Photographers Rights - Aren't They Mine?

[Rob Ekins]

Debra,
Here is the link to the original Licence to use document.
http://www.the-aop.org/information/d...business-forms

You can configure this to suit your needs, if you are not good with MS Word send me a PM and I will fill out the details for you and send you a PDF to print and fill out with the client.

[Mike Buckley]

It really doesn't matter that the third person is not a lawyer. What matters is that the owner chose that person to negotiate with you. It also doesn't matter why the owner chose a person to do that, at least not insofar as the choices you make when determining what is reasonable to you. It might matter with regard to the owner's intended outcome and the choices the owner makes when determining what is reasonable to her.

Considering that you will be provided no access to the ring, consider asking for access to other areas that the public might not be allowed in.

If by any chance the owner is providing her ranch to another organization that is holding the event, make sure you are negotiating with correct party, as the other organization might actually be in control of the rights you are requesting.

Keep in mind that you have now added another detail of information that you didn't provide earlier -- that you hope to use some of the photos to promote your photography. That's not the same as using the event only to practice and improve your photography. That might be a fine distinction in your mind but it might be a reasonably important distinction in the mind of the person you are negotiating with. As always, whatever everyone agrees to is reasonable but everyone has a right to decide for themselves what is reasonable.

Best of luck obtaining permission to photograph the event and even more luck photographing it!

[Saorsa]

You might want to find out what the owners agent means by 'all' rights. Are they asking for the right to control your use of the images or do they just want to use them as they please for publicity, sale, whatever. If they intend to print and give free copies to those in the show, that's one thing. If they intend to sell them, that's another.

If you do proceed, you should create an inobstrusive watermark on your images before delivery.

[Manfred M]

A lot of legal work is done by paralegals, so the fact that the person is not a lawyer has no practical impact on your issue.

I would agree with Mike that you wanting to display these images on your website change the whole direction and complexity of the issue. You have changed from a photographer who just want to practice taking pictures to someone who is planning to profit from them by (if not monetarily, then by enhancing your reputation as a photographer).

I would assume that the mules in question are not all owned by the rancher and she does not have the right to let you take and use the images of these animals. Mike has already alluded to this. The animal's owners retain the property rights (including the right for taking and using the images) unless they have assigned these rights to the owner of the ranch during show activities. If this is the case, then the ranch owner CANNOT give you permission to do what you want to do. You would need the permission of each individual animal's owner to take and use the images you have taken of each of the animals PLUS the permission of the ranch owner to shoot on her property.

A simple workaround for them would be for them ask you to turn over all rights to the pictures you have taken as well as delivering a disk with all of your images. That way, if any of your images happen to get out into the wild (i.e. someone sees one of your images on your website), the ranch will have the proof that you are in violation of their copyright (which you would have assigned to them) and would be able to use legal remedies against you.

This is sounding more and more like you should take the advice already offered and cut your losses (in time and effort). Talking to the rancher owner could very well just be a waste of time, other than thanking them for talking to you and perhaps exploring their reason for the terms and conditions for letting you shoot.

Perhaps looking further afield and planning other shoots would be a more productive use of your time.

[Rob Ekins]

Perhaps looking further afield and planning other shoots would be a more productive use of your time.

As we say in Australia... BULL****!

Debra,
Ignore the naysayers, shooting your genre is your passion, go make it work!

[Mike Buckley]

This thread provides information revealing why it's completely understandable in my mind why an owner would simply take the position that they only want two kinds of photographers covering the event (as opposed to typical spectators taking photos of it). One kind would be the person who is officially a member of the press and the other kind is the photographer the owner is paying to take photos. The time required by the owner to consider every other situation could simply be not worth it. In fact, it's possible that the owner was making an exception for you to even allow someone to discuss the situation with you, when it might have been a lot easier to simply explain that no photography of the kind you are proposing is allowed. That's because even when photographers sign the agreement, the owner doesn't know they're going to live up to either providing the CD or refraining from activities prohibited by the agreement. When a photographer doesn't live up to the signed agreement, the owner will have to still spend more time and perhaps more money to follow up with that person.

[Mike Buckley]

Rob,

Manfred wrote that "perhaps" Debra has better alternatives. That position is not at all the position of a naysayer.

[Saorsa]

Perhaps one of the concerns of the owner and advisor are the possibility of use of the images by third parties. There are a large number of activists who seem dead set on any use of animals for anything but posing for pictures in the wild.

[DebraM63]

Hi again:

Well this certainly is getting complicated... It almost seems that I would have been better off just approaching them to be the event photographer and put the pics up on my website for sale.

It does seem that that is the factor that changes everything - whether or not I am a paid photographer for the event or not. If I was a paid photographer I would not have to get consent from the participants individually to post pics on my website.

But as you have indicated, since I am using something besides a cell phone or small point and shoot camera, I may be perceived differently.

I think I will skip this event.

Because I do want to get further into the equine events, portraiture and such related to them. I don't know how else to do that without representation that I can get a good photo of horses, mules, etc.

I am going to look into equipment and general liability insurance and what I can do to go forward professionally with respect to that.

In the meantime, I will continue to try to find other opportunities to shoot wildlife and horses in other venues that are more public in nature or paid workshops / photo tours.



I will call the ranch owner back to let her know as a courtesy and because I don't want to burn a bridge.

Thanks for the advice and providing information about the release forms.

D.

[Mike Buckley]

If I was a paid photographer I would not have to get consent from the participants individually to post pics on my website.

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's necessarily true. As an example, I believe there are situations in the U.S. even at public events when the law requires anyone using a photo of me for commercial purposes to obtain my permission. I believe most large public events held by sophisticated organizations obtain my permission by virtue of me agreeing to the terms of admission. Even so, I can imagine smaller organizations not taking care of that detail. I mention this only so you can check it out before agreeing to be a paid photographer of a similar event.

[Rob Ekins]

Rob,

Manfred wrote that "perhaps" Debra has better alternatives. That position is not at all the position of a naysayer.

True,
But when it is preceded with......I would assume that the mules in question are not dot dot dot.....YAWN!

That would knock the wind from the sails of any eager new photographer, we are here to learn and share, not frighten people off with hypothetical worst case scenarios..

[Manfred M]

It does seem that that is the factor that changes everything - whether or not I am a paid photographer for the event or not. If I was a paid photographer I would not have to get consent from the participants individually to post pics on my website.

This is incorrect. You need the various owners permission, whether you are paid or not. If you are an official event photographer, the event organizers will likely have taken care of the permission side themselves. That does not mean you have carte blanche on the images that you have taken, as the event will likely want the rights to use your images for promotional or advertising purposes. Other restrictions might also apply.

If you take the pictures from a "public place", for instance, then you would not need permission to photograph or use the images. I live near an equestrian park. If I park my car at the side of the road during a competition and take pictures, no problem. If I enter the site and take pictures, totally different set of rules.

[Saorsa]

Because I do want to get further into the equine events, portraiture and such related to them. I don't know how else to do that without representation that I can get a good photo of horses, mules, etc.




D.

I used to do equestrian event photography. To do this, and sell the images, I made arrangements with the organizers that I would provide them with a selection of images from the event for their use and I would put others up on my own photo marketing site. ( I used zenfolio at the time ). That way the participants could buy their individual images but the organizers had a good representation of shots which didn't necessarily spotlight one individual.

This worked well for a while but, the kids were soon wise to the fact that they could send grandma a link to the zenfolio page and they didn't need to buy prints.

In doing this I made that arrangement with the organizer up front and they even provided linkage to my sales site from their web page.

[Manfred M]

As we say in Australia... BULL****!

Debra,
Ignore the naysayers, shooting your genre is your passion, go make it work!

Debra has already been given the terms and conditions that the owner of the ranch would allow her to shoot under, so this is not hypothetical nay saying. There definitely are legal issues involved here as the shooting would occur on private property. Every sporting event, theatrical production or musical event I have ever attended has had a "no pictures, no video and no sound recording policy". The "official event photographers" attending these events can do things and access places the rest of us can't.

Technically, I could legally sit on a park bench down my street and take pictures of the children playing on the swings and play structures. I am willing to bet that if I did this, even though this is 100% legal, someone would report my suspicious behaviour to the police and I would be asked to stop.

[chauncey]

I'm sorry but, I fail to see that the aggravation is worth taking pictures of mules... fugetaboutit

[Saorsa]

I'm sorry but, I fail to see that the aggravation is worth taking pictures of mules... fugetaboutit

you gotta know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em,
know when to walk away
and know when to run ...

[DebraM63]

Ok - heard from the lady who was advising the owner. Turned out to be super nice. Since it's a private ranch they are protective of photos that get out. They have a standard release it turns out that the other photographer had to sign as well. Gives the ranch full rights to photos but I get to post on my website in portfolio - just can't use for commercial use outside of the event such as calendars, greeting cards and the like. I get full credit if the use any of the photos that I took - which I can see they do because on the current poster there is a photo taken by the other photographer with her watermark on it in full view at the bottom corner of the pic. So... I have agreed to these terms. I also pretty much have full access to the property anywhere I want to take pics but have to stay out of the way of course. I am meeting her on Friday afternoon to sign everything and familiarize myself with the place. Everything is on a good note. I'm glad this worked out - and hey don't knock the mules it'll make for a fun day - events from cutting and working cows to barrel racing to trail courses and roping. Gotta love the long ears !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Buckley]

That's great, Debra! This seems like a win-win for everyone.

[Manfred M]

Excellent! You have been given terms and conditions that are acceptable to you. Have a great shoot.

[William W]

. . . heard from the lady who was advising the owner. [previously established NOT a lawyer]

They have a standard release it turns out that the other photographer had to sign as well.

Gives the ranch full rights to photos but I get to post on my website in portfolio - just can't use for commercial use outside of the event such as calendars, greeting cards and the like.

Throughout the whole thread, there’s been (at least to me) vagueness about the meaning of “full rights”.

Now I am confused about the term “standard release” which they (the ranch owner) requests that the PHOTOGRAPHER sign.

***

A few points you might like to consider:

In simple, but not necessarily the specific legal terminology which will be applicable to your jurisdiction, these are some of the ‘rights’ which apply to Photography in most parts of the world and also a very GENERAL working definition of each of those 'rights' and a GENERAL working example of the application of each:

1. The "Right to Photograph” – to do with PERMISSION which is necessary to be attained, in some situations, to allow an IMAGE to be CREATED.

For example, I intend to make images whilst I am situated on private or government property and these images are intended for a commercial purpose: I may need to apply for and possibly pay for the necessary documentation so to do.

For example, I intend to make images for any purpose whilst I am situated in a public area and these images are of certain Government Buildings or Facilities I may need permission so to do.

For example, (this probably applies to this conversation) I intend make images whilst situated on Private or Government Property, for example a school or a shopping centre, or a Ranch, I may need permission so to do.

Sometimes “permission” is implicit. For example a Wedding Photographer would usually have implicit permission to make images at the Bride’s Home; the Church; and the Reception House. On the other hand sometimes a Photographer might need to pay for the documentation necessary to make images for Portraiture, if the Photographer or Subject were situated on private government land for all or only part of the proceedings (e.g. moving to a Government Botanic Park for a few formal shots - because that Portraiture could be considered for “commercial use”).

*

2. “Copyright” - to do with who OWNS the ‘copy’.

In most (but not all) situations the Copyright resides with the Photographer from the moment the image is made (at the time of the Shutter release).

I shall not go into the specific situations where copyright does not reside with the Photographer – but as a general comment these might include when the Photographer is employed by an ENTITY or commissioned by a PERSON.

The COPYRIGHT will always reside with the owner unless the COPYRIGHT specifically is transferred to another ENTITY, no matter what other ‘rights’ are transferred between PARTIES.

Owning the Copyright does not necessarily provide permission to either PRINT or PUBLISH the image, but it is reasonable to state that in most situations, if the image were made according to the law, it does allow publishing the image for any NON commercial purpose.

*

3. “Model Release” - to do with the PERMISSION and CONDITIONS to PUBLISH a person’s likeness contained within the 'copy'

This is mainly to do with using images containing the likeness of a person for a “commercial purpose”. The definition of a “commercial purpose’ will vary but it might include:

a) using the image for the purposes of MARKETING one’s PHOTOGRAPHY

b) using the image for implied or actual ENDORSEMENT of a PRODUCT or SERVICE

examples -

a) For example, if I romp up to a Ranch and get the owner’s permission to make some images (tick box 1 above), then I proceed to make images of a person sitting on their horse, then I use those images to promote my Products and Services as a Photographer – I would want to know if I could be found in breach, without a “Model Release” from that person sitting on the horse

b) For example, if I were to give that image of the horse and rider to the Ranch owner and sign a document stating something like “I am OK for you to use this image for any purpose” and then that Ranch owner used the image to promote the Ranch's next year’s event, then he (the ranch owner) is found in breach because he (the ranch owner) does not hold a Model Release for the image, then I would like to know what responsibility I hold for providing the Usage Rights of that image, without my holding a Model Release for that image

*

4. “Property Release” to do with the PERMISSION and CONDITIONS to PUBLISH images of an ENTITY’S PROPERTY and/or POSSESSION contained within the 'copy'.

This is mainly to do with using images containing the PROPERTY of a person for a “commercial purpose”.

For example, let’s stick with the image of the rider and his horse – and let’s assume that the rider signed a “Model Release” . . . but if the horse is deemed the rider’s PROPERTY, I would like to know if I require “Property Release” before that image were used by me (or the ranch owner) for any commercial purposes.

Also let’s consider that if within that image of the rider and the horse - there are identifiable elements of the PROPERTY of the ranch owner . . . before I used the image for commercial purposes I would like to know if I required a "Property Release", from the Ranch owner, (noting that the permission to create an image does not necessarily provide the permission to publish it or use it).

*

5. “Usage Right” – applicable to an ENTITY who does NOT have COPYRIGHT of an image and to do with the PERMISSION and TERMS for that ENTITY to USE and/or PUBLISH that image and often will include a stipulation of a TIME period or a DUPLICATION NUMBER or BOTH.

For example and again sticking with the image of the rider and horse, if it were necessary for me to attain: permission to shoot from the ranch owner; a property release from the ranch owner; a model release from the horse rider; and also a property release from the horse rider – and I get all of those . . .

Then I would like to know what “rights” that I am actually handing over to the ranch owner when I sign the document referenced as a “standard release’, because it is likely that if I do hand over "Usage Rights" to the Ranch owner – and the Model Release and Property Release (of the horse rider) allows for transference of that release from me to another ENTITY, then it is quite probable that I would never have to, (nor would I personally) relinquish the Copyright of the image.

*

I am not suggesting that you consult a lawyer, nor am I suggesting that you do not shoot this gig: but I do think it would bode well for you to ensure that you have an understanding of all the distinctly DIFFERENT “rights” which are relevant to Photography and Photographers and how these "rights" will apply in this particular situation and under California and USA law.

With that understanding of the general types of "rights" generally applicable in Photography, I think you will be better equipped to get the gist and understand the impact of this form - aka "standard release" - that the Ranch owner wants you to sign.

WW