doing the job would mean the photographer has EVERY right to stop the 2nd using any and all images taken on their contracted weddings.
I would do the research through the proper channels rather than rely on forum replies as they tend to change markedly depending on who and how the question is asked.
Personally I don't blame the shooters for not wanting you to use the pics. Why would they want yet another competitor especially competing with them in their own town and at fairs etc particularly when they probably taught you a lot directly or otherwise about what they do.
It will also look pretty unprofessional if it turns out that you both do display shots from the same weddings which i'm sure is more than a possibility. It seems odd to me that you would want to display shots of a couple that hired someone else in the first place.
I get that you were learning but i think using the images to promote yourself in competition with another shooter is a bit much.
I also wonder how much influence they had on the images you are going to show? IE, did you pick the locations, the places within those locations, set up the couple and pose them completely on your own or were you following the shooter round and doing more of a modification at best of what they had done when they were having a break or changing lenses etc?
Out of interest, what was the arrangement with the first shooter? Were you paid to assist or did they just let you tag along and you did your own thing completely or.......?
Regarding competition in a bridal show; I did not know they were in the show when I first signed up for it. They have been aware for months that I was doing the show and KNEW that the only photos I have are second shooter ones.
The lead shooter has no problem with me using the photos and gave me permission a long time ago, but now his wife is saying I cannot use them and waited until only weeks before the show to say this. She previous made the initial arrangement with me and said I could use the photos for my portfolio and website in exchange for shooting and editing my own photos and providing the images to them to present to clients.
There is no risk of me using photos from the same wedding, since they have an established set up of mounted prints and albums from long before I was shooting with them and don’t add new things.
As far as the images I use; most are my ideas, my poses and unique to my style. I chose the location and posed the couples for the shots. A few others are different angles I chose for already posed setups and then others are candid un-posed shots. All my detail shots are also unique to me and done independently during the events.
I am presenting these photos as examples of my photographic work; not as examples of clients or weddings I booked; so why wouldn’t I want to display them? I am showing potential clients my photography, not my clients. The dog walking along the beach didn’t hire me to photograph him, but that doesn’t take away from the photograph representing my work.
You have said that they gave you permission to use them in your folio and on your website. Did they also say you could use them at bridal fairs specificaly or was this something you took to think it included but was not mentioned? reasonable enough in my mind however I can aslo see the other sides point if this was not mentioned.
I'm also confused as to how a second shooter, which would mean to me a shooter that accompanied the hired shooter to the job, selects the location and sets up the poses etc. Do you use the term there to mean that you were the 2nd shooter for the business and did the weddings o0n your own without anyone else from the studio accompanying you?
That would make a lot more sense.
As far as wether you are presenting the shots as your work or your weddings, People are naturally going to assume if you are showing the work you were the person/ company the clients hired and looked after the full thing. You can split heairs on it but thats what the potential clients are going to think. As these clients would have booked the studio based on THEIR work not yours, i can see where the other shooter or his wife could see a conflict.
At the end of the day, If you don't have a contract or agreement spelling out the specifics of what the arrangement or understanding was, i think you are basicaly out of moral if not legal obligation required to comply with their wishes. You may not see it is fair, learning these lessons usually isn't, but that may be the way it is.
Again I would seek legal clarification if it is so important to you but even if you are legally right, you may earn yourself a bad reputation within the wedding industry and other vendors in your area by trying to butt heads with another established and known studio and using their clients images.
I doubt if the story will be explained in detail, it will just be "XXX trained her and let her get some experience with them then she went and used pics she took of their clients at a bridal fair they were doing as well" or suitably twisted to make you the biggest devil as possible. The full story will never be told and against teh established and known studio, your always going to be the bad guy.
To me it seems this could be a bad way to start your business and cost you a lot of business and take a long time for other vendors to forget or learn the truth.
If the wife wants to bad mouth you, straight off every other vendor at that fair will hear the story and it will go round like wildfire.
Be you in the right or wrong, some of the mud WILL stick.
I don't know about where you are but where I am in a city of 3M people, the wedding industry is very close knit and reputations and stories go round for years be they true or otherwise and everyone seems to know of everything anyone supposedly did wrong.
If it were me, i would be finding some local models, going to the bridal shops and maybe venues and arranging your own Demo shoots as samples and then there is no problem with what you do with the images nor has anyone have any say in what you do with them. It would also be a way of having images to exhibit and avoiding any possible black marks against your name and establishing rapport witht eh other bridal vendors in your area whom may refer you in the future. If you know whom is going to be at this bridal show, perfect time to give them the opportunity to get some new material to show.
My suggestion is to find out your legal position and then think very carefully about which way you want to go from there and what the long and short term ramifications of each available path may be.
I've had a good read of this and clearly everyone inc myself should have everything 110% in writing from the start.
Word means nothing, although it seems if you take the images on your own equipment etc you do tecnhically own the images.
I myself use second shooters and recently have decided to rethink the whole process. Contracts are so important.
I have no problem if someone gets a great image or a few great images while working for me and would like to use a couple for promotional work for themselves.
Personally it's not ideal but fair is fair if the caught something really special from the day it's theirs as long as the aggreement is in place, it should stand.
But!
If the second shooter decides to turn into a Shadow shooter and decides to put 21 photo's on their website of which 12 are directly taken from shots I posed myself, I wil and always will have issue if the person firstly takes that kind of liberty. My mistake initally perhaps not having a rock solid agreement.
God awful manners on their part claiming not being clear on their website that they were the second shooter and not in anyway the main photographer.
Lets be honest, anyone can shoot a wedding if it's set up on a plate for them. I worked very hard to keep everyone happy and relaxed on the day and thought the person was shooting away as normal getting candid shots.
In no way did I notice them waiting until the last second to turn and shoot almost every set up identically to mine.
I mean who in their right mind would have the nerve to claim anothers work? You can bluff on here all you want. If you didn't put in the work in the first place it's not your's regardless of if you pulled the trigger.
If you set up the shots or caught something true spontanious then yes I agree you have a claim. But I still think credit and respect is due to the photographer who brought you out in the first place and gave you access to great shots in the first place.
A credit like - Photo taken by John Doe working for Jane Doe Photography wouldn't be out of line.
I'm not saying the second shooters out here don't deserve respect and arn't capable themselves. But if you take a photo of someone else's pose etc, do you really think you have a god given right to claim it as your own work?
I'm about to deal with this today, all the while I'll be trying to keep things friendly and explain my point of view. They will more then likely have another point of view and while I understand someone being hungry for work and to shot their own weddings.
I think it's dishonest, to display something thats posed by someone else and portray it as your own work!
Reportage candid work is fair game, the other strikes of copy and paste and anyone and their mother could do that.
Apologies if I appear blunt, but after seeing what I've seen today the nerves are more than a little raw.
That... would be a bad idea. If a photographer is so picky about what the second shooter does with her photos, he needs to pay her a real wage and sign a work for hire agreement.
Regarding the original poster:
Keep in mind I'm not a wedding photographer, so I have little experience with the industry.
They didn't have a written contract, so your photos belong to you. And considering the the photographer emailed you giving you permission, it seems the only written proof is in your favor. I don't see any problem, legally or ethically, with you using the photos.
Your photos are certainly your own work, legally and artistically. Yeah you went to the same wedding, but they didn't determine your exposure, composition, processing, or interaction with the clients. And when prospective clients view your portfolio, I seriously doubt they care if that hot couple in the photo hired you or not. They just want you to deliver the quality they see in your work.
As far as burning bridges... I wouldn't go out of your way to anger them, but don't let them intimidate you out of competing. Even if their studio is immensely well-liked (I doubt it), what are they going to do? Run around to the other vendors and say, "I took that girl on as an unpaid second shooter and *gasp* she wants to use her own photos!?" Nobody is going to care, least of all your prospective clients.
And you have to consider the reverse: If you cave, you'll lose all that work you did. You might still get second shooting gigs with them, but they won't allow you to use those shots either. You'd hurt your business a lot worse by caving rather than angering two photographers (who really should have known better; Who takes on a second shooter for free and doesn't allow them to use their own work?)
Good luck with the show - let us know how it all works out
Peace,
Demian
I wasn't talking directly to you. More I was stating my opinion.
I'm based in Ireland and have 0 connection to you in anyway.
Demian, the person was Paid.
Since your not a Professional yourself or the business owner, I can understand why you might have the opinion the second shooter deserves more credit.
It takes a Hell of a lot more than a good pose to be successful.
It takes people skills, organisational skills, you need the ability to know what to look for to get that killer shot.
The moment she'll cherish and bring a tear to her eye.
But like it or not Ethically they do not have the right to show the images as their own.
Perhaps Copyright is one of those things people seem to argue about more than most.
If you read the first post, I clearly said the second shooter deserves credit in some respects.
If the do as requested and get those unique moments a second shooter is mean to get.
I also think they should be allowed use a certain amount of them for their own use.
If however they shadow the Main Photographer and simply get the same photo's as the Main Photographer, whats the point in having them there in the first place?
Some of this is my own problem which I'm currently dealing with.
As I stated before, anyone can take photo's if it's set up for them.
If I set the scene, work the crowd and get the killer shot. Edit the whole thing and pop it online, only to come online days later and see maybe 5-6 unique looking shots on another site and another 12 shots which are mirror images of my own do they really deserve the credit?
To some degree yes.
To another degree, it's dishonest to not mention you were the second shooter regardless of copyright loopholes.
If you weren't hired to shoot the job and hired in as a second shooter ( and I pay my staff well ) you don't get to claim the wedding is your own.
Perhaps the images in a round about way are your's, the clients are not. The wedding is not and to say you shot the wedding is wrong.
You helped to shoot it!
Another point, it's very rare for the second shooter to have any influence with composition Demian and interaction is usually limited enough. You complicate things if the couple have to many people to listen to. Personally in my case, the second shooter is there to be helpful should the need be and to stay in the background to get those candid shots.
So if I the main shooter interacted with the clients and composed everything, why should the second shooter get credit for 100% identical shots??
I don't get how that works, perhaps I'm wrong but it's misleading, dishonest and to another degree disappointing as if the person had looked at the bigger picture. They would have gotten referrals from me when I'm already booked as I already do with others.
If Candid Mug, set the scene and interacted with the crowd as suggested then yes she deserves more credit.
In my case, they got some incredible candid shots. My hats off to them there, I have 0 issue with those photo's.
The issue I have one more time, is they mirrored a large percentage of the wedding and are now claiming the wedding as their own. In my book thats wrong!
I also still think out of respect for the main shooter a credit should be given that you were the second shooter on the job.
You weren't hired by the couple, you were hired by the Photographer to cover a Private Family Occasion.
You weren't just sitting there in the park sunning yourself when the Bride Walked past in Public.
Nixfoto, Ireland ( nowhere near san diego )
If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
The comment wasn't bad either
The fact remains, I had no contract with them; only a verbal agreement that I could use the photos; now I am suddenly being told that was not the agreement even though I have an email that says the contrary. I did not get paid for most of these weddings and only made minimum wage for the others; my primary motivation was the photos for my portfolio. I would not have shot with them if the agreement was for me to not use the photos and they know that. There would be no benefit to me past learning. If they want someone that just shoots for the money, they need to actually pay reasonably or at all.
Example in point; one wedding I did with them was 1.5 hours travel time, 7 hour wedding, 8 hours of editing (I don’t batch process) and I got paid $100. To make it worth my while, I took every opportunity to take original and creative shots for my portfolio. Now I am being told I can’t use them. How is that fair?
As far as putting their name on my website; I don’t see why that would be necessary and I believe I would lose potential clients before they even contact me. When I show albums and photos to clients I meet; I don’t pass the wedding off as my own; I say I was second shooter and I tell every client I meet that I second shoot for another photographer and I am establishing my own business now. I don’t think I need to use my photos to advertise for the other photographers.
I have only acted according to our verbal agreement and do not think I should be the one viewed as being unethical now that they have reneged on that agreement. They have now established that I will not be able to use photos in future weddings; that’s fine. I respect that as their choice, but I also will not work for them, because that doesn’t meet with my requirements.
Totally and utterly irrelevant if you knew what the job entailed and what was being offered and took it anyway.
Have you confirmed your position with a qualified legal person as yet and what are you intending to do as far as the show and using the pics?
I don't what the laws are in Glort land, but here in the US the copyright laws as they pertain to who owns the copyright on the images she shot are very simple and clear. Plus it is "common and ordinary in the US" for the second shooter to retain copyright and to use their images for their own promotion. In some cases the primary will own the copyright, but the second will still have permission to use the images for their own promotion. Again all this will be in writing. Sans a written contract the primary looses.
If there was to be an exception a "work for hire" contract needed to be signed.
Basically she right, he wrong.
That said it would be a whole lot better for all parties to sit down with a cup of coffee and work it out. If say he (or maybe his boss the wife) have a few specific images they don't want her to use she could compromise. They on the other hand could back off their rigid stand. They have received a lot of bang for the bucks they have sent her way. If it could be worked out all could walk away with their heads held high and not loose a thing, and still be able to help each other when needed.
Sam
I went into “it” with the understanding I could use the photos…why is this particular point so hard to understand? I accepted the shoot under the stipulations of the verbal agreement. Don’t try to make it sound like I accepted the gig with ungrounded assumptions.
I spoke to the lead photographer regularly about my website and sent him links; I told him about the bridal show months ago; I have NEVER been anything but upfront and honest with them.
YES: I have consulted a lawyer and YES, without a work for hire agreement, they are my copyrighted property. I am new to wedding photography, but I would think those that are established would know the legalities of the issue. The only people that have a right to object are the people in the photos and since the other photographers will not allow me to contact them for specific release, I have the right to use the photos until asked to do otherwise by said couples.
I am not some naïve uneducated pretender trying to ride the coattails of other photographers; I have chosen to change the direction of my career at this stage in my life and trusted those people on their word. A mistake I will not make again in this environment.
Yes; I am grateful for the experience regardless, but the fact is, the majority of what I have learned came from great books, online seminars, local workshops and a lot of trial and error.
Being obviously from the “lead” photographer end of the argument, would you say it is ethical for the lead photographer to use a second shooter’s photos and claim them as the work of so-and-so photography?
Clearly some people are of the mindset that a second shooter has no rights and is nothing more than a glorified caddy that happens to snap a few photos. Just because I didn’t book the wedding doesn’t mean I forfeit my rights to the creative work that comes from that wedding.
Thank you Sam. This has been a difficult decision, and I have tried very hard to work this out, but I received an email from her last night and she requested a letter from me basically saying that I am using the photos against there will. Since I am using the photos as per our agreement, her reneging is certainly not grounds to admit fault when it does not lie with me. She has also indicated that any future weddings would require me to change our agreement and not be able to use the photos (a work for hire contract obviously). This is not the first lapse in verbal agreements, but it is the last.
Well if you are in the right to use them, you need worry no more so go ahead and display them to your hearts content.
Yes, I would.
I don't know an established studio here that dosen't do that.
Just like with any company, the work and service provided is not that of just one person, its that of XXX business and its many employees.
Why would a photographic business be any different?
By your inferance a photographer would be unfair in saying a framed Print is the work of that studio without attributiing credit to the person at the Lab that printed it and whomever frames and matted the thing.
OTOH, an employee of a company would be very out of place to claim the companies work as theirs.
I'm sure you don't see it that way given your position though.
Anyway, you have the legal and moral right apprently so show the pics wherever you like and good luck with it.
A different approach from your side might get the desired result.
To my mind it's similar to my problem except you set the tone of the day etc yourself without aid.
I have a person who did a great job mirroring everything I took myself, where's the creativity there?
I myself tried to help the person out as I've done with others. My partner however is more business orientated. She's right not me.
Why should someone else take 100% credit for something that isn't 100% theirs to claim.
Yes by law you own the photo's, they look amazing I'm sure.
If I was the other Photographer and we were gonna be at the same show, I'd be going in differently perhaps. She's going in all guns blazing and taking no prisioners.
It's ruthless, it's business.
If you were capable of referring them 5-10 weddings a year I'm sure she would change tact in 2 minutes flat but guessing your starting out as opposed to established.
Everyone is right in their own way.
You took em , created em and should be allowed use them.
The booked the job, they booked you and they own the images also.
She could just as easily display them as her's on they day, even though I wouldn't personally.
Sha has every right to do so.
I would try and talk to him again if he's more reasonable. It seems talking to her is going nowhere.
If you let it continue, it's gonna get worse.
Someone has to be the bigger person here
I wouldn't send her anything. I am also amazed that after all this she is still considering hiring you. More amazed that she thinks you will accept.
Too bad you couldn't have worked it out, but such is life in the big city.
At this point just go your own way. Say nothing negative about the other photographer. Don't hesitate to admit you second shot for them.
Take the high road.
Good luck!
Sam
So if things went sour in the absence of a written contract, wouldn't it be possible for the second shooter to sue the primary over use of their photos?
Seems really risky to sell someone else's work without written permission...
I actually considered this issue and technically they are your photos and without a contract it could be argued that they are using them without your consent. However, I think that because you were there at the wedding taking the photos, it can also be argued that you clearly agreed to let them use the photos for the purpose of providing to the clients.
I think the bottom line is that BOTH parties need a contract to protect their rights and images. I have certainly learned a lesson about trusting a verbal agreement.
Remember that a civil suit like this is going to be heard by a jury. Real, normal people. Technicalities are nice and all, and they have a place in legal appeals when judges write lengthy opinions. But real people like common sense. I just wasted a week of my life on jury duty (a stupid personal injury lawsuit), and if you tried to claim that they were violating your copyright by selling the images to their clients... I'd laugh all the way home as you paid for a whole bunch of lawyer fees and court costs.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that as a second shooter you retain the right to use the photos for personal promotion. I think you should continue to do so, and build your business. To those people who suggested it's not normal for a second shooter to use images in a portfolio... how else would a person ever be able to start a wedding photography business? A bride is just going to sign someone sight-unseen to photograph a wedding? Umm, yeah. That's likely.
And again, if the photographer chose (out of some misguided zeal) to file a suit against you claiming damages for your use of the photos, and you have a reasonably good attorney, the jury would be laughing at them. If you're going to drag me away from my life to sit on a jury, you'd better make a darned good case that you really were wronged, or you're gonna be wasting your time.
One thing you may want to check into, and I don't think anyone has mentioned yet, is to actually speak to the people running the bridal expo. They don't have to let everyone in, and if the coordinators were tight with this other photographer that could be a problem. Legal technicalities don't really matter to them. Then again, if you're paying a hefty registration fee to be there, they may just overlook the matter; money talks. But you don't want to go along your merry way planning things only to find out, a few days before the expo, that you're no longer welcome because of this disagreement. It pays to be proactive and prepared.
Best of luck,
- Brian
no one has been talking about selling anything. the original question has to do with portfolio presentation
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
This is a danger i see too.
If the other shooter dosen't get their letter, to me the next step would be to go back to the clients, say the shooter is using your pics without the studio permission, ( and no doubt embellish the situation suitably) and then have the clients sign a letter removing the rights to use them.
If that happens, and it will likley happen at the last minute., then the OP will be right out of luck.
Of course the other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that we are only getting one side of the story and there may be things we are not aware of which would not surprise me in the least as there are always 3 sides to everything.
If it were me, I wouldn't be leaving anything to chance but clearly this isn't my call and the OP can proceed how she pleases.
I don't think that is an issue. You can't renege on a contract granting rights (otherwise what would be the point of a contract?).
Realistically, it wouldn't happen anyways. You'd have to be insane to go to your clients over a squabble with another photographer - they don't want to get involved in a legal battle, and it could potentially kill your business. At least if I was the client and the photographer called me on my honeymoon about some feud, I'd tell everyone I knew to keep away from him :-X
Agreed. If the studio tried this route it would most likely backfire. business must be very different where Gort lives. Here, doing that type of thing not only wouldn't likely happen, if it did then the studio would open themselves up to litigation for slander. Absent a signed contract stating otherwise the OP has the rights to use the photos. That may not be how things work where you live Glort but that's not very relevant to the OP. Sometimes it's best to let little people blow off steam via email. They don't have a legal foot to stand on if there's no signed transfer of rights. As the studio will find out if they consult an attorney to try and force the issue.