- This topic is empty.
Volunteering – can THEY own my copyright?
-
FrankC wrote:
Hi Gerry,
I would agree with you if this was a commercial event.
However, the FOWC is a non-profit event run largely by volunteers, and funded by sponsorship.
Most of the events are free to attend, and most of the people directly involved are unpaid volunteers.On that basis, it’s slightly different from the all-too-common “rights grab” scenario.
Still, I think they need to think through a bit more carefully how they handle the photographer’s copyright issue.
My own view is that they should compile an acceptable form of licensing/rights assignment for each photographer to sign.
Having slept on it, and with the help of you folks (I posted on another forum too) I think I’ll go up anyway, enjoy the festival and take pics I want without the pressure of being exploited :mrgreen:.
Update: Just spent 30 mins on the phone with the organiser (she’s a photographer herself hired by the Festival and on a personal level has the same concerns as me but has to remain neutral for obvious reasons). And discussed what you also wrote (and will be writing to the Festival about it for their consideration).
The bottom line is that the Festival isn’t budging on their terms, which are broad and vague (per my quote in the original post) and is a verbal agreement. It is very unlikely that they would pursue my ‘commercial use’ and unlikely that they would sell or pass on pics to others (besides press) but the bottom line being their ‘owning the copyright’ doesn’t tell me how the images will or won’t (would or wouldn’t) be used however likely or unlikely at any point in the future.
In real terms it might not amount to much at all (storm in a tea cup) but I’m not willing to find out. Telling a volunteer they have absolutely nothing to show for a weekend of work and that they’re restricted in what they themselves can do with them is a bit harsh. For some it’ll be a fun weekend and who cares what happens to their pics, they’ll have a great time anyway. It’s not for me (besides having a great time anyway that is :lol:).
All the PC stuff aside… what’s forcing you to hand over everything at the end of the day? Is it a case that they don’t let you out of the venue when it’s time to go home unless you agree to a strip search where they confiscate all your memory cards and/or rolls of film?
I’d send them on 40/50% of the work you did that day and keep the rest… win/win.
No matter what you give them, it’s clear from the document that they own the copyright, and that your participation as a volunteer photographer is therefore part of a binding agreement.
As photographers, we scream about protecting our own copyright, but when you go in to an agreement like this, you must respect the fact that you are shooting for them, and that they own the copyright.
Copyright is like anything else – it can be bought, sold and assigned.
They will own the copyright, and will grant you license to display the images you take, for non-commercial use.
You are going in to the event with all the details, and by shooting as a volunteer, you are agreeing to their terms.
paul wrote:
No matter what you give them, it’s clear from the document that they own the copyright, and that your participation as a volunteer photographer is therefore part of a binding agreement.
As photographers, we scream about protecting our own copyright, but when you go in to an agreement like this, you must respect the fact that you are shooting for them, and that they own the copyright.
Copyright is like anything else – it can be bought, sold and assigned.
They will own the copyright, and will grant you license to display the images you take, for non-commercial use.
You are going in to the event with all the details, and by shooting as a volunteer, you are agreeing to their terms.
Can it be agreed? I’ve not assigned them copyright to my images, they’ve not asked for it, nor offered to buy it, there’s no negotiation or two-way dealing. They’ve told me that’s how it is: fact – we own the copyright. By my telling them ‘yeah ok I’ll shoot’ is my agreement to their terms. Maybe this is an interpretation of ‘assignment’ by complying?
I’ve been in a similar situation with a commercial assignment last year. First of all copyright can be sold but it rarely happens because the costs for the buyer are immense. In your case I assume that your client wants to make sure that the images won’t be used by anybody else in the present or near future. This is usually being achieved by granting exclusive rights for a certain time which means that nobody beside the client can use the images for the time agreed. The copyright always stays with you.
In you particular case I find it a bit cheeky from your client anyway to claim the copyright. After all you provide a voluntary service and your client saves a lot of money. If you haven’t signed the “things to remember” or agreed to it in written form there is no way they can hold you to it.
So you can either try to reach a different agreement with the client or just do the job and do with the images whatever you want (if you haven’t signed anything). One more tip: Shoot RAW and submit TIF or JPEG (including a copyright note in EXIF) so you have always prove it’s your work.
If you have any more questions let me know.
Good luck,Carsten
Carsten Krieger Photography – http://www.thecapturedlight.com
You agree to their terms, hence a contract between both parties exists (if you do agree) . Unless something is illegal a valid contract exists, no matter how unfair you think it is and afterall you have the option to turn down the “offer” .
A contract doesn’t have to have a monetary value.
FrankC wrote:
I would agree with you if this was a commercial event.
However, the FOWC is a non-profit event run largely by volunteers, and funded by sponsorship.
Most of the events are free to attend, and most of the people directly involved are unpaid volunteers.On that basis, it’s slightly different from the all-too-common “rights grab” scenario.
Still, I think they need to think through a bit more carefully how they handle the photographer’s copyright issue.
My own view is that they should compile an acceptable form of licensing/rights assignment for each photographer to sign.
If it was an easy-goin non-profit, lets get a few pics for the website next year kindof thing then why insist on copyright??
stasber wrote:
Can it be agreed? I’ve not assigned them copyright to my images, they’ve not asked for it, nor offered to buy it, there’s no negotiation or two-way dealing. They’ve told me that’s how it is: fact – we own the copyright. By my telling them ‘yeah ok I’ll shoot’ is my agreement to their terms. Maybe this is an interpretation of ‘assignment’ by complying?
It’s basic offer/acceptance. They have stated their terms (offer), and by you getting your goodie bag and t-shirt, and shooting, you have accepted those terms (agreed).
They are stating that for granting you the right to shoot, and giving you access, you thereby grant them full copyright to the images. They have not asked, they have stated that these are the terms. You can either accept or reject those terms.
If you want to alter the terms, then you need to do so prior to any shoot. You have between now and the start of the event to come to an “alternate” agreement. You can’t simply change your mind about their terms, without explicitly informing them.
carstenkrieger wrote:
First of all copyright can be sold but it rarely happens because the costs for the buyer are immense. In your case I assume that your client wants to make sure that the images won’t be used by anybody else in the present or near future. This is usually being achieved by granting exclusive rights for a certain time which means that nobody beside the client can use the images for the time agreed. The copyright always stays with you.
Incorrect. You do not always own the copyright. If you are shooting for someone, with agreement, then they can own the copyright, especially if this ownership is expressed prior to a shoot, and an agreement has been made.
carstenkrieger wrote:
In you particular case I find it a bit cheeky from your client anyway to claim the copyright. After all you provide a voluntary service and your client saves a lot of money. If you haven’t signed the “things to remember” or agreed to it in written form there is no way they can hold you to it.
So you can either try to reach a different agreement with the client or just do the job and do with the images whatever you want (if you haven’t signed anything). One more tip: Shoot RAW and submit TIF or JPEG (including a copyright note in EXIF) so you have always prove it’s your work.A contract doesn’t have to be signed. They are expressing terms, and by you shooting, you have implicitly accepted that, and that is enough to form a binding contract. Again, the OP has been informed of the terms of the shoot (that the organisation will retain copyright), and unless an alternate agreement is made, then this is binding.
You have 3 options –
1) Do the shoot, and they have full copyright
2) Don’t do the shoot
3) attempt to come to an alternate agreement prior to the start of the event. Failure to agree a new arrangement leaves you back to options 1 & 2.stasber wrote:
They’ve told me that’s how it is: fact – we own the copyright.
There is no catch.
They own the copyright of your images, if you do this job.Period.
Correct and not correct. In this particular case it boils down to the form of the document. If it is titled “Contract” or “Agreement” it can be binding without signature, if it’s only a piece of paper that says “things to remember” it will most likely be a judge to decide if it’s a binding contract.
Carsten
http://www.thecapturedlight.com
carstenkrieger wrote:
In this particular case it boils down to the form of the document. If it is titled “Contract” or “Agreement” it can be binding without signature, if it’s only a piece of paper that says “things to remember” it will most likely be a judge to decide if it’s a binding contract.
I think you’re very much mistaken here. The agreement does not need to contain words “Contract” nor “agreement”. They are stating terms, even just by having them in a small note, and by you shooting, you are agreeing to those terms. Any document or even verbal terms can form a contract. As long as you are aware of the terms and you accept, then a legally binding contract is in place.
I would certainly not spend a few days taking photos, and then hoping that a judge will side with me.
Their terms for being a volunteer are clear, and would be legally binding.
If you’ve any doubt about that, then the best advice would be to consult a copyright solicitor prior to doing the shoot.
Mark – any chance of a multi-quote thingy? ;)
Ashley – absolutely, that’s what I had started the thread for, and gotten a lot of useful feedback on. Never intimated there was a catch; I was unsure about their owning my copyright. However, my mind is made up on this one. One of my concerns to them (I wrote back earlier today) was about “lots of photographers will agree to it without even blinking an eyelid…then they will complain..” [by which time its too late of course]
Carsten – the ‘things to remember’ is on a general ‘guidelines’ doc and there is nothing to sign, no request for a written confirmation saying I agree, and I was told (in a phone call today) that it’s a verbal agreement. I would need to return an ‘equipment and availability’ form with basic contact details, what kind of equipment will I be using (probably want to know if its a digicam, a Zenith SLR or a MkIII), what my level & area of experience is, and when I would be available so that they can schedule me in. But nothing to actually sign. And the agreement is as detailed and as clear as my quote in the first post. Oh, and they wrote “all images must be high resolution, images must be 1BM, saved as JPG” – which of course leaves plenty of scope for resizing, compression and watermarking ;)
Covey – yes compensation doesn’t have to be monetary, it can be a free ticket and a t-shirt.
Fintan – I’d say they’ve not given it much thought. Saying ‘we’ll use your pics how we like without telling you but only for the festival’ isn’t the same as saying they own the copyright. If cashing in is a concern then obviously photography is more important to them than giving a bunch of snap happy volunteers a t-shirt & then leaving them out in the cold.
Paul – I decided to drop it as it’s more hassle than it’s worth, as the Festival is intent on keeping its stance and won’t negotiate.
Some very interesting input everyone – thank you all ;)
stasber wrote:
Paul – I decided to drop it as it’s more hassle than it’s worth, as the Festival is intent on keeping its stance and won’t negotiate.
The most telling statment in this thread imo.
They mean exactly what they say and imo for all the obvious reasons that implies.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
