Who owns the photos?

[Stella]

Because our PPOR has been for sale for awhile, we are having the agent update the ad on re.com & I have been looking at the current photos - some are ok some could be better.
Saved on my computer I also have photos taken by our previous agent.

I wouldn't mind mixing a few of the old photos with the current ones but am wondering who 'owns' these photos - us of the agent who took them?

Cheers
Stella

 

[Liz]

Any copyright sticker on the back of the hard copy? Any mention in the initial contract of "material content" to advertise? If not. Then.....Go for it

 

[jaycee]

Wouldnt have even thought about it, but now that you mention it... I'd still just use them I think

 

[Liz]

Double post and can't cancel it! Ignore.

 

[Sunfish]

"Ownership" is intricate and only a specialist lawyer could answer that, or so it seems to me.

If you have bought and paid or an "original" painting, the artist still owns the copyright. At the most obvious level it is fair and reasonable that you can't run off a set of prints and flog them. What isn't clear to me is any restriction on the artist to prevent him running off a set of prints.

What caused this to stick in my mind is a severe restriction on the owner as to what he can reproduce of the work in sales literature. To comply with the law, you can do little more than a "thumbnail".

As with most law we simply do as we choose and no-one objects: That's the civilised way, but technically, I would say Nay!

 

[jaycee]

Suppose you're right. Ethically one might overcome this by getting approval from the owner ? verbal good enough, I'd imagine someone would nser a phone and say sure why not

 

[Piston Broke]

Generally the person who took the photo's and/or owns the camera owns the copyright.
Unless there is a written agreement that states otherwise.

If the agent took the pics, and your agreement did'nt state that you own them, then the agent retains the copyright.
So you would need their permission to use the photos.

Sunfish, if he owns the copyright to the work, he can do what he likes with it.
Of course if a well known artist would ever do that, their credibility will be lost forever.
It's also common that photographers sign agreements not to reproduce photos as part of a licensing deal, even though most times they just sell the copyright & negatives (if any).

of course this ain't advice, that's what lawyers are for.

 

[Collector]

I often see photos taken from the first agent used by the second agent - you see it a lot where a rental property has more that 1 agent. (they simply copy the photo from re.com/internet)

I think that if you paid the agent as part of the advertising to take photos (some agents have advertising schedules that list the service provided and sometime they list photos at no cost) then I would assume that the vendor has rights to the photos.


RPDATA uses photos (copies from Internet) of properties taken from agents. They even put there logo on them. So do they consider that something on the web is for anyone to use?


Certainly and interested question you raise

 

[Piston Broke]

Do your research!!
Many agents do not have a concept of ethics nor honesty, let alone legalities.

Key points
• Generally, the owner of copyright in a photograph is the photographer, unless it is taken for private or
domestic purposes.
• Even if you own copyright in a photograph, this may not give you the right to be given reproductions or digital
files.
• If you pay a photographer to take photographs, you should carefully read any written agreement to determine
your rights to copy photographs.
• Paying someone to take a photograph for you does not necessarily make you the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheets.htm#P

 

[peastman]

Working as a photographer, I have looked into copyright law a bit.

My understanding is that if I am hired to take a particular photo and the person hiring me agrees to pay for it prior to me taking it, they own copyright. If I take a photo and then sell it, I own copyright.

So whoever hired the photographer to take the property photos would presumably own copyright. Not sure if the agent or the property owner would own the images, but the photographer does not.

Since the agent is an agent and represents the property owner, I suppose the owner owns the copyright unless the agency agreement says otherwise.

The Photographer can also retain copyright if it is stated on documentation.

I am suprised how little newspapers care about copyright. I often see my photos in local papers that I have not given permission to be published. But its just not worth the hassle to get nasty.

 

[Piston Broke]

So whoever hired the photographer to take the property photos would presumably own copyright. Not sure if the agent or the property owner would own the images, but the photographer does not.
.

Sheeesh! I'm surprised that as a photographer you don't know FA about copyright.
I sure hope you make a better investor...

If a photographer was paid to take a photograph after 30 July 1998, the photographer owns copyright unless:
• there was an agreement to the contrary; or
• the photograph was taken for a “private or domestic purpose” (such as wedding photographs or family
portraits); or
• the photographer was paid as an employee and the photograph was taken as part of his or her job.

From the Australian Copyright Council's Online Information Centre, but wtf would they know... we got a forum of experts over here

 

[Perp]

RPDATA uses photos (copies from Internet) of properties taken from agents. They even put there logo on them. So do they consider that something on the web is for anyone to use?

If they've linked to the original photograph of the web, then they've not breached copyright - they've simply put in a handy pointer to the original image.

If you save an image from the web onto a hard drive or data disk and reproduce it (on the web or anywhere else), it would generally be a breach of copyright; information/images etc on the web are not "fair game" just because they're in the public domain.

I suspect in the RPData case that because government departments are allowed to reproduce copyrighted items as part of their data collection function, RPData is simply reproducing that government information (with government approval), and that "gets around" the copyright issue. Putting their logo on it is to prevent people from reproducing the information from THEIR page illegally.

The copyright misunderstanding that seems quite prevalent in property circles surrounds ownership of floor plans and designs. Unless you've paid an architect/designer to create a design for you, and negotiated that you'll own the copyright (you usually don't), you can not take a print-out of somebody's floor plan to another designer and ask them to modify it. You can not reproduce that floor plan here on the forum. You can't take it to a different builder. You really can't do anything with it other than show your friends and family the house that you're planning to build.

 

[ianvestor]

if I am hired ... they own copyright.

• the photographer was paid as an employee and the photograph was taken as part of his or her job.

I thought that's what peastman said.

 

[Perp]

I thought that's what peastman said.

No, I think you've misunderstood. The exception "the photographer was paid as an employee and the photograph was taken as part of his or her job" means that if you're employed to take photographs, you don't own copyright as an individual, your employer does. It doesn't mean that the client who paid for the photos gets copyright ownership if they were taken by somebody who's an employee (as opposed to a business owner or contractor).

 

[Piston Broke]

If they've linked to the original photograph of the web, then they've not breached copyright - they've simply put in a handy pointer to the original image.

Not if the copyright owner objects. They should be asked.
It's also called "scraping" in nerd speak.

I suspect in the RPData case that because government departments are allowed to reproduce copyrighted items as part of their data collection function, RPData is simply reproducing that government information (with government approval), and that "gets around" the copyright issue. Putting their logo on it is to prevent people from reproducing the information from THEIR page illegally.

RPdata is a private company and has not right to extinguish anybody's copyright.
And I doubt the government could do it for more than it's own records, not to re-distribute.
I'd say they have an agreement with the 2 major RE sites, who put it in their terms & conditions that they are able to onsell those pics to rpdata.

It may come as a surprise, but some of us rely on Intellectual Property
to earn income. And it is property like any other type.

 

[ianvestor]

No, I think you've misunderstood. The exception "the photographer was paid as an employee and the photograph was taken as part of his or her job" means that if you're employed to take photographs, you don't own copyright as an individual, your employer does. It doesn't mean that the client who paid for the photos gets copyright ownership if they were taken by somebody who's an employee (as opposed to a business owner or contractor).

Oh, in this case it seems I was thinking of your 'boss' as your 'client'. Two different things. Never having been an 'employee' myself, my various 'bosses' have always technically been my clients, even in an office environment with other PAYE (is that the right term?) people.

 

[Piston Broke]

The clients pay the bizness, who then pays you.
So the clients are the biz's boss, and who pays you is your boss, imo.

So if the REA is employed by the agency on a retainer, then the agency owns the copyright if the REA turns up with a camera and takes a few pics of a property for sale. Unless stated otherwise

If the REA is a subcontractor, then he owns the copyright, unless the contract states otherwise.

If the REA calls in a photographer to take pics, then the photographer own the copyright, unless otherwise agreed.

The copyright owner is the person who decides where, when and how those pics can be used.

So if you take the pics and give them to the REA, and they end up on rpdata, then you own the copyright and should've been asked permission.
As the copyright owner, you have the right to decide if, when and how they (or anybody else) can use those pics, and for what fee (if any).

 

[Perp]

Not if the copyright owner objects. They should be asked.
It's also called "scraping" in nerd speak.

It would be polite to ask, I agree. And it seems that it could be actionable under other laws, but apparently not under copyright. From Australian Copyright Council website:

Providing links to material on other websites does not generally raise copyright issues, unless you have reason to suspect that the material on the website you are linking to was put there without the copyright owner’s permission. However, providing such links could raise issues under other areas of law, especially if:

• the link is “framed” so that the material looks like it is on your website;
• the link, or the way it is contextualised on your website, could cause viewers to confuse your site or products with those of a commercial rival; or
• the proprietor of the website that you want to link to has asked you to agree not to provide such links.

Certainly if RPData were doing what I suggested, they'd appear to be violating the first point.

I'd say they have an agreement with the 2 major RE sites, who put it in their terms & conditions that they are able to onsell those pics to rpdata.

That's probably more likely.

 

[Stella]

Just to mix it up a bit more then.....the person who took the photos belonged to the same agency as the agent who listed the property. This guy was another agent who happens totake decent pics so they use him for all their listings.
We didnt pay anything for the pics nor advertising - either did the agent.

Cheers
Stella

 

[jaycee]

Wow, it's that serious huh ?