Who should own copyright?
- Thom Pierce
- Mar 23
- 5 min read
On almost every commission or collaboration I have the same conversation about copyright. Everyone wants to own it, but most people don't know why. Who benefits from owning copyright? This is why I insist on owning the copyright to the work that I make.
I work across two different worlds when it comes to copyright of the images I make.
In the UK, I automatically own all of the photographs, regardless of who pays for the project. Unless it is agreed upfront, the copyright stays with me - the licensing agreement will then state the terms of exclusivity and usage for the organisation that has paid for it.
Conversely, South Africa is one of the only countries in the world where I do not automatically own the work I have been commissioned to make. The organisation who pays for it automatically owns it. In this case the licensing and usage of the image are meaningless as they can do what they want with it.
For every commission that I make in South Africa I have a clause in my contract that transfers the copyright of all the photographs to me.
In my contract I state the purpose of the work and the intended usage of the images. I also outline the exclusivity period and the way that the work can be used after that period. All of this is the choice of the commissioning organisation and is protected by the copyright agreement in that contract.
In this article I will lay out the reasons why I insist on owning the copyright and why it necessary for the business of photography, and the safeguarding of everyone involved. These are:
Image Licensing and Usage
The pricing model for my business is based on the financial value of the work to the person or organisation that is commissioning it. There is a cost for creating the work (standard pricing for time and expenses) and then a cost for licensing (a sliding scale dependant on intended usage). For campaign collaborations and NGO commissions I give an all inclusive, three year license at a standard, discounted cost.
This model allows me to create an image for an advertising campaign for Coca-Cola at a price of £10,000 or an image for the cover of their annual report for £2,000. Each job could take the same amount of time to complete, with a similar final image, but the usage would put them at different prices.
The advertising campaign is designed to sell products, so it has a high financial value. The value is scaled by the size of the audience. Read more about licensing and my pricing structure here.
The cover of the annual report has less financial value and is intended to illustrate a business document, rather than sell products.
If I do not own the copyright of the photographs then I cannot have a say in how they are used. This means that every job is a "buy out" and must be priced accordingly. My prices would need to go up considerably and be applied across the board for any commission.
A "buyout" pricing model would not work for most of my clients, they would be paying way too much for the usage they are looking for.
When it comes to image licensing and usage, owning the copyright allows me to be able to price my work fairly, and protects my clients from paying for something they don't need.
Publishing
I get contacted often with publishing requests. If I allow them to, I insist that the image is credited to me and the commissioning organisation.
They always come to me first and, if I don't own the copyright, these opportunities can be missed as they struggle to find the right person to contact. A big part of my work is to keep the images I have made alive, to get them published for years to come after the work has been made.
This is a great benefit to me and to the commissioning organisations who usually do not have the capacity to keep on pushing the work out. We usually have an agreement in the contract about how they would like the work to be used long term.
Regarding publishing, it is much better for me to own the copyright and maximise on the reach of the work we have made.
Safeguarding
I am the person that will stand in front of the subjects, look them in the eyes and tells them how the images are going to be used. The consent form that they will sign will have my name at the top of it. If the image is used in an inappropriate way, it will fall on me, as the person who created the image, to do something about it.
As a photographer who has, over the last 15 years, developed a strong set of principles and ethics within which I work, the responsibility is on me to make sure that the images are not used out of context or aligned with brands or messaging that the subjects have not formally agreed to. If I don't own the copyright to the images then I have no power to do that.
If I give copyright away to the person paying for the images, then I give away all control of how they are used.
From a safeguarding point of view, owning the copyright allows me to have control over how the images can be used, allowing me push back against misappropriation of the images. It also protects the commissioning organisation by giving them clear guidelines of how the image can be used, set out in the contract.
Archiving & Backup
In ten years time, when the comms team of your non-profit has changed several times and the computers hard drives have been swapped out for cloud storage, is the social media manager going to know how to find the images from the campaign that we made back in 2015. Who will you turn to for help?
When you want to do a physical exhibition of your work to celebrate 25 years fighting for justice, who will you turn to for high resolution print files?
If I don't own the copyright then I am not going to keep an archive of the work. It stops being my responsibility once it is delivered the first time. My name may be in the metadata but I am not going to hold on to something that I don't own and cannot use.
When it comes to archiving, it is much better for me to own all the images and stay responsible for being able to supply them whenever they are needed.
Simplicity
It is far too complicated for me to own some of the images that I have made and not others. I have made tens of thousands of photographs over the years, and to monitor the ones that I have control over, and those that I don't would be nearly impossible. For that reason I refuse to work on projects where somone else owns the work.
To keep things simple, I only work on projects where I own the copyright of the images that I make.
Final Thoughts
I understand the argument that if you are paying for something, you should own it. But when it comes to the copyright of my work, there is no real benefit in doing so. You would just be paying for something that you don't need.
By defining the usage, and exclusivity that you want, you can pay a much more reasonable rate for the work, without having to be responsible for long-term monitoring, handling and archiving of the material.
Comments