Original copy of your IP's professional photos from PM involved extra cost?

I am using this PM in lower north shore Sydney. When I first signed up, i was told advertising fee is $435 including professional photos taken, which i agree to pay. So now I am asking them for a copy of the professional photos, and the PM send me photos with the agent logo on it, which means if i switch PM later I can't reuse the photos for advertising....When i ask her for the original copy (without the agent logo on it), here's the response

Regarding the photos, unfortunately the copyright belongs with the photographer and we cannot remove this watermark from the photos. If you want the photos without the watermark there is a $250 charge from our photographer for these. Please confirm if you would like me to send you an invoice for this amount to be paid before I put the request to the photographer?​

It sounds ridiculous to me. The funny thing is they were using the photos without logo to advertise on realestate.com, so I am pretty sure they have a copy of the original one....It sounds like they are trying to rip me an extra $250

If they didn't charge me advertising fee upfront, then I would be totally fine with that. But if I paid $435 advertising cost, I do expect to have an original copy of photos for my own future use. I have used few different agents interstate, and always got the original copies without any issues.

What's everyone thought on this?

 

Not sure of the legality on either side.

I would just download the photos from realestate.com without the logo and use them. Or take the one with the logo and crop the logo or have someone who can use photo shop remove the logo.

 

Unfortunately that is how it is with photographers - you need to negotiate this with them upfront for any photos.

 

A timely post for me to discuss this in the upcoming lease.
In your case I wonder its the agent themselves who took the pictures with a decent camera and claiming it to be from professional photographer.
I would think when you paid them you paid them for the photographs not just "using" the photographs. Some agents are just trying to skim money from every possible way they can.

 

Copyright of any photo is legally owned by the photographer.

So if I take a photo of you, I own the photo. You don't. In many cases I may not even need your permission to sell it or publish it in a magazine. Hence paparazzi.

The time to negotiate ownership of copyright is before signing the agreement to have the photos taken.

In your case, I suspect the agency has an agreement with the photographer regarding exclusive use.
Marg

 

If that's the case, photographer charge the agent $x amount for exclusive use of photos, then charge customers another $250 for the copyright of 5 photos.....time to forget about property investment, i should invest on photography business instead.

 

Copyright is the photographers, bypass agent and deal with photographer, maybe they are happy to pass to you, photographer won't watermark with third party brand, but they may want a guarantee on how they will be used, they are under no obligation to let you use as you see fit, unless you paid for such a lic.

 

Well why dont you go ahead and do that? Its all in the fine print. Should have read it before you signed.

 

Focus on wedding photography if you do!
Marg

 

Ever heard of a starving artist ?

The equivalent would be a tenant exclaiming that a landlord wants to charge after a house was already let to someone prior, so tenant says .....I am going to go into the LL business !

 

This is a good lesson to all then.. Get an original copy and something that says you can use it however you see fit.

But as @Tom Simpson said, just download them from the original listing, and use them again.

 

Illegal.
Marg

 

Photographer not likely to ok this, would ok for own use/reference, but not to hand to another agent or person & you cannot lic someones copyright work, so you can't legally go and give permission for others to use images commercially.

That is telling people to break copyright law, the photographer can legally send you a bill for usage if they find the images re used with no usage agreement, why be so intent on cutting out the photographer ?

Do it yourself if all this is such a big issue.

 

I disagree.. you paid.. you own the copyright.

 

It is not a function or matter of opinion.

It is like saying to your biological mother, I hate you, your not my mother and here is a payment to make it so, it makes no difference to the facts, genes or law, it is what it is.

The photographer can grant a license for use, what that use is can be determined by many things, so yeah, depends on the facts, not assumption etc.

And just FYI, if you go ahead and do what you like, you can be served an invoice or taken to court, besides that, it's bloody rude to just do as you wish

 

I've hired a photographer before, and always maintained the copyright, right of repro
and distribution.

Perhaps it wasn't negotiated prior to engaging the professional photographer ?

I hope this clarifies things.

 

Completely untrue. Photographers retain ownership unless a different arrangement was agreed to.

 

@SeafordSunshine

No professional photographer would consider this, in fact probably many of them do not understand copyright, a real professional will though. It is central to the business.

They give you a right or license for *usage*, it can be implied, verbal or written, as with buying property, a pro would usually do written, could be formal, or just e-mail.

PS I think RE and other areas are full of non professionals these days, I would have the usage written though, I assume that is what you mean.

PS PS not taking you to task, but I think we should be wary of mis information and advising people who may think it is ok to just do as they like with no regard to owner/creator.

 

Thanks Dabbler,
I certainly don't wish to mis inform anyone,
Could I suggest you post the law/statute that relates to this?
I will be ready to listen..
I am not a solicitor!
All the best.
'I think we should be wary of mis information and advising people who may think it is ok to just do as they like with no regard to owner/creator.'
This is what I was referring to
Lifesgood's
'Photographers retain ownership unless a different arrangement was agreed to.'
I do hope that is clearer for you?