- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OT Lawyers - thoughts on this scenario
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:09 pm
You work for Company XYZ and do work under for them. Lets say that work can be captured in a photograph. You leave the company, start your own doing the same thing and put up photographs of your work on your website that you did under Company XYZ. You give no credit to Company XYZ. Let's assume you have permission to use the photographs because they were taken by a 3rd party photographer. Where does the law fall in this scenario?
16
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:11 pm to VanRIch
Need more facts, this could go a number of ways.
quote:Is there a reason why you aren't using photographs of yourself doing the work for YOUR company rather than at your previous employer?
start your own doing the same thing and put up photographs of your work on your website that you did under Company XYZ. You give no credit to Company XYZ
This post was edited on 3/29/16 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:12 pm to VanRIch
the horse is named friday
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:14 pm to The Mick
It's not me. But this person started a brand new company and doesn't have her own work in her portfolio yet.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:15 pm to VanRIch
I'm sure your old company would have no problem with you using their projects to advertise for your new business.
Go for it!!
Go for it!!
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:16 pm to VanRIch
quote:For starters, what does this statement mean?
You work for Company XYZ and do work under for them
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:31 pm to VanRIch
quote:
Let's assume you have permission to use the photographs because they were taken by a 3rd party photographer
I'm not a lawyer but based on some things I've dealt with in industry, here is what I think. If the photo's were done for company XYZ, odds are the right to disseminate those photos are held by company XYZ. Depending on the contract, the photographer may even be in violation for still having the images (probably not but I have seen contracts that required the destruction of even electronic documents post delivery of the work product). So unless they have permission from company XYZ (I assume not because of how the statement is worded) there is potential for a lawsuit or even criminal charges.
Again, not a lawyer but I've seen people in some uncomfortable situation for stuff like this.
I assume the split was not amicable.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:44 pm to mdomingue
You should sue your English Teacher.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 2:57 pm to VanRIch
quote:Typically the company owns all rights to their photographs even if taken by 3rd party (which is usually a photographer who is obviously a 3rd party). You and/or her need to get a fricking grip and not use another company's photos. You/she can talk about how many years experience you have etc without actually putting those pictures on the site or material. Be smart.
It's not me. But this person started a brand new company and doesn't have her own work in her portfolio yet.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:00 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
You work for Company XYZ and do work under for them
quote:
For starters, what does this statement mean?
The work for XYZ was done in Australia?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:11 pm to VanRIch
quote:
thoughts on this scenario by VanRIch
Is the photographer willing to wear a neck brace?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:15 pm to VanRIch
quote:
You work for Company XYZ and do work under for them. Lets say that work can be captured in a photograph.
Do you do gay porn and are a power bottom?
What does "Do work under for them mean?
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:24 pm to VanRIch
Train A gets to Chicago 15 minutes before Train B.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:44 pm to VanRIch
Forget the lawyers. Make sure Company XYZ has no mob connections.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 3:57 pm to VanRIch
Did the photographer release the rights to the photographs to you? Photographers retain copyright rights to their photographs unless they expressly release them.
If the photographer released them to XYZ, then you do not have a right to use them with XYZs permission (unless you signed otherwise). I assume they took the pictures while you were "on the clock," which in that case, they likely belong to the XYZ.
If the photographer released them to XYZ, then you do not have a right to use them with XYZs permission (unless you signed otherwise). I assume they took the pictures while you were "on the clock," which in that case, they likely belong to the XYZ.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 4:05 pm to mr. penguin
The doctor is his mom.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 4:21 pm to VanRIch
Assuming the photos don't show anything secret about XYZ or its products, this is a copyright issue. If everyone papered things correctly on the front end, XYZ would own the exclusive rights to use, copy, disseminate, post, etc. the photos based on a work made for hire clause in the agreement with the photographer. Your friend's use is copyright infringement.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 4:31 pm to VanRIch
quote:
Let's assume you have permission to use the photographs because they were taken by a 3rd party photographer.
I wouldn't be worried about the photographer's copyright. I'd be worried about what my old company had to say about me taking their IP.
This post was edited on 3/29/16 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 3/29/16 at 4:42 pm to The Torch
Public education, what can you expect. 
I usually try to proofread but work occasionally interferes.
I usually try to proofread but work occasionally interferes.
Posted on 3/29/16 at 4:44 pm to VanRIch
frickin cyclists.....
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News