Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: Photographer release

It may depend upon the use you intend to make of the photographs. If you're going to put them in a file and preserve them for insurance purposes, I wouldn't worry. If you plan to publish them in a brochure or advertising material, I'd ask the photographer to license them to you for your intended purposes.

If you have a very small business, you could perhaps protect yourself adequately by having the photographer sign a handwritten paper saying, in effect, "I. Joe Jones, photographer, hereby license to John Doe Company, for all reasonable further publication and use, my rights to the fifteen photos which Doe paid me to take of its premises, inventory and operations on March 15 and 16, 2007."

This is not a perfect document but it should be effective to keep Jones from making any claims against you.

Re: Photographer release

I agree with Mr. Whipple that you and the photographer should have a written agreement, but I disagree about what it should say. The language Mr. Whipple suggests would allow you to use the photos but it would also allow the photographer to license them to others and/or to use them himself any way he wants. Maybe you won't care if this happens, but my guess is that you will want exclusive rights to the pictures.

You and the photographer should agree in writing that the photos he takes for you will be deemed "works for hire". That way you will own the copyright and he won't. You will then have exclusive rights to the photos and won't have to worry about having a license to use them.

Be sure both of you sign the agreement *before* the photographer starts working for you, lest there be a dispute down the road about who owns which photos. You may also want to include Mr. Whipple's proposed language as a backup, to make it even harder for the photographer (or anyone else) to challenge your rights to the photos. Just be sure to add the word "exclusive" before the word "license".