Legal Question in Intellectual Property in Indiana

As a Franchise Attorney I advise you to review your contract. They usually provide the photo belongs to the publication. They also usually provide that the publication owns the copyright. If this is indeed the case, you could open yourself up to copyright infringement by using the photo. Consult with a good intellectual property or franchise attorney in your area for specific advice.

Mr. Franchise - Kevin B. Murphy, B.S., M.B.A., J.D.

Franchise Foundations, a Professional Corporation

I think the prior answer is wrong in essentially all respects. You own the photographic copy sold you (if you actually received a hard copy or electronic copy) but the photographer likely still owns the copyright -- that is, the right to make further copies. Only in the unlikely event that the photographer is an employee of the publication would the publication have any control over further copies of the photograph. The publication will own the article it produced, but not the photo you sent them. I take your question as stating that you hired the photographer, not the publication, as that is usually the way it is done for Who's Who publications. You get a photograph taken by some local photographer, and send that with the fee and bio information to purchase the listing. If that is the case, as it probably is, the prior answer is incorrect and the publication does not own the photograph, but rather either you or the photographer. If you specially commissioned this photograph, I think you have a reasonable basis for claiming it is yours to use as you wish, although that is supposed to be in writing to be enforceable against the photographer as what we copyright lawyers term "a work for hire." I would suggest you take that position (that it is a "work for hire") if you don't need to go back to the photographer for more copies, as it is a low risk proposition since the damages are probably insignificant and not worth the time or effort of the photographer to contest the matter if the photographer even knows about your use. People do this all the time now with the hiqh quality scanners and high quality digital cameras available today. It is why photographers typically put their logo on the photograph, to show they own the copyright and to be able to prove it was their photo you copied. So, if you are going to make an unauthorized copy, crop out the logo. It's not technically legal, but it is the norm. If, on the other hand, you have to go back to the photographer, he will surely claim ownership in order to try to extract additional compensation from you and he will probably be within his legal rights to do so.