Marcos Agrelli , Oct 28, 2009; 02:08 p.m.
The photographer that subcontract the second photographer or The Second photographer that took the photos?
I have a friend/photographer when I have a wedding invite him to be a second photographer, he does greats shoots, but sometimes he asks me to put some of these photo on his website to promote himself. Now my questions:
1- Who has rights on these photos?
2- He can use these photos on his website, or there are my property?
3- What's the best to solve this kind of problem?
4- Could I use on photos my Studio name and his(second photographer) name toghether? Ex: Prisma Photography by Marcio daklsjfnwef
Tks,
Charles Beddoe 
, Oct 28, 2009; 02:25 p.m.
You probably own the photo rights since he was working for you.
The solution is a written contract with him that spells out the fact that you own the photos.
You could also allow him limited use, i.e. on his web site but not for sale.
I like your point #4 quite a lot - very inclusive and friendly.
Hal B 
, Oct 28, 2009; 02:31 p.m.
It's all in the contract. If the answers aren't in the contract, then you have no legal recourse to stop your friend from using the images in any way he wants. If that's fine, then so be it. But if not, make sure and include a clause in the next contract so that it is clear what rights he has to the pictures he takes.
Marcos Agrelli , Oct 28, 2009; 02:41 p.m.
Perfect, I definitely need a contract. Today they are my friends, tomorrow could be anyone.
Thanks so much!
Nadine Ohara - SF Bay Area/CA 
, Oct 28, 2009; 02:52 p.m.
Marcos--I would do some searches on this forum, such as the previous thread below, but I would also check on independent contracting laws for your state and get/read some books on independent contracting in general, including sample contracts. There are also several books specific to photography that cover samples second and assisting contracts.
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00TypL
David Haas , Oct 28, 2009; 03:04 p.m.
Not only for your state, but your country as well - if you don't reside in the US. If you're in Canada - it doesn't matter who takes the photos - the person contracting for them (follow the money) does.
Dave
ed lemko , Oct 28, 2009; 05:03 p.m.
"Charles Beddoe 
, Oct 28, 2009; 02:25 p.m.
"You probably own the photo rights since he was working for you."
-interesting.. I'd guess just the opposite.
You were working for the bride, but she doesn't own, because unless you specifically sign over rights, they're yours by pressing the shutter (is what I"ve read over and over-- not a lawyer). And by the same token, if he was working for you, the same would apply (he keeps rights), unless your contract with him states otherwise. If he was working AS AN EMPLOYEE of you (which I'm guessing not), then he'd likely sign an employment contract giving rights to his creative work to you. Either way, if you don't spell it out in contract, I'm guessing he's got rights. At least, in the U.S., agree with the Canada comment above.
John H. 
, Oct 28, 2009; 05:51 p.m.
You probably own the photo rights since he was working for you.
The answer is determined by analyzing whether the work is done as an employee or as an independent contractor. If merely "working for" someone were the standard, the photographer's client would automatically own the copyrights as that is who a photographer is "working for". That's not how it works.
If the answers aren't in the contract, then you have no legal recourse to stop your friend from using the images in any way he wants.
The answer is determined by analyzing whether the work is done as an employee or as an independent contractor. If the second shooter is an employee, then there IS legal recourse to stop the second shooter from using the images because the primary shooter will own the images as an employer.
if he was working for you, the same would apply (he keeps rights), unless your contract with him states otherwise. If he was working AS AN EMPLOYEE of you (which I'm guessing not), then he'd likely sign an employment contract giving rights to his creative work to you.
The answer is determined by analyzing whether the work is done as an employee or as an independent contractor. A second photographer could be an employee even without signing an employment contract and, if they are determined to be an employee, then signing over the copyrights is unnecessary because an employer owns the copyrights anyway.
Having a properly drafted contract in place is critical when seeking to avoid these type of disputes.
Jon Curtis , Oct 28, 2009; 07:58 p.m.
Depends really.
He took them, let him display his work.
Keith Dunlop , Oct 28, 2009; 11:14 p.m.
Read the "work-for-hire" exception to the Copyright Act.
It reads as follows: A "work made for hired" is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, or a work specially ordered or commissioned for certain uses (including use as a contribution to a collective work), if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. The employer is the author of a work made for hire.
