PDlightguy
New Member
Greetings,
I am a Lighting Designer who had designed the lighting for events for an employer for the past eight and a half years. I'm also a photographer, a hobby that I've recently been building up towards a new professional career.
During my tenure with my former employer, I would take photographs of the events I designed for my portfolio. In kindness, I allowed the employer to use the photos for their own portfolio on their website and when delivering the disk of images I joked about charging and my employer kind of snapped back saying that I couldn't that they owned the copyrights because of "Work For Hire" under copyright law. This kind of took me back a bit because I didn't think that sounded right.
In my reading of the law on the government's website, I don't agree. It seems pretty clear that in order for the photographs copyright to fall under "Work For Hire" it must be:
*Part 1* A work prepared by an employee within the scope of my employment
-which it was not as I was hired as Lighting Designer.
*Part 2* A work specially ordered or commissioned for use....
- I took the photos on my own accord
Now I do fit under Part 1 as an employee but never has the scope of my work fit under photography. Also, my worries is that in their employee agreement they add that whole "and any other duties...".
Any thoughts to wither or not I am the actual copyright holder? They've used one of my photos for an ad and I never gave them permission.
Thank You,
Anthony
I am a Lighting Designer who had designed the lighting for events for an employer for the past eight and a half years. I'm also a photographer, a hobby that I've recently been building up towards a new professional career.
During my tenure with my former employer, I would take photographs of the events I designed for my portfolio. In kindness, I allowed the employer to use the photos for their own portfolio on their website and when delivering the disk of images I joked about charging and my employer kind of snapped back saying that I couldn't that they owned the copyrights because of "Work For Hire" under copyright law. This kind of took me back a bit because I didn't think that sounded right.
In my reading of the law on the government's website, I don't agree. It seems pretty clear that in order for the photographs copyright to fall under "Work For Hire" it must be:
*Part 1* A work prepared by an employee within the scope of my employment
-which it was not as I was hired as Lighting Designer.
*Part 2* A work specially ordered or commissioned for use....
- I took the photos on my own accord
Now I do fit under Part 1 as an employee but never has the scope of my work fit under photography. Also, my worries is that in their employee agreement they add that whole "and any other duties...".
Any thoughts to wither or not I am the actual copyright holder? They've used one of my photos for an ad and I never gave them permission.
Thank You,
Anthony