Matthew does a *great* job explaining that freelance photographers are in the *“licensing business.”* Our photo copyrights are NOT sold, but rather, they’re *licensed* to specific clients, stock, and other parties. Here’s some language you can include in your photography agreements: *“Rights granted to client are NOT transferable to others!”* -- the client is NOT permitted to share, give-away, and/or sell the licensed images without the photographer’s written permission. Contrary to what you may think, your *“registered”* copyrights (and trademarks & trade secrets) are your most valuable business assets, and NOT your cameras, gear, computer software, or studio. Way too many TH-camrs, non-attorney influencers, photographers, and creatives are *CLUELESS* about intellectual property; way too often their shared copyright information is simply *WRONG!* *Matthew, on the other hand, walks the talk!* I searched the US Copyright Office’s Public Catalog database and found approx. ten photo copyright registrations on file. *His images are protected from copyright infringers* and potentially rogue clients who begin using his licensed images without making full payment. Watch JUST the first 20-seconds of attorney Joshua Kaufman’s copyright video to understand why *timely* registering your photo/video copyright claims really, really count: th-cam.com/video/cBOKkrleY3Y/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for this video. I have been looking into this recently because I want to make a book of my portraits (some of which I haven't shot yet). I learned that as the photographer, I don't own the person's likeness in the photos so I can't do whatever I want with the pictures even though I technically own the copyright. The only way around this is to have a contract where everything is very clear about ownership so you don't have legal issues later down the line.
Matthew, saw this on APA. The best explanation for regular people that I've heard. I've used some of these same comparisons but yours are better and you have everything here clear and concise. Every photographer and anyone who hires photographers is obligated to watch this.
It's interesting to see how little likes this video got (and 1 dislike at this moment). It seems nobody really cares about copyright, not even photographers. In many forums I see photographers asking for help when they finally see some of their photos illegally published somewhere. We should take care of the issue before it happens, not after. A solid contract with the client and a quick explanation would avoid many headaches down the road
well explained...i took photographs of a local musician she could use to promote her music...many months later,i saw articles about the musician in a local newspaper,a national music magazine,and a national website,all of which used my photographs...when i looked into it,and realised these businesses had to pay me for their use of the shots,i told the musician...she did not want to know
So with copyright and whatnot, should I as a photographer use watermarks on my photos as well? I am doing research on this, and I wanted to see whether its a good idea or not to put my watermark on every single photo I take. Any other photographers out there, reading this, use watermarks? Why/why not?
@yosefben-yehudah4604 wrote, “…should I as a photographer use watermarks on my photos as well? I am doing research on this, and I wanted to see whether its a good idea or not to put my watermark on every single photo I take.” I do, and here’s why: To REINFORCE my creative rights, I affix my posted photographs, videos, and other works of authorship with *watermarks (logos),* my copyright attribution (with URL and/or social media handle), robust metadata, and/or other *“Copyright Management Information” (CMI* -- part of US copyright’s DMCA). CMI/watermarks can be small and/or transparent; they just need to be readable to the average person. Non-Fair-Use, US-based CMI violators who KNOWINGLY remove, change, or cover up my CMI with AI, apps, Adobe Photoshop or any other software to hide their infringing actions OR encourage others to infringe can be responsible for my actual damages & lost profits OR statutory damages from $2,500 to $25,000 PLUS my attorney fees & legal costs (at the court’s discretion). See 17 USC §§ 1202-1203. Copyright attorney, Andrew D. Epstein, writes, *“We recommend always attaching a watermark or other copyright management information [CMI] to all works that you distribute. Although you do not need to have a copyright registration to recover under the DMCA [CMI], we always recommend [timely] registering your photographs with the Copyright Office to be able to qualify for maximum awards for copyright infringement ($750 to $150,000 per infringement, plus costs and attorney’s fees).”* As well, INTENTIONALLY removing or modifying CMI can suggest WILLFUL copyright infringement to a federal judge. If the work was timely registered, the infringer can face two causes of action: Copyright infringement (up to $150,000) + CMI violation (up to $25,000) = up to $175,000 in statutory damages + attorney/legal fees (at the court’s discretion). By affixing CMI to my posted works, I can statutorily defeat “innocent infringement” defense claims (the US-based infringer is claiming they didn’t know my work was copyright-protected, and therefore, they shouldn’t have to pay me damages or if there’s liability, they should only have to pay me the minimum statutory damages of $200). See 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice. If you choose not to timely register your photographs with the US Copyright Office (USCO), at the very least, affix them with some CMI to retain some legal protection. FYI: Depending on the facts of a case, there are copyright attorneys/litigators who may take your CMI case on “contingency.” BTW, and from my observations, the people who complain about seeing watermarks/CMI on posted images are *other* photographers. I have yet to license any of my images to another photographer - they are NOT my targeted client! *Timely registering my works + including CMI strengthens my creative & legal rights.*
I’m a Real Estate Magazine publisher. I shoot homes primarily when the clients do not provide quality images. This process gives my publication an artistic advantage over the competition. I allow specified limited use of these images. Of course, I do not allow them to be used in my competitions publication. Some clients balk at this. I paid for them right? I describe it this way. You go to the theater, Watch gone with the wind. When you leave, do don’t own Gone With The. Wind, neither does the theater. Your ticket bought you a limited time to view the move which is protected under copyright law. In the same way, your photos have a limited place where the can be used unless I have sold the copyright to you. Previously, I watermarked my images to help identify my images and reduce accidental copyright violations. Unfortunately, mls and other digital sources won’t allow the watermark for their own selfish and sometimes nefarious reasons.
Thanks for the video Matthew. About selling prints of places or branded products that are recognized (for instance the Coca-Cola can), is there any problem with the property of the design? For instance, when selling stock photography, we cannot sell pictures of branded products or buildings for commercial purpose. Selling a print is a 'commercial purpose', if I'm not wrong. Is it possible to have legal problems with the creator of the product or building? I would appreciate your answer. Thanks in advance.
I can’t speak for sure either way on this. I’ve never placed a single image of my work on a stock photo website (nor do I plan to), so I can’t speak to that situation with a definite answer. What I DO know is that (in most scenarios) if some product appears in an author’s photo, painting, drawing, etc. that company does not have any automatic rights to that authors work.
If a photographer takes photos of a paying client, are they legally allowed to turn around and sell the photos of that client to an additional third party?
If the photos in question are OF the client where their likeness is the clear subject matter of the image… there is a good chance some model release forms may need to be signed by the client before the photographer can do any additional licensing of the photos. An IP attorney can give you a more specific and legally accurate answer to that question.
@Bijay.Kumar.Behera wrote, “lets say i own a camera and I rented a photographer to use my camera to produce some images, under such conditions who is the copyright owner?” *Under US copyright law,* the person who took the photograph will typically be the copyright owner, unless there’s an agreement that says otherwise. If the photographs qualify as “work-for-hire,” then the commissioning party would own the copyrights, not the photographer, assuming there is a written agreement (prior) to the start of the photography assignment. The client can also require the photographer to transfer the copyright to them via contract. If I’m working as a full-time photographer for a US newspaper, my employer (the newspaper) would automatically and solely retain the copyright of all the photographs I capture.
This is more sketchy advice that doesn't consider borders. The commissioning rule exists in the E.U. and commonwealth countries, as well as in Asia. It also exists to a lesser extent in the U.S. If the photographic work isn't for commercial intent, the person commissioning it has the first right of ownership. The easiest way to think about this is simple; I shoot a client event. The images are to be used to highlight key moments, etc, at their AGM. These images aren't going to be used for any commercial intent. They were purely there to update shareholders who couldn't attend the event. If I own the copyright, I can take any images and reproduce, manipulate, alter and create derivatives. I used one of the images of two people raising wine glasses and changed the image to put two bright pink penis straws in the glasses. I then sell that image to the marker of those penis straws. They then use it as advertising for their product. If i owned the entire copyright, then there would be no issue with me doing this. The reality is that I will be successfully sued by the two people in that image, which showed I did not have full rights to alter those images and create derivatives, which an entire copyright would allow me to do. As the photographer, you do have copyright entitlements, but you rarely, if ever, own the entire copyright, and the client absolutely also shares ownership of non-commercial work. That is the difference, my extend of being able to reproduce (Sell as stock photos of an AGM event) Alter (add elements that were not represented or remove elements that were) Manipulate (Change the nature of) and create derivative work (Change medium) can not be done without the approval of the client who paid for the commissioned work. This does not even begin to touch model releases, etc. Long story short, yes, you have creator rights and entitlement to copyright when the client uses these images outside of their intended purposes, but you don't own the entire copyright to do with the images that you like without having to obtain specific permissions, which means you never owned the entire copyright. Your copyright also holds limitations, the same as the client's. Full copyright means you own the entirety of the work and can do whatever you please with no repercussions. If that is not the case, you have copyright clauses, but the commissioner also has rights to decide what happens with those images. ERGO, it is shared. This is what 98% of all photographers get wrong. They believe they own the entire copyright. They will craft contracts to reflect that, but individual contracts do not supersede consumer law. The same as I can write a contract offering $10 per hour, but if the minimum wage is $13, that contract is not enforceable, and I can be sued in employment court.
I wish I could thumbs up this video twice.
Same Same
Matthew does a *great* job explaining that freelance photographers are in the *“licensing business.”* Our photo copyrights are NOT sold, but rather, they’re *licensed* to specific clients, stock, and other parties.
Here’s some language you can include in your photography agreements: *“Rights granted to client are NOT transferable to others!”* -- the client is NOT permitted to share, give-away, and/or sell the licensed images without the photographer’s written permission.
Contrary to what you may think, your *“registered”* copyrights (and trademarks & trade secrets) are your most valuable business assets, and NOT your cameras, gear, computer software, or studio.
Way too many TH-camrs, non-attorney influencers, photographers, and creatives are *CLUELESS* about intellectual property; way too often their shared copyright information is simply *WRONG!*
*Matthew, on the other hand, walks the talk!* I searched the US Copyright Office’s Public Catalog database and found approx. ten photo copyright registrations on file. *His images are protected from copyright infringers* and potentially rogue clients who begin using his licensed images without making full payment.
Watch JUST the first 20-seconds of attorney Joshua Kaufman’s copyright video to understand why *timely* registering your photo/video copyright claims really, really count: th-cam.com/video/cBOKkrleY3Y/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for this video. I have been looking into this recently because I want to make a book of my portraits (some of which I haven't shot yet). I learned that as the photographer, I don't own the person's likeness in the photos so I can't do whatever I want with the pictures even though I technically own the copyright. The only way around this is to have a contract where everything is very clear about ownership so you don't have legal issues later down the line.
Great video lesson! This is a thing I always have to explain to wedding couples.
Thank you so much for this video! It’s always so hard to explain to clients
Great job - love the black and white pop-outs that identify the questions of concern.
Matthew, saw this on APA. The best explanation for regular people that I've heard. I've used some of these same comparisons but yours are better and you have everything here clear and concise. Every photographer and anyone who hires photographers is obligated to watch this.
You’re awesome Cole! Thank you so much! That’s very kind of you to say 🙂
Thanks Matthew, for the best, clearest description I've ever heard explaining this. The song analogy is perfect.
Bookmarking this video for sure! I shoot real estate and run into questions about this stuff all the time. Thank you!
Thanks Chase. I hope it helps
It's interesting to see how little likes this video got (and 1 dislike at this moment). It seems nobody really cares about copyright, not even photographers. In many forums I see photographers asking for help when they finally see some of their photos illegally published somewhere. We should take care of the issue before it happens, not after. A solid contract with the client and a quick explanation would avoid many headaches down the road
Totally agreed.
well explained...i took photographs of a local musician she could use to promote her music...many months later,i saw articles about the musician in a local newspaper,a national music magazine,and a national website,all of which used my photographs...when i looked into it,and realised these businesses had to pay me for their use of the shots,i told the musician...she did not want to know
thanks for this video, really helpful
Excellent Explanation!
Thank you for your clear explanation. Do clients need to mention the photographer while posting social media even paid?
No, they don't NEED to...but you can ask or require your clients to since you still hold the copyright
So with copyright and whatnot, should I as a photographer use watermarks on my photos as well? I am doing research on this, and I wanted to see whether its a good idea or not to put my watermark on every single photo I take.
Any other photographers out there, reading this, use watermarks? Why/why not?
I personally don't use watermakes because I believe it takes the focus away from the photo and it is easy to remove as well
@yosefben-yehudah4604 wrote, “…should I as a photographer use watermarks on my photos as well? I am doing research on this, and I wanted to see whether its a good idea or not to put my watermark on every single photo I take.”
I do, and here’s why: To REINFORCE my creative rights, I affix my posted photographs, videos, and other works of authorship with *watermarks (logos),* my copyright attribution (with URL and/or social media handle), robust metadata, and/or other *“Copyright Management Information” (CMI* -- part of US copyright’s DMCA). CMI/watermarks can be small and/or transparent; they just need to be readable to the average person.
Non-Fair-Use, US-based CMI violators who KNOWINGLY remove, change, or cover up my CMI with AI, apps, Adobe Photoshop or any other software to hide their infringing actions OR encourage others to infringe can be responsible for my actual damages & lost profits OR statutory damages from $2,500 to $25,000 PLUS my attorney fees & legal costs (at the court’s discretion). See 17 USC §§ 1202-1203.
Copyright attorney, Andrew D. Epstein, writes, *“We recommend always attaching a watermark or other copyright management information [CMI] to all works that you distribute. Although you do not need to have a copyright registration to recover under the DMCA [CMI], we always recommend [timely] registering your photographs with the Copyright Office to be able to qualify for maximum awards for copyright infringement ($750 to $150,000 per infringement, plus costs and attorney’s fees).”*
As well, INTENTIONALLY removing or modifying CMI can suggest WILLFUL copyright infringement to a federal judge. If the work was timely registered, the infringer can face two causes of action: Copyright infringement (up to $150,000) + CMI violation (up to $25,000) = up to $175,000 in statutory damages + attorney/legal fees (at the court’s discretion).
By affixing CMI to my posted works, I can statutorily defeat “innocent infringement” defense claims (the US-based infringer is claiming they didn’t know my work was copyright-protected, and therefore, they shouldn’t have to pay me damages or if there’s liability, they should only have to pay me the minimum statutory damages of $200). See 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice.
If you choose not to timely register your photographs with the US Copyright Office (USCO), at the very least, affix them with some CMI to retain some legal protection. FYI: Depending on the facts of a case, there are copyright attorneys/litigators who may take your CMI case on “contingency.”
BTW, and from my observations, the people who complain about seeing watermarks/CMI on posted images are *other* photographers. I have yet to license any of my images to another photographer - they are NOT my targeted client!
*Timely registering my works + including CMI strengthens my creative & legal rights.*
I’m a Real Estate Magazine publisher.
I shoot homes primarily when the clients do not provide quality images.
This process gives my publication an artistic advantage over the competition.
I allow specified limited use of these images.
Of course, I do not allow them to be used in my competitions publication.
Some clients balk at this. I paid for them right?
I describe it this way.
You go to the theater, Watch gone with the wind. When you leave, do don’t own Gone With The. Wind, neither does the theater.
Your ticket bought you a limited time to view the move which is protected under copyright law.
In the same way, your photos have a limited place where the can be used unless I have sold the copyright to you.
Previously, I watermarked my images to help identify my images and reduce accidental copyright violations.
Unfortunately, mls and other digital sources won’t allow the watermark for their own selfish and sometimes nefarious reasons.
Thank for the clear and concise explanation. WIll show this to educate clients!
Nicely done!
Thanks for the video Matthew. About selling prints of places or branded products that are recognized (for instance the Coca-Cola can), is there any problem with the property of the design? For instance, when selling stock photography, we cannot sell pictures of branded products or buildings for commercial purpose. Selling a print is a 'commercial purpose', if I'm not wrong. Is it possible to have legal problems with the creator of the product or building? I would appreciate your answer. Thanks in advance.
I can’t speak for sure either way on this. I’ve never placed a single image of my work on a stock photo website (nor do I plan to), so I can’t speak to that situation with a definite answer. What I DO know is that (in most scenarios) if some product appears in an author’s photo, painting, drawing, etc. that company does not have any automatic rights to that authors work.
Thank you for this video! This is such useful information
If a photographer takes photos of a paying client, are they legally allowed to turn around and sell the photos of that client to an additional third party?
If the photos in question are OF the client where their likeness is the clear subject matter of the image… there is a good chance some model release forms may need to be signed by the client before the photographer can do any additional licensing of the photos. An IP attorney can give you a more specific and legally accurate answer to that question.
@@MatthewAPhoto That definitely helps! Thank you!
lets say i own a camera and I rented a photographer to use my camera to produce some images, under such conditions who is the copyright owner?
@Bijay.Kumar.Behera wrote, “lets say i own a camera and I rented a photographer to use my camera to produce some images, under such conditions who is the copyright owner?”
*Under US copyright law,* the person who took the photograph will typically be the copyright owner, unless there’s an agreement that says otherwise.
If the photographs qualify as “work-for-hire,” then the commissioning party would own the copyrights, not the photographer, assuming there is a written agreement (prior) to the start of the photography assignment.
The client can also require the photographer to transfer the copyright to them via contract.
If I’m working as a full-time photographer for a US newspaper, my employer (the newspaper) would automatically and solely retain the copyright of all the photographs I capture.
Gold, gold, GOLD, for Matthew Anderson BOOM! Can you post this to your IG so the rest of us can share it out?
You're awesome! Thanks so much :-) I think I'd have to somehow condense this even more down to a 60 sec clip for Instagram
@@MatthewAPhoto not at all. IGTV will let you upload up to an hour worth of footage 👍
Thank you so much for your help for all of us, cheers!
Great video, thank you 👍👍
This is more sketchy advice that doesn't consider borders. The commissioning rule exists in the E.U. and commonwealth countries, as well as in Asia. It also exists to a lesser extent in the U.S. If the photographic work isn't for commercial intent, the person commissioning it has the first right of ownership. The easiest way to think about this is simple;
I shoot a client event. The images are to be used to highlight key moments, etc, at their AGM. These images aren't going to be used for any commercial intent. They were purely there to update shareholders who couldn't attend the event. If I own the copyright, I can take any images and reproduce, manipulate, alter and create derivatives. I used one of the images of two people raising wine glasses and changed the image to put two bright pink penis straws in the glasses. I then sell that image to the marker of those penis straws. They then use it as advertising for their product. If i owned the entire copyright, then there would be no issue with me doing this. The reality is that I will be successfully sued by the two people in that image, which showed I did not have full rights to alter those images and create derivatives, which an entire copyright would allow me to do. As the photographer, you do have copyright entitlements, but you rarely, if ever, own the entire copyright, and the client absolutely also shares ownership of non-commercial work. That is the difference, my extend of being able to reproduce (Sell as stock photos of an AGM event) Alter (add elements that were not represented or remove elements that were) Manipulate (Change the nature of) and create derivative work (Change medium) can not be done without the approval of the client who paid for the commissioned work. This does not even begin to touch model releases, etc.
Long story short, yes, you have creator rights and entitlement to copyright when the client uses these images outside of their intended purposes, but you don't own the entire copyright to do with the images that you like without having to obtain specific permissions, which means you never owned the entire copyright. Your copyright also holds limitations, the same as the client's.
Full copyright means you own the entirety of the work and can do whatever you please with no repercussions. If that is not the case, you have copyright clauses, but the commissioner also has rights to decide what happens with those images. ERGO, it is shared.
This is what 98% of all photographers get wrong. They believe they own the entire copyright. They will craft contracts to reflect that, but individual contracts do not supersede consumer law. The same as I can write a contract offering $10 per hour, but if the minimum wage is $13, that contract is not enforceable, and I can be sued in employment court.
💯