I was doing a gas station shop, and the employee was painting while working.
Before the reveal, I complimented the painting and asked if I could take a photo of it.

I was told yes, but the angle would have been wrong from outside the clerk's work station.

So The cashier offered to take the photo with my camera. A photo of the painting was taken.

My question is: Who owns the right to sell the photo, me or the employee???

If I put the photo in the report, can I get sued if he loses his job????

kattyk, anybody can get sued for anything. The way I see it the creative work is his/hers. I'd think you'd need a release from the artist but that's a guess. If I had that photo and I wanted to sell it, I'd certainly consult an attorney before making a move. As to the photo getting the clerk fired, I doubt it but I wouldn't want to take that chance. If that audit is like any I've done you're supposed to reveal before you take a photo of the clerk. If that's the case and you were supposed to reveal before you took the photo, putting it in the report is more likely to get you fired than to get the clerk fired. A clerk painting on the job likely has permission to paint on the job. You may be dealing with a family member or an owner/part owner.

The copyright on the painting belongs to the artist. If you sell the photograph, you run the risk of being charged with copyright infringement unless you got a release from the artist and permission to sell it. I know that is an extreme viewpoint, but being given permission to take a photograph for you to enjoy is very different than taking a photograph and then offering the photograph for commerical sale.

Call your local museum and ask them if you can come down, set up your tripod, photograph their artworks, and then sell the photographs you took. I am sure that you will find out that the answer is no.

MDavisnowell

You misunderstood. I do not want to sell the photo. The photo was not of the employee, it was of the painting. The artwork was not complete. It would not be right to try to get money for something midcreation. I want to submit the photo to the MSC to prove it happened, I do not want any extra money for it from the MSC than the agreed upon fee of $XX.00 to do the job. I see this as "selling the photo".
I did not pull the trigger on the camera. HE did. who has the "copyright on the photo"
I live in a household with 5 people. I am the only one working bringing in income. I cannot afford to be involved in a lawsuit.

The Cettie adventures I've read about involved dead bodies and hillbillies crashing into Sonics.

This is not "selling the photo." You may be making a mountain where there is only an anthill. You were contracted to perform a job, and taking a photo of his painting was not expressly part of the job. You had no idea the painting would even be there, right?

You are giving them the photo for free. As he was in a public place, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and he gave permission for the photo, even going so far as to take the photo himself. By leaving the photo on your camera, he allowed it to become your property. At any point, he could have said No, and certainly did not have to take the photo himself. His painting is already on camera anyway, which I'm sure he knows, as the store is bound to have surveillance cameras. Had he wanted privacy, he'd be painting at home.

OK, now I understand what you propose to do with the photo, but why? Does it prove that the employee did something that they were supposed to do, or does it prove that they did something that there were not supposed to do? If neither of those, it probably isn't relevant to your shop.If the issue is that they were not supposed to be painting while working, then I guess it is relevant if the surrounding prove where it was taken.

The issue is the shop report did not score well.

That's not your problem.

This is true. Thanks BBird0701.

Yes, I'm very curious and slightly confused about what happened here. Why did you need to take a picture of his artwork? Were you 'tricking' him to take the picture so that you could include it in your report? Did he just think you were taking the picture because you thought it was a nice piece of art?

If the shop did not go well, and if it was because of him working on the artwork, couldn't you just explain that in the report? Were you required to take a picture of what he was doing?

It really only counts as a Cettie Adventure when the clerk is painting the dead body and it causes someone to see satan.

I would have just included in the report what the employee was doing and would have felt no need to take a picture of it. Would have never crossed my mind. And actually is it was a gas station/convenience store there are likely cameras on the employee all ready anyway that would back up your claim if need be. I used to do a chain that had a location where something bizarre was always going on and I never took a picture of it. Liz

Actually, all rights to the painting belong to the creator of the work. And the rights to the photograph also belong to the creator since he took the picture for the shopper. The fact that the picture is on the shopper's camera does not transfer copyright ownership.

As others have stated though, is it really essential to include a photo of the painting in your report? I would just about be willing to bet the farm that the situation is as another poster stated, the person involved is more than likely the owner/family member of the person who owns the franchise. At the very least, even if they are an employee, they more than likely had permission of the owner/manager to be doing the painting.

BBird0701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Cettie adventures I've read about involved
> dead bodies and hillbillies crashing into Sonics.
>
> This is not "selling the photo." You may be making
> a mountain where there is only an anthill. You
> were contracted to perform a job, and taking a
> photo of his painting was not expressly part of
> the job. You had no idea the painting would even
> be there, right?
>
> You are giving them the photo for free. As he was
> in a public place, he had no reasonable
> expectation of privacy, and he gave permission for
> the photo, even going so far as to take the photo
> himself. By leaving the photo on your camera, he
> allowed it to become your property. At any point,
> he could have said No, and certainly did not have
> to take the photo himself. His painting is already
> on camera anyway, which I'm sure he knows, as the
> store is bound to have surveillance cameras. Had
> he wanted privacy, he'd be painting at home.

My take on this is to just report on what was required. If there was no photo required, then just write your observation objectively. Based on my experience, as long as it is definitely relevant and the Guidelines specifically asked for it, additional information tends to muddle the report. As in court, don't volunteer information unless it is very necessary to prove your point relating to the shop.

One of my earlier reports was rejected because I added some of the associates additional recommendations and the client felt I must have asked specifically for them, even if I did not. He was just thorough and a seasoned salesman. But they were unnecessary information which killed my report. So be very careful with the additional information in the summary. They could kill your report.

If he was the only employee present, the only question would be whether he was painting instead of waiting on customers. If he kept painting while you were waiting for him to ring up your candy bar, then that needs to be mentioned. He could have been standing there scratching his butt instead of working; would you have felt a need to take a picture of that?

It doesn't matter what he was doing, all that matters is that he was doing something other than attending to customers. Leave the picture out of the report. It's irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to the report unless there was a specific question asking for pictures of exceptions. I have never seen an exception of a clerk painting a picture. Bathroom closed - yes - clerk painting picture - no.

Two questions:

How much could a photo of an unfinished painting by an unknown painter possibly be worth?

Why would you want to mention this in your report, let alone send a copy of the picture, unless he totally ignored you and kept on painting?

Cettie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really only counts as a Cettie Adventure when
> the clerk is painting the dead body...

As in painting a picture of the corpse, or using the corpse as canvas for painting?

Both

How about Cettie painting the dead body, and then painting a picture of Cettie painting the dead body.

Yep. Then, if you hang the painting on one wall of a closet and a mirror on the opposite wall, turn off the light, go inside, shut the door, face the mirror with the painting behind you, and crunch on wintergreen Lifesavers in your mouth while saying "redrum" three times... that's when you'll see satan.

(And believe me, I'm NEVER doing that again.)

Huh, elcarev?

I had trouble with the "painting" part to begin with. I thought the employee was painting the wall.

BBird0701 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about Cettie painting the dead body, and then
> painting a picture of Cettie painting the dead
> body.


And then having a goat take a picture of the painting of Cettie painting the dead body.....

LOL


Watch this:

[watchthis.net]

It is a 4 minute video of a painting.

BTW, the painting was of Sylvester Stalone.

How about Cettie using the clerk as canvas for the painting? Alive! For hours and hours.
I asked the guy if it was a painting for Halloween. It was creepy colors.

Just be glad your gas station clerk has a healthy outlet.

The ones here, I've a sneaking suspicion that their hobby is meth.

Keep going, you're giving me ideas! Bwaahahaaaaaaaaaaa

If the picture was taken to document an "exception" (i.e., the clerk not working) shouldn't the picture have been of him painting, not of the painting itself?

I noticed this: I think I submitted # 20 in photos that annoy people. I was showing the toilet seat was not tight, I also submitted the seat in the other direction askew. From a hotel shop.

[www.buzzfeed.com]

45 photos of things that might annoy you.

I'm lost....why would you bother to take a pic of an artist painting a pic? Why not take a pic of the outside of the bldg.?
I am missing something, but too tired to continue ...carry on without me!!