Copyright of copy and images
Discussion
If there is no consideration (as I'm sure you know this doesn't have to be a wage) then I do not see how the relationship could be seen as one of employment. The volunteer is a "Ronseal" volunteer, and s. 11(2) CDPA 1988 does not apply. If there was an agreement, however, informal, to take photos for the club in exchange for free drinks at the bar after the match, then it may be a different story.
But now here's an interesting question. Say the volunteer is taking the photos. They retain the copyright. They then licence them to the club, for free, on condition that they only get posted up on the website and with attribution (moral rights asserted). There is consideration then from the club to the volunteer, which is the promise to abide by the licence terms. Is that consideration which could be seen to be creating an employer-employee relationship?
But now here's an interesting question. Say the volunteer is taking the photos. They retain the copyright. They then licence them to the club, for free, on condition that they only get posted up on the website and with attribution (moral rights asserted). There is consideration then from the club to the volunteer, which is the promise to abide by the licence terms. Is that consideration which could be seen to be creating an employer-employee relationship?
how would that create an employer - employee relationship when the same contract could be formed between the club and xyz photographic corporation?
it is really simple - unless there is something from the club to the photographer in return for the photos (access to the event / supply of kit / salary or payment / etc.) then there is very unlikely to be any basis for the club to claim any form of ownership... even where there is, a normal photographic contract would still retain copyright with the photographer, though would licence the use of the photos...
the only time when IPR becomes the property of someone outside the originator is when the IPR is created within their duties for that 3rd party (though employment, e.g. as a chemist in a research lab) and it will normally be contractually spelled out, though doesn't have to be - there can be a basis for claiming full or part ownership for IPR created outside that environment when the 3rd party / employer could be deemed to have enabled the IPR creation through provision of kit / knowledge / skills / etc. (i.e. the same chemist playing at home might find the IPR owned by their employer)
when it comes to photography an equivalent example might be that a journalist working for a tabloid using the newspaper's kit takes photos which are news-worthy while attending their son's football match one evening - their employer could have a claim on the copyright of those photos as it might be expected that they would be taking such photos for their job, a job which is not geographically or time bound and therefore could be deemed to be in place during that event...
a volunteer taking photos for a club - no chance!
it is really simple - unless there is something from the club to the photographer in return for the photos (access to the event / supply of kit / salary or payment / etc.) then there is very unlikely to be any basis for the club to claim any form of ownership... even where there is, a normal photographic contract would still retain copyright with the photographer, though would licence the use of the photos...
the only time when IPR becomes the property of someone outside the originator is when the IPR is created within their duties for that 3rd party (though employment, e.g. as a chemist in a research lab) and it will normally be contractually spelled out, though doesn't have to be - there can be a basis for claiming full or part ownership for IPR created outside that environment when the 3rd party / employer could be deemed to have enabled the IPR creation through provision of kit / knowledge / skills / etc. (i.e. the same chemist playing at home might find the IPR owned by their employer)
when it comes to photography an equivalent example might be that a journalist working for a tabloid using the newspaper's kit takes photos which are news-worthy while attending their son's football match one evening - their employer could have a claim on the copyright of those photos as it might be expected that they would be taking such photos for their job, a job which is not geographically or time bound and therefore could be deemed to be in place during that event...
a volunteer taking photos for a club - no chance!
lostmotel said:
If there is no consideration (as I'm sure you know this doesn't have to be a wage) then I do not see how the relationship could be seen as one of employment. The volunteer is a "Ronseal" volunteer, and s. 11(2) CDPA 1988 does not apply. If there was an agreement, however, informal, to take photos for the club in exchange for free drinks at the bar after the match, then it may be a different story.
But now here's an interesting question. Say the volunteer is taking the photos. They retain the copyright. They then licence them to the club, for free, on condition that they only get posted up on the website and with attribution (moral rights asserted). There is consideration then from the club to the volunteer, which is the promise to abide by the licence terms. Is that consideration which could be seen to be creating an employer-employee relationship?
Thanks for that.But now here's an interesting question. Say the volunteer is taking the photos. They retain the copyright. They then licence them to the club, for free, on condition that they only get posted up on the website and with attribution (moral rights asserted). There is consideration then from the club to the volunteer, which is the promise to abide by the licence terms. Is that consideration which could be seen to be creating an employer-employee relationship?
I was allowed out of pocket expenses but was not given a retainer/honorarium. I was a little concerned.
The club's rights to images and copy supplied to the club was first serial rights plus use for the purposes of the club. This was given as including any publication by the club, online and by other means, unless there was an agreement to the contrary. I made the assumption that my images and copy were the same.
There were quite a number of images, but not copy, where the copyright holder retained the full copyright after FSR. I normally returned the images.
Thanks again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff