| Photography Forum: Photography Help Forum: |
 |
Q. Works of joint authorship... or not?
Asked by Dai Hunter
(K=2028) on 8/28/2004
|
The principle of joint authorship (sometimes called collaborative works) and the copyright implications that they might bring, specifically a possible claim of joint ownership of the copyright in such works (especially in photography) by each and every participant, have become interesting topics to me mainly because I have found some, but not much, case law on the subject. In one California case an art director successfully sued a photographer for a share of profits from the sale of photos, on the basis of joint ownership of the image copyrights.
How a claim to joint authorship can come about, and did in that California case, is if the individual ?artistic? input of each participant can not be separated from the whole of the work ? such as photographing a model with a special make-up scheme used (e.g. body painting) where there is both skill and originality involved separate from the skill and originality of the photographer him- or herself. In the California case the art director argued, successfully, that he researched and acquired the props used and arranged them on the set ? which was/were then photographed by the photographer and that equalled a claim to joint authorship based on each of their individual inputs to the whole (photograph).
Putting this question to a well known London law firm with a heavy involvement in IP issues they couldn?t answer it, especially as the UK doesn?t even have a work-for-hire doctrine. In the UK the idea, and legal position, seems to be that if there is creative input and the person is not an employee they still retain THEIR copyright interest in their particular creative input? what ever that might be. If that creative input becomes part of a larger work then they may have a claim to partial ownership of the copyright in the finished whole work. Bizarrely, it seems, even models might be able to claim such rights if not PROPERLY released in that respect.
There is always a lot of discussion about model releases, here and elsewhere, but how do you all handle releases of copyright interest of such other diverse participants as might be those of the art director; the hair and make-up artists; the clothes/fashion stylists; set designers; ect? If you don?t get a ?release of interest? (from everyone) and are shooting for commercial purposes, are you storing up problems for the future? Have you ever even thought about this issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dal mandle
(K=1484) - Comment Date 8/29/2004
|
No I haven't, but you raised a good point that I will pursue if I ever do commercial work... thank you for opening my eyes to this :)
|
|
|
|
Mary Sue Hayward
(K=17558) - Comment Date 8/29/2004
|
Dai, these issues do not affect me directly because I am not a commercial photographer. However, I want to compliment you on your thought-provoking and very clearly written forum post. Your summary of case law from both the California and UK situations is presented in a way that may be very helpful to the UF membership. I am quite appreciative of your contribution.
|
|
|
|
Matej Maceas
(K=24381) - Comment Date 8/29/2004
|
Mary Sue took the words right out of my mouth :-)
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 8/30/2004
|
I have found some rather dry and legalistic discussions of the copyright laws on joint authorship relating to both the US and the UK (also closely related to law in other countries with much the same kind of copyright law framwork - such as Australia). As a follow-up to my first post, however, I also found this discussion of that specific California case which makes an interesting read and sets out the problem. As this, itself, is a copyright web document I have only included here an extract - please go to the website and read the whole thing:
The Art Directors' Rights In Commercial Photography
Just When Photographers Thought They Had Worked Out The "Work Made For Hire" Claims To Copyright In "Their" Work, An Even More Vexing Problem Arises!
by: James Lorin Silverberg, Esq. Director of Litigation, The Intellectual Property Group PLLC Copyright 2002 James Lorin Silverberg
On February 15, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals turned the Art Directors' relationship with the professional photographic community on its head. It is a decision leaving Art Directors questioning just how much in residual revenues from photographic shoots they are entitled to claim from the Photographers with whom they have worked during the last one hundred or so years; one leaving the professional photographic community with the unpleasant question of how many tens, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars they may owe to the Art Directors overseeing their shoots; a decision in which the Ninth Circuit ruled that Art Directors can qualify as co-authors of the photographs they art direct....
(balance of article and case analysis on line at)
http://www.artlaws.com/rightsin.html
|
|
|
|
|
