Copyright Ownership question

[KarnyDoc]

After having my previous question about model releases answered so well in another forum, I thought I'd tap the fantastic brain trust yet again.

I am presently unemployed. While I would love to get back into the industry from which I had to resign last year to preserve my employability therein (I used to work as a conductor), right now my circumstances require taking something to bring in money, at least temporarily.

I have an opportunity to work part-time at mall-based portrait studio at a mall not far from where I live. I came across the Yahoo! job listing posted by the local Picture People studio, seeking a part-time employee to work as a photographer. (Since photography is my hobby, why not make some money at it, even on a part-time basis?)

While I definitely exceed some of their job requirements, such as the "1-2 years experience" (I've been in photography for most of my life), and customer service skills, "a passion for learning portrait photography" (they offer on-the-job training, and I'd like to add to my experience), I'm not strong in other areas, such as the digital editing part, for example. All in all, though, I have a strong retail background (the first fifteen years of my working life were in retail), and can take competent photographs, which is why I'm considering this place.

So I got to wondering: Assuming I apply to this place, and I probably will anyway, how copyright ownership apply, in general? Would it be held by the studio, or would I? What about being able to use images for my portfolio? I understand there is a lot of variability here, so absolute, one-size-fits-all answers may not be possible, but what about common practice?

Regards,

Dieter

[KmH]

Dieter,

As I understand their system, they will own the copyrights (work for hire) and all you will do is push a shutter button as the camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture, light placement and all other aspects of the actual photographic process will be beyond your control.

[SureFire]

Keith has it right... it's going to be work for hire type through your contract. You will most likely not even get access to the images (without stealing them) anyway. So, don't count on using the images. Just count on a paycheck for pushing a button.

[KarnyDoc]

Originally Posted by SureFire

Keith has it right... it's going to be work for hire type through your contract. You will most likely not even get access to the images (without stealing them) anyway. So, don't count on using the images. Just count on a paycheck for pushing a button.

Right now, getting a paycheck is desirable, given my situation.

While I may not be able to use any of the images for my personal use., e.g., portfolio, I would get something even more valuable: experience - and you cannot put a dollar value on that!

In spite of the work-for-hire aspect, and that I would gain valuable experience, I'm going to apply. Whatever the pay rate will be, will certainly be vastly preferable to earning the $0 I am now.

Thanks!

Dieter

[KmH]

Originally Posted by KarnyDoc

Right now, getting a paycheck is desirable, given my situation.

While I may not be able to use any of the images for my personal use., e.g., portfolio, I would get something even more valuable: experience - and you cannot put a dollar value on that!

In spite of the work-for-hire aspect, and that I would gain valuable experience, I'm going to apply. Whatever the pay rate will be, will certainly be vastly preferable to earning the $0 I am now.

Thanks!

Dieter

Oh yes, go for the pay check. You won't be getting any meaningful photography experience beyond tripping a shutter though.
I believe they also make you sign a non-compete agreement.

[KarnyDoc]

Originally Posted by KmH

Oh yes, go for the pay check. You won't be getting any meaningful photography experience beyond tripping a shutter though.
I believe they also make you sign a non-compete agreement.

You weren't being sarcastic, I hope?

I do hope, however, you appreciate my situation, which has governed my priorities: income first. Anything else after that is gravy.

Dieter Zakas
Cash Starved, NJ

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by KarnyDoc

You weren't being sarcastic, I hope?

He wasn't. Most of those places have every set up for you. No adjusting lights too much or changing camera settings. You will learn posing and subject interaction, though, which are valuable for people photography. It's pretty cookie cutter in those places, though.

I do hope, however, you appreciate my situation, which has governed my priorities: income first. Anything else after that is gravy.

Dieter Zakas
Cash Starved, NJ

Absolutely understandable. I'd dig ditches and work at McDonalds to feed my family and pay my bills. It's a responsibility that comes before sitting on my butt waiting for some cherry job to come along.

[KarnyDoc]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

He wasn't. Most of those places have every set up for you. No adjusting lights too much or changing camera settings. You will learn posing and subject interaction, though, which are valuable for people photography. It's pretty cookie cutter in those places, though.

Hmm...I have no problem getting along with people.

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Absolutely understandable. I'd dig ditches and work at McDonalds to feed my family and pay my bills. It's a responsibility that comes before sitting on my butt waiting for some cherry job to come along.

Any money is better than no money.

Dieter Zakas
Greenback, NJ

[rafdaz]

Although not applicable in this situation, as I understood things in the UK, copyright ALWAYS belonged to the photographer, even if the shoot was commissioned by someone else. Is this correct?

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by rafdaz

Although not applicable in this situation, as I understood things in the UK, copyright ALWAYS belonged to the photographer, even if the shoot was commissioned by someone else. Is this correct?

Not in a work-for-hire situation, at least here in the US.