copyright question again

saltydog

Hello Dgrinners,

I thought I saw a thread where this was discussed once before, but now I cannot find it anymore.

My boss asked me to take some photos for our website as part of my job, which I happily did because I enjoy taking photographs, certainly beats doing paperwork. They came out quite nicely, he loved them and then asked me to please put a watermark on it, so nobody can steal them. Which I did also, by simply putting the name of the business across the pictures. But this wasn't good enough, now he wants me to include a © + the company name there, and I half jokingly pointed out to him, that the copyright is held by the photographer, which is me. He was seriously annoyed by that comment and replied that I took these pictures while being on the payroll for him and therefore he/the company owns the copyright to them. And concluded by saying, "believe me, I know what I am talking about". Does he??? The pics are not that important, but his attitude kind of bothered me. He doesn't know a thing about photography and just for "fun" I simply embedded my copyright info in the EXIF data, which he will never find - (he uses MS Word as the "graphics" program of his choice, no Photoshop or anything like that!).

But, just for the sake of it, who's right here? And would embedding my copyright in the EXIF file override the watermark with the copyright?

Thanks for any input,
J.

Angelo

try our fabulous search feature. enter EMPLOYEE COPYRIGHT and see what turns up!

saltydog

Angelo wrote:

try our fabulous search feature. enter EMPLOYEE COPYRIGHT and see what turns up!

Okay, did that and found this: "Absent a specific written agreement guaranteeing your copyright to any photos you created while on payroll all of your work technically belongs to the school. It's called "work-for-hire".

Is that true? Bummer! Hate it when my boss is right .

But thanks anyway, Angelo .

Greetings,
J.

Art Scott

I used to work for NCR here in Wichita and I personally new the guys that invented SCSI and tons of other computer parts and pieces.....and I got to shoot a lot of the Awards that were given and various other photos for the company bulletin......I got a byline but the company not only owned the copyrights to my work but all the inventions were patented in the company name all those engineers were left out in the cold so to speak......

It sucks but that is how it is......now if an employer wants me to shoot something....I tell them I'll do it on a weekend and they can call my secretary and book me.......at (depending on the job) between $300 and 500 per hour....basically wedding prices.......they hate that cause they want ot OWN all rights and I make 'em pay for them........:D

Foochar

saltydog wrote:

Is that true? Bummer! Hate it when my boss is right .

But thanks anyway, Angelo .

Greetings,
J.

The copyright office has a write up on what constitutes a work for hire (where the company owns the document) at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf. That you might want to take a look at for the details. The only wiggle room you might have if you really wanted to push the issue is if photography is outside of the normal scope of your employment.

In other words, a photographer employed by a newspaper, getting a regular salary to perform photography, on a specific assignment for the newspaper, and using the newspaper's equipment to take and process the photographs is most likely going to be classed as creating a work for hire. On the other hand the circulation manager who sees something newsworthy going on outside his window, and uses his personal camera phone to take some pictures is probably not creating a work for hire, since the photography is outside of his scope of employment, he is not being directed by the newspaper to take the photographs, and since he is not using the newspaper's equipment.

If you really want to push the issue you should probably talk to a lawyer who specializes in copyright/intellectual property matters, as even the copyright office admits there is some gray area as to what constitutes an "employee-employer" relationship that results in a work for hire being created.

Angelo

saltydog wrote:

Okay, did that and found this: "Absent a specific written agreement guaranteeing your copyright to any photos you created while on payroll all of your work technically belongs to the school. It's called "work-for-hire".

Is that true? Bummer! Hate it when my boss is right .

But thanks anyway, Angelo .

Greetings,
J.

I think you didn't search deep enough but here's my assessment:

Assuming the terms of your employment at this firm and your job description do not include photography (or some other creative umbrella designation) he is dead wrong. Work for hire is a legal definition for that which you create as part of your customary job duties for an employer.

Now; do you want to risk your job to argue this point? Unfortunately he has the upper hand here and in the most base analysis of what occured, he was paying you during the period you snapped the pictures.

saltydog

Thanks Foochar and Angelo. No, photography is not part of my job in any way, my boss saw my camera and figured I could do better than what he had been trying to accomplish with his $100 point-and-shoot.

And no, I don't want to push this issue or further argue the point with him, his sharp remark upon my half-joking statement baffled me, that's all. Just knowing that he's incorrect here is good enough for me .

ziggy53

saltydog wrote:

Thanks Foochar and Angelo. No, photography is not part of my job in any way, my boss saw my camera and figured I could do better than what he had been trying to accomplish with his $100 point-and-shoot.

And no, I don't want to push this issue or further argue the point with him, his sharp remark upon my half-joking statement baffled me, that's all. Just knowing that he's incorrect here is good enough for me .

Unfortunately, since it was your boss who suggested the shots and you agreed, and you shot on company time, it has "become" an agreed to part of your job.

He can ask again and rather than refuse, if you don't want to do it, you should come up with some excuse like your equipment is broken or in other use or somesuch. If the company does not purchase you equipment to use that is appropriate to the task, there is nothing that forces you to to use your own equipment.

Unless you have a specific contract to the contrary, your employer has every right to ask you to do anything they want. When you accept, you form an agreement.

I had the same issues with my previous employer and was advised by counsel how to proceed. I was able to leverage some nice equipment for my use that way. (I "demonstrated" viability using my own equipment. The success of the demonstration helped to justify purchase of equipment assets.)