Canadian Photogs Now Officially Own the Copyright to All of Their Photos

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

A big win for photographers in Canada: as of today, you now officially own the copyright to all your photographs regardless of whether they were commissioned. The development comes as a result of Canada major copyright reform bill (Bill C-11) taking effect this morning. One of the stated goals of the new copyright law is to, “give photographers the same rights as other creators.”

Read more at http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/07/canadian-photogs-now-officially-own-the-copyright-to-all-of-their-photos/#vT0PPQqFCevlYUlL.99

[Matthew Chan]

I am not sure I agree with this.  If I hire and pay a photographer (in a work-for-hire arrangement) to take photos on my behalf for me or my business, THEY get the copyright? If that is the case then I think I would tell people to NOT hire a Canadian professional photographer for anything.

If I hire and pay a writer to write on my behalf, I expect that it is a work-for-hire arrangement and that I own the written work.

[Peeved]

I was thinking along the same lines as Matt...

The last thing I would want to see is the competition using the same photographs used for my personal business because the photographer has the copyright and can license them to whomever he/she chooses. There would have to be some pretty exclusive agreements before I would ever choose to hire the photographer in such a case.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

I thought the same as Matt and Peeved. But this comment on that page helped clarify things (if it is accurate).

I think that many people are not seeing this right. Just because now the photographer has the copyright at the time of creation of the image, it doesn't mean that he intends on keeping the copyright. The copyright release just has to be added to the contracts, and photographers will be more than happy to sell them (most likely for the same prices you are paying now). This legislation is just so everyone is clear that the photographer owns the copyright first, and its up to him to decide what to do with it, and who gets to use it.

[Oscar Michelen]

The key difference is that old Canadian law treated photographers differently. As the article states: "Previously, photographers were not automatically the first owners of their photographs when shooting commissioned work, but instead it was the individuals or businesses that commissioned the images who owned the copyrights. Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act specifically singled out photography as being different than other creative works." US law never made any such distinction and photographers always presumptively owned the copyright. This amendment just brings Canadian law in line with US law and they can still sign away their rights. Whenever I draft a "work for hire" agreement  for a client in addition to the usual work for hire language I include a clause that in the event any law or fact prevents this from being a valid work for hire agreement, then the artist also assigns, sells transfer any rights in any IP he creates to the other party and agrees to sign any documents necessary to cause that assignment, sale or transfer to happen. That way its either a work for hire or an IP assignment but either way, the guy paying for the commission of the work gets the IP rights. 

[Matthew Chan]

Good stuff here. Definitely a post to revisit as needed when dealing with difficult and anal photographers.

The key difference is that old Canadian law treated photographers differently. As the article states: "Previously, photographers were not automatically the first owners of their photographs when shooting commissioned work, but instead it was the individuals or businesses that commissioned the images who owned the copyrights. Section 13(2) of the Canadian Copyright Act specifically singled out photography as being different than other creative works." US law never made any such distinction and photographers always presumptively owned the copyright. This amendment just brings Canadian law in line with US law and they can still sign away their rights. Whenever I draft a "work for hire" agreement  for a client in addition to the usual work for hire language I include a clause that in the event any law or fact prevents this from being a valid work for hire agreement, then the artist also assigns, sells transfer any rights in any IP he creates to the other party and agrees to sign any documents necessary to cause that assignment, sale or transfer to happen. That way its either a work for hire or an IP assignment but either way, the guy paying for the commission of the work gets the IP rights.