Copyright question

[Bruvver]

I built a web site at the request of an ex employer to advertise a part of his business.
Images were supplied by him on a memory card, the original photos were taken by his ex partner who has since parted company, he supplied the photos while they were still on amicable terms, but after the partnership ended, to show examples to prospective customers.
The photos were of items manufactured by my ex boss, but installed by the photographer.
The photographer now runs a business installing the same items but not supplied by my ex boss.
The ex partner\photographer's business is based solely on these products, while for my ex boss's business they are a small but significant part.
I did not 'lift' the images from his site, I did enhance and crop them (not with the intention to disguise) and used only a few of the better images.
I was emailed and asked to take them down, which I thought was a joke.
I offered to add a link to his site in recognition of his images, as he fits and we supply, I thought we would compliment each other, taking different customers, and enlarging both our options.
The second email ignored my offer and gave me a deadline to take the images down.
The images were removed.
Was he correct in claiming the images as his copyright ?

 

[Zeal]

I'd have requested proof of him holding copyright. I could easily email Joe Bloggs - "Hey, these are my pictures.. take them down".

You have done the right thing in taking them down.... but send him another email / postal letter requesting proof that the images actually belong to him. I'd be tempted to state in your letter, if you do not receive a response within XX amount of days proving the images are his. You shall use the images again.

Speak to the person who supplied the original images though - find out where they got them from.

 

[Dawg]

The photographer will own the copyright unless:

• He/she has specifically signed it away or licensed it for usage.
• He/she took the photographs as part of their work whilst in the employ of someone else.

If neither of those apply, then a request from the photographer to take the pictures down has legal validity, and to comply with the law you should do so. Whether there is any meaningful sanction if you don't comply with the law is another matter.

If the photographer was in the employ of your old boss, it is arguable that the copyright rests with your ex-boss, in which case it is down to your ex-boss to ask you to take them down. However if they were not taken in the normal course of duties, it is also arguable that the ex-boss has no claim to the copyright. The law:clear as mud.

(I'm sorry, but I'm not actually 100% clear as to who is asking the pictures be taken down. The ex-partner or the ex-boss).

Do you have a dog in this fight? If not, now that you have taken them down why not just put it behind you and move on?

 

[bwglaw]

...the original photos were taken by his ex partner who has since parted company....

It is likely the ex-partner owns the copyright.

he supplied the photos while they were still on amicable terms, but after the partnership ended, to show examples to prospective customers.

An implied licence perhaps, however the copyright owner has power to revoke a licence unless expressly agreed otherwise.

Was he correct in claiming the images as his copyright ?

The question to ask oneself is; do you (presuming you are the end user) (or the site owner) have a licence in force to use the images as intended?

 

[Bruvver]

It is a little complicated I know, I own the site, I earn when I sell off the site, the ex boss supplied the photos to enable me to build the site.
The two other parties involved are my ex boss and his ex partner.(And at one time my boss too)
The ex partner split amicably from my ex boss and started a business fitting items supplied by my ex boss, his ex partner. Win win.
During this period the ex partner happily supplied photos of my ex bosses items that he (the ex partner) was fitting as part of his own business, that he had bought. Win win.
Recently they have parted due to the ex partner failing to pay for goods supplied. In between, I have built the site with photos supplied by the ex partner (to the ex boss), who then subsequently complained to me.
All of this, apart from where the photos came from, was unknown to me, until the ex partner complained.
I have no access to the finished products to photograph, so need images for the site, I have purchased stock photos as replacements (But they are not to the standard required....too generic)
There are actually some images on the ex partners site that show my ex bosses showroom, I have not used these.
I believe the copyright resides with the photographer, and he has the right to demand I don't use them.
It just doesn't seem fair and just, so thought I would ask for advice.

 

[Bruvver]

Posts crossed.
I think the previous post has all the answers.

 

[bwglaw]

...the ex boss supplied the photos to enable me to build the site.

Then it rests on you to prove you have an express licence to use the images 'supplied' by your ex-boss because you were using them, albeit with good intentions so it seems.

It is rather unfortunate, from what it seems, that you were somewhat caught between the difficulties of your ex-employer and his ex-partner, however, as you appreciate, a photographer is entitled to protect his artwork and control who uses it. It was wrong of your ex-employer to supply the images protected by a third party copyright.

 

[VeryMark]

I think good advice has been given by the previous poster (BW&G) but, as a practical matter, it seems to me that, rather than get into an expensive legal fight, fresh photographs are a cheaper option probably.

Disputes of this kind are not uncommon, unfortunately, when the parties concerned do not think at the time to put down in writing who has the right to what in their relationship.

 

[Lime One]

It is also worth remembering that normally the end user is the one who is asked to explain the use ( and remove the images) from their site and not the web developer. Be wary of getting too involved here rather than the site owner, in these postings it seems to me more capable of resolution between the 2 ex partners over who agreed what in terms of use, than you would be.