issue with publishing

[fattonyrends]

Hello guys,

 

We have an issue with Images that we made for client.

We published couple of cameras after the project was finished on forums and soc. networks for promotion. We claimed clearly that Visuals are done by us.

 

We had no clue this will be an issue, since they never gave us anything to signed.

The problem is that they want us now to remove everything, saying that we have no right to published their work.

 

And this is what we cannot find clearly anywhere, that who is the owner of the renders, if it is not stated otherwise.

 

Thank you for any hint or guides.

 

Stefan from Fat Tony

[John Dollus]

next time, get it in writing as part of your proposal/contract that you retain rights to publish images related to the work for self promotion purposes. They can either agree or disagree with it but you will know for certain before the work begins.

If it is not outlined anywhere at all in your current agreement, then you should remove the images and apologize to the client for the misunderstanding. That's your only option if you ever want to work for them again.

If you persist in publishing them and the client decides to go to legal representation, it will be very expensive and you will likely lose. It's a somewhat grey area since there wasn't anything in writing but in the eyes of most courts, they will be viewed as the original creator of the subject while you are merely a hired hand to make a picture. You were paid so they own it.

[fattonyrends]

The issue is that we are working with this specific studio for 8 months all together on 7 projects, and nothing like this was ever mentioned to us.

They found the images on the web and they contacted us couple of days ago that we should remove them at the moment, or the are going to contact us via legal department.

Ofc we removed the images we dont need no trouble but the attitude was very unpleasant.

We also mentioned to them after 3 or 4th project that we want to use couple of images for our personal use, we also send the images to them since they were adjusted and it was ignored from their side.

And now they wanted to signed the NDA with the date of 1.1.15 which was very interesting.

 

What i am curios about is what exactly they could win over. Because the have paid for image, not for the rights for the image from us, which would charge more ofc.

 

Thank you much for interest in discussion.

Stefan

[Scott Schroeder]

Yep, it's a gray area for sure but like John said, you'll lose this battle. Take your images down and learn a hard lesson. I would advise spending an hour or so with a lawyer to set up your contracts and get things like this cleared up into black and white. It will be time and money well spent.

 

Somewhat related to this is that you also need to make sure you can release those images to the public. If the client hasn't made them public yet and wants to keep the visuals for internal discussions and you go make the project public, that can also cause very serious issues.

[fattonyrends]

Hi Scott,

 

I understand your explanation. We took the images down without discussion, but really only thing what interests me is what would be the argument for them, if it let say came to some court, since it was never ever nowhere mentioned that we should published the images. And also as i mentioned we even noticed them that we want to use them and it was ignored. There is no email, no paper no signature no mention from their side that we are prohibited to publish the images.

So yes we dont want trouble and also are not stubborn that much, but what i cannot understand is the winning argument from them in this case. In order to understand this in the future.

 

Thanks Scott

[Scott Schroeder]

From http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag1-6mf.shtml

 

Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter. It continues throughout the life of the artist and 50 years after his or her death. In order to insure you have all the rights the law provides, as well as access to all the legal remedies available, you should have a copyright notice put on all of your published works. "Publication" means not only published in the sense of inclusion in a printed book or magazine, but also distribution via public sale, display with intent to sell (as in a gallery), and the rental, lease or loan of the work. And now, with the Internet, publication includes use on a page.

 

An exception to the ownership just described occurs if the work was done as work for hire. This is the case when a photographer or other artist signs a contract to produce a work or works for a fee. In this contract "work for hire" is specifically noted. The artist or photographer relinquishes all rights to his or her work. Those rights are assigned to the client. In other words, your client--not you--owns the copyrights . This transfer of rights has been the source of much controversy and many legal battles. Be very careful when reading your contracts to be sure you are not giving up your rights to your work. Copyrights for work for hire continue for 100 years past the date of publication.

 

You don't publish images that you were hired to create unless you have specific, in writing, permission. Them not responding to an email isn't considered written permission.

 

I would imagine, in lieu of a specific line in a contract, the bold part above is assumed to be true.

[algisraubiska]

Well this situation is interesting for me to, I have project that I have no rights to publish the images I've made, but what if I render couple of shots for myself from slightly different angle with different light setup and etc. What then?

[harryhirsch]

Well, you can render like 1 million shots for yourself, but you may not publish them. And it is like Scott said, perhaps the client hasn't made them public yet, and does not intend to do so...Then you can not publish anything from that project. A different camera angle doesnt change that. That is Australian law: ''Generally, making additions or modifications to a plan or work will not avoid infringing copyright'' ...''If there is no term of the agreement which provides for an assignment of the copyright , the architect gains the benefit of copyright protection and can prevent people from using or reproducing his or her works''.

.........but then there are things like implied licences and moral rights etc...https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/download/Architects%20and%20Intellectual%20Property%20Article%20Board%20advice%20April%2020121.pdf

[Dan Norfolk]

Anything you want to publish, ask your client's permission first. If you are contracting work from an architect, the architect has a confidentiality agreement with the client that you may not be privy to. If you are working directly with a developer, there are marketing issues or approval issues than may be sensitive. Best to ask their permission first.

[CliveG]

Interesting.... So where do you think I stand when I am the architect/designer and rendering images of my own design that have been done to meet a brief sent by my client (design & construct head contractors) for their potential clients project?

 

To my way of thinking I should be right to post images as all the IP is mine (as long as I blur out any logos or other distinguishing features), or have I missed something in this legal slalom?

[Scott Schroeder]

It's not that hard to understand. If you are paid to do something, it's not yours to do with as you please. Even in your case where you are the designer, you were paid to create the design by a client. The client owns the rights. Actually in your case, you are the 3rd in line for rights. The main client owns the rights (they are the top of the money chain), the contractors are 2nd (paid by the main client), and you (paid by the 2nd client with the main client's money) come dead last in 3rd place.

 

If you did the work for free, then you can do as you please with the imagery you created.

[Rich O]

At least in NZ, copyright belongs to whoever commissioned you to create the images. Even without an explicit contract. For you to own them you would need to have a contract specifying this. Without a contract, ownership would default to the client.

 

Am guessing most jurisdictions would be similar. OP you will need to check whatever the law is in Serbia but I'd be surprised if it is any different.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Richard7666

[Jesper Pedersen]

Hi Fat Tony,

It's frustrating, but I would suggest you take our approach: We sit on all our images until the client has released them (ie they are in the public domain), this allows our cient to control when/where the images are seen first. It can be frustrating for sure, but you have to remember, they are commissioning you and regardless of the legal copyright status, you need to respect that some clients may need a "big launch" and will not want their CGIs leaked prior to the event, while other clients may want to keep a low profile for whatever reason.

we have several project which we would love to show but the client has not yet released them. So despite finishing the projects (in some cases over a year ago), we need to sit on them. Other projects are for internal use only and we will probably never be able to release them. Frustrating yes, but we would lose that client if they could not depend on us to treat their images confidentially if they so wish.

Well, that's our take on it and we find it works. Good luck.

Regards

Jesper Pedersen

http://www.pedersenfocus.ie