WHO OWNS THE PICTURES FOR A SALES CAMPAIGN

Hello,
I was wondering if someone can give me some advise on ownership of photos taken for a sales campaign. A few months ago I sold a property and as part of the advertising fees etc, I was charged by the real estate sale agent about $350 for professional photography. So thats all ok. No issue there. Today, I noticed that this property that has since settled has been advertised on the internet for rent, and the same photos are being used by the real estate agent (rental dept now), as part of the rental campaign. So I was curious; If I have paid for those pictures, are they not mine? Is it right for the new owner to be using my pictures ? What do you guys think ?
Thanks in advance,
Tegan.

 

Read the sales agreement.

 

You need to check the paperwork that was signed with the photographer - the $350 may have been paid for the service of the photographer, and to be able to use the images, but the photographer may have retained ownership of the images (and the ability to use etc as they see fit).

This area can end up getting very murky - the contract under which the photographer was employed to do the work should contain the details - but if you just said "yes" to the advertising RE, who then organised the images (and added the photographer's bill to your marketing costs), there's a chance you never even saw the contract with the photographer.

Usually, you would expect to own them, but that may not be the case. Check with the RE - ask to actually see the contract for the images that were taken - if the RE says that they can use the images for their own purposes, then I'd be asking to have the $350 you paid for them to be refunded.

 

Does it really matter? Let them use the photos!

 

I have just read over the agreement with the RE, and there is nothing about who owns the pictures.

 

I think I wouldn't care at all.

 

Theres probably something about the agent will be reimbursed for expenses. The contract will be between the photographer and the agent, not you.

 

Well this makes sense. The RE organised and I paid the $350 amongst the other thousands ! But yes, it kinda got me thinking: They are probably charging the new owner some amount also as part of their advertising. I see this as 'double dipping". Effectively, for many years to come, every time they want to re-advertise the property, they will be using pictures I paid for. They were nice pictures too, no wonder !

 

Lifes so unfair. You can pay more for a lawyer, if you want.

 

Well, initially, I thought the same. But really, If I have paid for those pictures for my exclusive purposes, is it really ok, for those same pictures to be potentially used over and over again, every time the new owners put the house up for rent ? They were nice pictures. They served my purpose. Property was styled and looked a million bucks ! ( although sadly thats not what i got ). But really, is it really ok ?

 

....too funny..I am sure some one out there probably would .

 

Copyright generally rest with the taker of the photos.

 

Personal opinion: Yes.

It doesn't cost you anything and literally makes no difference to your life.

What's the alternative? Spend time or money making a big deal about it?

 

Under copyright laws the photos belong to the photographer unless you have negotiated ownership before agreeing to the payment.

You may find that the RE office owns the photos under their agreement with the photographer.

Nothing you can do now.

But keep it in mind if the situation arises again.
Marg

 

In my experience as an agent an agency wouldn’t charge their client to use the photos again.

 

I understand your frustration @tgan - it is a big deal.

If you paid for the photos, then you should get to say what/who uses them - the RE shouldn't be allowed to use them for their own purpose. If the RE is using them, then the RE should pay for them.Otherwise, you've paid for images and the RE, who paid nothing for them, is using them to continue to get an income from the property.

I'd actually ask the RE agency to explain why they think they can use your images - ask them where they got the pictures, and who said they could use them. I'd like to see how they respond. If they say "they were recently used in a sales campaign", then ask them why they think they have the right to use images that they don't own.

While many others are talking about the "who cares?" and "does it matter?" - the answer is yes. If you've paid for something, you should be the one who owns and controls it, not the one who helped you acquire it (especially when they haven't paid a cent for it, and they don't have your permission to use what is yours).

 

Lol. Focus your time/energy on more important things.

 

The issue is that the photographer's moral rights may have been impinged by the agent using the photos for a purpose other than that initially intended. The photographer should be recompensed twice not the vendor because you did nothing.

 

An agency generally uses one photographer and gives them a bucket load of business. They aren’t going to mind if they are used for a rental ad.

 

Send an invoice to the agent and see the reaction...you likely have no legal basis to do this but the reaction would be hilarious.