How to tell who owns the rights to artwork?

[CanuckSigns]

So using you guys theory, does the designer who did the logo own it?

OR

Does the shop that employs the designer, who designed the logo own it?


Ive never understood this with photographers... If I pay you a set amount to do a shoot for me, the damn pics are mine, for whatever I want for as long as I want.

Now if you come out of your own pocket to attend an event or do a photoshoot and then ask me if im interested in these pics... THEN I feel like I could buy usage rights for individual pics and not give them to another company to use.

Wedding photographers are a prime example, they charge you thousands to come take pics, then on top of that, they only allow you to buy prints from them and you never get the originals... thats BS, you get one or the other.. either I pay you and ALL the pics are mine, or I dont pay you and I purchase select pics and prints from you


So I say again, if there is an artwork charge somewhere, anywhere, then it stands to reason that the client could believe that they paid for the logo.

and I still agree with Gino, if a sign shop person doesn't clearly tell someone "Ok ill do this logo for $250, then other stuff for XXXX" then they are potentially being shady and trying to keep the client trapped, because they are the only ones who have the logo

I agree with you, in the end you have to set clear expectations of what your fee of $xxx gets the client.

the prime example I can think of is a small business owner comes in to get their truck lettered/new sign, they hand you a business card with their name in Times new Roman and tell you they don't have a logo, you try to sell them a logo, but they refuse. you obviously have to do some layout work to make their sign attractive, so you use some nice fonts and a few decorative elements. you charge the client an artwork fee to cover your time doing this. The client now starts thinking this is his new "logo" and he should be able to use it however he sees fit.

if you try to argue with him after the fact, he thinks you are a jerk. Part of the problem is that most business owners don't know the difference between a logo and a layout.

 

[showcase 66]

So using you guys theory, does the designer who did the logo own it?
OR
Does the shop that employs the designer, who designed the logo own it?

Depends on how the shop has contracts written with their employee's. If the Designer is just doing their job then more than likely, they are not entitled to any recognition other than through the company they work for. The employee technically can not use any work designed by them for a portfolio. Had to deal with this a lot in the Engineering field. We would get people who would bring a portfolio with them but when you asked them if they had permission to have these drawings outside of the the company they worked for, most of the answers were uhhh what, I drew them so I can show them. Not true.

Ive never understood this with photographers... If I pay you a set amount to do a shoot for me, the damn pics are mine, for whatever I want for as long as I want.

Wedding photographers are a prime example, they charge you thousands to come take pics, then on top of that, they only allow you to buy prints from them and you never get the originals... thats BS, you get one or the other.. either I pay you and ALL the pics are mine, or I dont pay you and I purchase select pics and prints from you.

Not so much anymore, unless you are dealing with older photographers. Most anymore charge for their time and all the pictures they take to be put on a disk/usb card. You get to print them where ever you want.

and I still agree with Gino, if a sign shop person doesn't clearly tell someone "Ok ill do this logo for $250, then other stuff for XXXX" then they are potentially being shady and trying to keep the client trapped, because they are the only ones who have the logo.

Agreed with making sure you let the client know exactly what they are getting and what they own and dont own. We explain to every client that the artwork will always belong to us unless they buy the rights to it. I leave a clause in there stating that we can use their artwork for any promotional purpose for us and be able to claim the artwork as ares.

 

[showcase 66]

Part of the problem is that most business owners don't know the difference between a logo and a layout.

Very True!

 

[wildside]

Ive never understood this with photographers... If I pay you a set amount to do a shoot for me, the damn pics are mine, for whatever I want for as long as I want.

Now if you come out of your own pocket to attend an event or do a photoshoot and then ask me if im interested in these pics... THEN I feel like I could buy usage rights for individual pics and not give them to another company to use.

Wedding photographers are a prime example, they charge you thousands to come take pics, then on top of that, they only allow you to buy prints from them and you never get the originals... thats BS, you get one or the other.. either I pay you and ALL the pics are mine, or I dont pay you and I purchase select pics and prints from you

around here, the photographers do not sell pictures, they sell prints, you never get the rights to the actual photographs, you purchase prints only not the photo, to me it is wrong way of doing it, but alot of them around here are up to that idea and stick to it

we got served papers for doing a banner for a high school graduation, a parent brought us a pic of their daughter, no markings on it but was a professionally done pic, we blew it up did the congrats thing on it and out the door it went, we were then served papers about illegally using copyrighted photography by said photographer without written permission or buying the rights ($10,000 was the dollar amount listed in it)

my attorney got it handled before it made it to court, but that is the theory, if you get pics of your kids, you can't do anything with them because you don't own them, you just own some glossy paper that happens to have a image on it

 

[WCSign]

Good replies guys.

 

[cooltouch]

around here, the photographers do not sell pictures, they sell prints, you never get the rights to the actual photographs, you purchase prints only not the photo, to me it is wrong way of doing it, but alot of them around here are up to that idea and stick to it

we got served papers for doing a banner for a high school graduation, a parent brought us a pic of their daughter, no markings on it but was a professionally done pic, we blew it up did the congrats thing on it and out the door it went, we were then served papers about illegally using copyrighted photography by said photographer without written permission or buying the rights ($10,000 was the dollar amount listed in it)

my attorney got it handled before it made it to court, but that is the theory, if you get pics of your kids, you can't do anything with them because you don't own them, you just own some glossy paper that happens to have a image on it

That's wild someone would ask for 10k for taking a picture and turning it into a banner

 

[Techman]

Wedding photographers are a prime example, they charge you thousands to come take pics, then on top of that, they only allow you to buy prints from them and you never get the originals... thats BS, you get one or the other.. either I pay you and ALL the pics are mine, or I dont pay you and I purchase select pics and prints from yo

It is not BS. That is the law.. If fact in Photography school they teach the photographer about those laws.. At least they used to..


some of us are so full of glorious indignation over copy rights.
Some fail to grasp there is a law designed to protect our work.

On one hand some will go into a grand mall hissy fit over a photo used in a WRAP yet on the other hand go belly up and pee like a puppy over fear someone will not give us the job using our own designs.

The fact is,,,the creator no matter what,,, he still owns his work. That is the law. Not one single self indulgent opinion based on some feeling will ever change that.

Redefining those laws with the feeling that some portion of those laws is against your sense of moral outrage gets us no where. Those photographers got it right. We are getting it wrong. They protect their work while some of us make up new laws via a post one a BBS. This is nonsense. They protect their work and; since they win so many court cases they know the law. We do not protect our work because we sit at a computer terminal and make up new reasons to advise another why we should let it go when a client hocks our work.

Its time to get real. Time to quit making up invalid opinions are get educated on the use of a copyright. Time to start protecting our work and get paid for it. Instead of being angry over a photog's claims of images we should be emulating their successes.

 

[WCSign]

Work for hire ring a bell?

Its my opinion that if im paying someone a fee/wages/expenses or whatever to come take pictures means that those pictures are mine.

I own a magazine, with some photographers I have a standing agreement. They attend an event, send me a disc of pics, I pay them a set fee. From then on, I will give them photo credit... But I can use the images for whatever I like, mags, posters, flyers, prints, calendars, t-shirts etc..

Now if a company approached me about buying a pic to use in an ad, I would refer them to photographer. And I also allow the photographer to sell other pics to other mags etc.


Sometimes I will catch wind of a sick pic, or set of pics taken by a photographer I rarely do business with. I will purchase those from for a set price and on thier terms.


So work for hire = getting paid before product is seen

Copyright issue = work that is produced on photographers dime and paid for on a 1 time basis.


So if you design car magnets for someone, and you charge them 200 for artwork, plus the cost of magnets, are you telling me that you still own thier artwork files and you wouldnt give it to them if they asked?

Now if you did NOT charge them for artwork, I would surely understand not giving it to them

Watsons had a good point, the difference between a logo and layout. The problem is that someone comes to us to buy a product (magnets, stickers, etc) So thats what we sell them. But if they had to go to place A to get artwork done and place B to get products, then there would be no dispute, because both places got paid.

Since we do both jobs and we add on $ for artwork, its not unreasonable to think that a client should be in control of thier own files and free to take wherever they like.

 

[signage]

Work for hire ring a bell?

Its my opinion that if im paying someone a fee/wages/expenses or whatever to come take pictures means that those pictures are mine.

I own a magazine, with some photographers I have a standing agreement. They attend an event, send me a disc of pics, I pay them a set fee. From then on, I will give them photo credit... But I can use the images for whatever I like, mags, posters, flyers, prints, calendars, t-shirts etc..

Now if a company approached me about buying a pic to use in an ad, I would refer them to photographer. And I also allow the photographer to sell other pics to other mags etc.


Sometimes I will catch wind of a sick pic, or set of pics taken by a photographer I rarely do business with. I will purchase those from for a set price and on thier terms.


So work for hire = getting paid before product is seen

Copyright issue = work that is produced on photographers dime and paid for on a 1 time basis.


So if you design car magnets for someone, and you charge them 200 for artwork, plus the cost of magnets, are you telling me that you still own thier artwork files and you wouldnt give it to them if they asked?

Now if you did NOT charge them for artwork, I would surely understand not giving it to them

Watsons had a good point, the difference between a logo and layout. The problem is that someone comes to us to buy a product (magnets, stickers, etc) So thats what we sell them. But if they had to go to place A to get artwork done and place B to get products, then there would be no dispute, because both places got paid.

Since we do both jobs and we add on $ for artwork, its not unreasonable to think that a client should be in control of thier own files and free to take wherever they like.

That is all that is your opinion, the law states what work for hire is. And it is not an owner/business doing a job for you!

 

[WeekendDirectionals]

around here, the photographers do not sell pictures, they sell prints, you never get the rights to the actual photographs, you purchase prints only not the photo, to me it is wrong way of doing it, but alot of them around here are up to that idea and stick to it

we got served papers for doing a banner for a high school graduation, a parent brought us a pic of their daughter, no markings on it but was a professionally done pic, we blew it up did the congrats thing on it and out the door it went, we were then served papers about illegally using copyrighted photography by said photographer without written permission or buying the rights ($10,000 was the dollar amount listed in it)

my attorney got it handled before it made it to court, but that is the theory, if you get pics of your kids, you can't do anything with them because you don't own them, you just own some glossy paper that happens to have a image on it

Ouch! Do you (or anyone else here) now use a hold harmless clause?

If so can you post the verbage? Thanks!

 

[Techman]

So if you design car magnets for someone, and you charge them 200 for artwork, plus the cost of magnets, are you telling me that you still own thier artwork files and you wouldnt give it to them if they asked?

Define artwork.
Did he pay the designer to develop some angel wings? Or, did he pay to have a layout (artwork) made up for those magnets? This is where a good business plan will guide us in what we put on our paper work. We can talk all day long about who and what. But until the terminology matches every one then no one will have a clear vision of what is discussed. Ever wonder why the military uses specific language when on a mission?

From my experience...
The designer owns the artwork,, and the design if he did not specifically release the artwork to the client. It is his until he assigns it in writing to the client in most cases.

I would guess that very few people in this forum have ever had a day in court let alone just visit one for a day. I would guess that very few have actually had the pleasure of studying a copy right claim in person. If they did they would surely be surprised. What we think and what is actual is the difference between a bird and a dog. We cannot combine them and make a birddog. And even then... it is all what the judge says on your hearing day.

 

[Bobby H]

Many people, both customers and graphics service providers alike, have MANY misconceptions about artwork ownership.

I recommend getting a copy of Tad Crawford's Legal Guide to the Visual Artist. Amazon linky. It has a lot of useful information regarding artwork ownership as well as the importance of getting things in writing. Making contracts, getting purchase order numbers and other very important tidbits are vital, especially if you are working in a freelance capacity.

The Graphic Artists Guild has a free whitepaper on Copyright Myths that is free to download.

Most sign companies tend to handle artwork in a sort of verbal gentleman's agreement fashion. Most of the time there is no problem with that, but when an unethical customer comes along the friendly, informal practices become a big problem.

Customers often think they're getting rights to artwork when they buy a sign. That's not really true unless they actually get something in writing that they are indeed getting artwork rights as part of the deal. The reality is customers are paying for labor and materials when they buy a sign, not artwork rights. There is no automatic transfer of rights just because the customer bought a sign. This issue usually doesn't come up since most companies will maintain a long term business relationship with one particular sign company.

Most sign companies usually don't care all that much about sharing vector-based or raster-based art files with customers or other companies just so long as they think they're going to get more sign business from that customer.

A sign company doesn't own rights to a business' brand name. The sign company may have created a specific logo and retain rights to that incarnation of art. But there's nothing stopping the client from having someone create a different logo for that brand and taking all the sign business elsewhere.

 

[Gino]

Not trying to be stoopid here, but I really don't understand where you're coming from, Tech ??


A customer comes in. He asks you to come up with a design for his business, so he can market it in various mediums. You reach an agreement for $XX amount of dollars for the design and so much to letter his two trucks and a sign for the front of his building.

In your contract, quote or whatever you have written for both parties to sign and date, it says in there..... the artwork costs $XX amount of dollars and to obtain the rights for all future use, there is an additional charge of $XX amount of dollars.

By signing this document, you are now awarded all rights to said artwork/design/logo and may do whatever you want with it in the future. However, failure to sign this document or you want to negate the ownership of artwork/design/logo, you forfeit any future rights to any of it and I, Gino retain all rights to said artwork/design/logo for all future work. Any misuse of this artwork/design/logo on your part and any other party other than myself Gino, will result in penalties and copyright infringement costs. Penalized person will also be subject to any and all costs pertaining to the misuse of said artwork/design/logo.

In this simple paragraph, which might not be worded correctly, but can be altered to get the legal mumbo-jumbo in order.... you either have it in writing or you don't. How can anyone fight this in a court of law, if you explain and have signatures beforehand ??

Why all the secretive stealing and suing and copyright crap going on when a few simple sentences put the whole thing in motion ?? This is exactly what these other professions do which you and others are talking about. Without giving a customer the ability to say yes or no.... I don't see how any law can protect someone's creative juices and rights when someone else's were violated before anything was started ??


So, again, it's not that the law does or doesn't exist.... it's are we as designers, creators or whatever.... being up front and explaining their rights ??

I mean, even a mechanic has to first tell you what they found wrong with your vehicle before they fix it. No one is expected to pay for something if they aren't first told and given an educated choice.

 

[Techman]

Where I am coming from? Its plain enough. I am saying what has been said so many times here before by many others..

First of all. Never did I say anything that would mean using some law to sniper a client. That is just plain stupid.

And then. What you just posted is not what you said before. What you posted before seems to be contrary to the facts as others pointed out as well.

But I have always said..

quit making up policies that are wrong.
quit stating as fact that which is absolutely wrong.
quit allowing the client to dictate our business models.
Get educated in the REAL laws.
Make a business model that uses facts instead of conjecture.
Use contract forms that inform the clients to their and our rights.
And get some education on business law that is genuine and not some opinion based off some BBS.

 

[Wheeler]

Here is a scenerio, I hire Joe Blow to redraw a vector picture of a fire truck for $75.00. My brother took the pic of fire truck and I paid with paypal. Who owns the artwork? I feel like I do..

 

[signage]

the original artist

 

[AwardImage]

I'm NOT a real attorney... I just play one on the internet

Question: Did the business (your new client) use that logo before their relationship with the first sign/print company?

If yes, just have the (your new client) to affirm that in writing, and provide any documentation.

If no... IMO EVERYBODY is responsible for a certain amount of due diligence. Your situation went bad when the other vendor laid claim. You need some solid paperwork, or this thing could bite you when you're not looking, months or years from now.

At this point, the acts of safety could be:
1. [safest] You can spend the $1500 on a copyright lawyer's written opinion.
2. [easiest] Or you can negotiate the rights from the original artist.
3. [SunTzu would...] bypass the original artist, update the (your new client) logo, and make a whole new set of fleet branding, decals, and uniforms... and sell >30% more.

 

[showcase 66]

I guess I should let you know how things played out.

Turns out the owner of the companies brother hand drew the design (pencil drawing) when he was stationed in Afghanistan and sent it back to his older brother. Sadly he never made it back. I actually saw the drawing when they came to talk about work we will be doing.

What the other sign company did was take the drawing and scan it in and re create the image in a vector format and gave it color, shading, etc. The other sign company did not have a written contract that was given to the client, but the client had a contract that the sign company signed stating that all artwork, design, and layouts will be turned over to the client unless stated on the invoices or proofs that the rights are maintained with the design company which the sign company agreed to. Not a single one of their invoices state that the artwork/layouts rights belong to the sign company. (this is not the lawyers first rodeo when dealing with design companies)

Best part is their lawyer and my lawyer are in the same office. This could be good or costly for both of us. Depending on how much the lawyers want to dcik us around.

So long story short. Client owns the artwork. Case Closed!

They also sent them a cease and desist letter about creating their logo. Have seen 2 calvin peeing on their logo decals on 2 employees of the sign companies vehicles. Classy huh.

 

[S'N'S]

Good outcome.
BobbyH links explain copyright in pretty plain English ... The Graphic Artists Guild has a free whitepaper on Copyright Myths that is free to download and worth a read... https://www.graphicartistsguild.org/resources/copyright-myths/
Pretty much says what Techman is saying.

 

[WCSign]

Here is a scenerio, I hire Joe Blow to redraw a vector picture of a fire truck for $75.00. My brother took the pic of fire truck and I paid with paypal. Who owns the artwork? I feel like I do..

my point exactly

the original artist

So if I pay the Vector Dr. to vectorize an image for me as a "work for hire" from his "company" then you are saying he owns it?