Copyright law - ignore my previous question please

[CharlesW]

Hi, please excuse my previous question, I submitted the question during the registration process, accidentally.

I am a wedding photographer and understand that I own the copyright to all the images which I shoot.
I have a court case pending in which the bride wants to sue for all the money which she paid me. She placed unreasonable demands on me to force this situation.
I will attend the court and fight the case because I still have her images on my system waiting for the job to be completed. It would have been completed before her solicitors letter hit my door mat.

There is always a small chance the judge will award her the refund so she can get another photographer to make her album, however she appears not to have considered the fact that I own the copyright to the images, regardless of her having a copy of them on DVD.
In court, I will point out that I own the copyright and that even if she is awarded the refund (damages?) nobody has the right to reproduce or print the images without my agreement. I may also state that if the images are printed and used in an album (a commercial product?) I can demand that each image is marked with my name on it. THAT IS THE LAW.

My question is...if the judge decides to award in her favour, can he or she ride rough-shod over the copyright laws and assign copyright to the bride. Note: This is a small claims track hearing.
Many Thanks and sorry about my mistake earlier.

[Ethel]

No, if you are ordered to refund her the cost of the work, the copyright of the photos and images remain your property.

Copyright cannot be assigned in the manner you describe.

[jno]

it might depend on the terms of your contract with the bride. If for instance you were taking photos as her agent, they could be seen as belonging to her.

[CharlesW]

Thank you Ethel. Basically, I supply a DVD containing the images and I suspect the bride has thought "hmmm, I don't really want the album from him, maybe I'll just get my money back and make my own album, I can get a cheap one in Max Spielaman's for a tenner, it'll do fine".
I'm tempted to tell the court that, of the money she paid, only �200 of it was for the album costs, and at the most, another �100 was for the album design. The other �900 was for my photography for the whole day.
Kindest regards

[CharlesW]

jno, I understand your point, however in this case I operate as a freelance photographer and copyright is mine. She did not commission the work and I was not working for her.
As it happens, I am shooting a wedding next week for another studio and fully understand that THEY are employing me and that copyright is THEIRS, not mine.
Thank you for your reply.

[Ethel]

I wish you well with it, CharlesW

With everyone having scanners, printers, paintshopro, dvd and cd burners your income much be at times undermined by those who believe it is fine to take, just because they can.


Good luck

[jno]

fair enough, CharlesW: the terms of a contract may sometimes override other considerations, but it seems you have yours written down properly, so go for it.

[Twenty20]

I dont think the copyright comes into this particular case. From what you say she isnt happy with your performance (not just the album) and the decision may go against you depending on what her complaint actually is.

I think its a bit immaterial who owns the copyright as youve given her the photos and you have no real way of telling what she does with them. You can state your case that you own the copyright but after that, what? How can you even know if she makes an album from them? I'd concentrate on her complaint (which is nothing to do with the copyright) and either defend that or pay up.

Just out of interest, if she didnt commission the work and you say you werent working for her then why has she paid you? Who were you working for if not her?

[CharlesW]

Twenty20, so what you're saying is...a judge would be happy to condone breaking copyright laws by awarding in her favour.
You said... "Just out of interest, if she didnt commission the work and you say you werent working for her then why has she paid you? Who were you working for if not her?". Can I assume you have no knowledge of copyright law?
She has paid for my services and a book. The services do not fall under copyright law and due to her bloody-mindedness, the book hasn't been printed yet.

[firetracie]

I'm not sure that you are that solid on copywrite ownership here.

In my job I employ freelance photographers to attend pr events on our behalf and take pictures for us. The copywrite on those pictures belongs to us to replicate, alter, edit or use in any way we wish.

If I commissioned a photographer for a personal event I would assume the same, and that the fee for taking on the job includes one set of photographs to do with as I pleased.

[CharlesW]

Firetracie, thank you for your reply.
I fully understand that you own the copyright to the photographs taken on your behalf by your employees. As I stated earlier, I too will be working for another studio this weekend and they will own the copyright.
However, when shooting a wedding as a freelance photographer, under my own business name (if you like), I am the creator of the images therefore I own the copyright.
From the Intellectual Property Office..."The general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner.

If you create a copyright work, you become the 'author' so in the case of any photographs you take you are the first owner. However, an example where this may not be the case is if it was you who pressed the camera button and someone else who decided things like the camera angle, exposure and so on.

If you make a photograph with two or more people and each persons contribution to the photograph is not distinct, then you all become joint authors and joint first owners of copyright and the permission of each joint owner will be needed before such a photograph can be used.

This general rule about first ownership of copyright resting with the 'author' is, however, overridden in the case of photographs which are made by an employee in the course of employment; in this case, the employer is the first owner of copyright subject to any agreement to the contrary.

If you commission a photograph you will only be the copyright owner if there is an agreement to assign copyright to you"

So firetracie, if you asked me to shoot your birthday party, I would own the copyright to the images created, unless of course you commissioned a specific photograph, taken from a specific angle, in fact, pretty much set it up yourself apart from myself merely pressing the shutter release button. It doesn't matter if I supply one set of photographs or supply a