Question

Topic: E-Marketing

Private Practice Copywriting On Photos

Posted by shelleyp_98 on 7/16/2012 at 5:54 AM ET 125 Points
A company forced its staff to pose for a group photo to be displayed on a internet to draw in potential clients wich would bring in more $$ to the practice. The company did not make the staff sign off on any waivers stating they were using thier image to promote the practice for this type of advertising. Boasting the staff is wonderful and has been there a very long time. Instilling confidence in the consumer trying to convience them to come there. Can an employee make them take down thier image of them if they are no longer employed by them
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted by Jay Hamilton-Roth on 7/16/2012 at 8:39 AM Accepted
    It appears the employee cannot (https://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/employment-labor-law/LAW_ELW/668...), but laws vary state-to-state and country-to-country (EU and Brazil require consent, for example), so if this is truly important, consult a lawyer.
  • Posted by Gary Bloomer on 7/16/2012 at 9:02 AM Accepted
    Probably not. If the employer paid for the photography and the employee was paid by the employer, the legal rights (the copyright) to use the image, unless assigned to a third party, potentially remain with the employer for the duration of current copyright laws, which will vary by country.

    The change in the status of the former employee (in terms of them now working elsewhere) although potentially awkward for the former employee, probably does not alter the fact that no image rights were assigned to the employee. Therefore, and legally, the employer is probably within their rights to continue using the image until such time as they deem it necessary to amend it, perhaps through a reshoot.
  • Posted by shelleyp_98 on 7/16/2012 at 1:31 PM Author
    The state is NJ and the employer used a regular camera and not a photograher. the employees were not compensated and no releases were signed. they are former employees and want it taken down and/or compensated
  • Posted by Gary Bloomer on 7/16/2012 at 2:25 PM Member
    Perhaps what's in order is a respectfully written "request for removal" letter, followed by (if there's no response) a more formal cease and desist letter. NOTE: You are strongly advised to seek legal counsel on BOTH these points BEFORE moving forward.
  • Posted by ben.singkol on 7/16/2012 at 6:53 PM Accepted
    I think it depends on individual state copyright laws, but it is my broad understanding that the copyright belongs to the person who first snapped the photograph. Unless a process is undergone in changing who owns the images, it is almost as simple as you snap it, you own it.

    In this instance, you will need to request them to remove the photographs and always when it comes to legal matters, contact an attorney.
  • Posted by ben.singkol on 7/17/2012 at 5:00 PM Member
    As an artist you expect your rights and properties to be protected, but unfortunately this is not always the case. Should your case be brought to court we are also at a disadvantage because the companies we generally supply our work to has a whole myriad of lawyers at their disposal.

    I hope you can settle this case out of court as fees can be quite expensive. Protecting our rights can come at a price, but hopefully good will triumph.
  • Posted on 7/24/2012 at 3:17 PM Accepted
    Forget legal, what is reasonable.

    If there is a group shot of 50 employees, everyone from the president to the cleaning crew, with the note underneath saying "We have a great group of employees" and two out of the 50 are no longer with the firm that is at one end of the spectrum. There is no attempt to mislead. It is really just a crowd shot and it would be logistically a pain to redo it everytime someone left the company.

    The other end of the spectrum is a group of 3 well known professionals and the message notes specifics about each persons expertise. The employee, and their specialized expertise, are no longer part of the company. Seems like a deliberate act of deception.

    Of course, legal and reasonable are probably worlds apart.
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(E-Marketing)