Photography

They're not wrong, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily right either. As a marketing company, we walk a fine line between keeping copyright on digital assets and transferring to the client.

In the simplest form, take a logo. There's no question that when build a client the logo that will be the face of their company, we transfer ownership (copyright) to them. That only makes sense. In my instance, I carry that a bit farther in that when we design other digital elements for our clients, we also transfer ownership. Like brochures, business cards, signage, etc. because it all ties in and they should be able to use it how they see fit forever because they've paid for it.

So now to the photography. I fully understand a photographers right to not relinquish copyright. But I there there is an ethical boundary that needs to always be considered. And that is when a photographer is hired to shoot an event. Or to shoot a new product launch. Basically all "work for hire" scenarios. You're being paid to shoot very specific things. The client needs to know that they can use the outcomes of that event in any way possible, at any time, for any reason. Because it's their product. It's their branding. And no outside party should have a continual interest in that.

Charge appropriately and see if you get hired. But if I'm wearing the hat of the client, I'm going to require ownership of the assets I've hired you to deliver.