let’s talk
copyright

In Australia, that distinction carries real legal weight, and ignoring it is not a technicality. It is copyright infringement.

This is worth explaining properly, because I've seen firsthand what happens when it's ignored.

Who actually owns the photos

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the general rule is straightforward: the person who creates a work owns the copyright in it. Real estate photography is no exception. It is commercial work, commissioned to help sell or lease a property. That means the general rule applies in full: the photographer owns the copyright from the moment the shutter clicks, unless it has been formally assigned in writing. A verbal statement that "we own the property therefore we own the photos" has no legal effect.

So when a listing agent tells a vendor, a builder or a designer that the images are theirs to use however they like, that statement is usually just incorrect. The paying client cannot give away rights they were never granted in the first place.

What you're actually paying for

When a client pays for a real estate shoot, they are not buying the copyright and they are not buying the images to own and do as they please with them. They are paying for a service and a licence: the photographer coming on site for their time, expertise and skillset to create the images, and providing a licence for permission to use those images for an agreed purpose, generally the marketing of that specific property for sale or lease, for the duration of that campaign.

This is why my terms specify exactly that. The fee covers the shoot and a licence to use the images for the marketing of that listing. It does not cover ongoing use once the property has sold, and it does not extend to anyone outside the agency relationship. Once the campaign concludes, that licensed purpose has been fulfilled. Continued use, by the agent, the vendor, or anyone else, sits outside what was agreed and paid for. Anyone wanting to keep using the images after that point, for a builder's folio, an architectural portfolio, a magazine feature, needs a new conversation and, usually, a new licence and fee.

This isn't an unusual or aggressive position to take. It reflects how commercial photography licensing works across the industry, and it's exactly the kind of arrangement that has recently drawn legal attention at scale, with Australian law firms pursuing claims on behalf of photographers whose images, supplied to agents under written terms limiting their purpose or duration, were used well beyond what those terms allowed.

Another common scenario: when the property changes hands

Here's a version of this that plays out constantly. A vendor pays for a photography shoot to sell their home. The property sells. Then the new owner, or a property manager acting on their behalf, pulls the same images to list the property for rent, without paying anyone for that use. This is, technically and legally, theft of intellectual property.

The original vendor is often the one left annoyed, because they're the one who actually paid for the shoot, and someone else is now getting free use out of it. That reaction makes sense, but it also points to the real issue: the photography was never a transferable asset in the first place. It doesn't come with the house.

The vendor's payment covered a licence for one purpose: marketing that property for that sale, through the specific listing agent (my client), for that campaign. It never included the right to sell, gift or hand that licence on to whoever bought the property next, because the vendor never owned the copyright to pass along. Once the sale settles, that licensed purpose is done.

The new owner or property manager sits completely outside the original agreement. They didn't commission the shoot and they didn't pay for it, and turning a sale listing into a rental listing is a different purpose again, not just the same use by a different party. However it's looked at, using those images for a new listing is a fresh use that needs its own permission and its own fee, whether that means commissioning a new shoot from a photographer of their choosing or properly licensing the existing images directly from the original photographer.

The vendor's frustration is fair. It's just aimed at the wrong source. The fix isn't to feel shortchanged that someone else got the photos for free. It's for that new use to be paid for by whoever is actually doing the using. It's similar to inviting someone to dinner and covering the bill for your guest, only for an uninvited friend to turn up and expect the same treatment. That doesn't seem fair, and the same logic applies here: whoever benefits from a use should be the one paying for it.

When third parties help themselves

An agent, property manager or new property owner overstepping is one problem. What compounds it is what happens next: the images get passed along, again and again, until people with no connection to the original agreement are using them freely. Builders reuse the photos in their own marketing (in some cases for many years). Architects add them to a portfolio. Designers drop them into a case study. Local publications run them as editorial content.

None of this requires the copyright holder's permission being asked, because by that point nobody along the chain has bothered to check who actually holds it. Every one of those uses is a separate act of reproduction or publication, and every one needs its own permission. It doesn't matter that the images were technically "already out there," or that an agent waved a hand and said it was fine. Relying in good faith on incorrect information from someone with no authority to give it is still not a defence.

There's a second layer to this. Photographers hold moral rights over their work under the Act: the right to be credited, and the right not to have the work altered or used in a way that damages their professional reputation. Those rights belong to the individual photographer personally. They cannot be handed over by an agent, a vendor, or anyone else, and they don't disappear even where copyright itself has been assigned. Publishing a photograph with no photographer credit, which happens constantly with reused real estate images, is its own separate problem on top of the unauthorised use.

What happened with one of my listings

This isn't theoretical. I photographed a property for a real estate agent under my usual terms: a licence for that specific marketing campaign, nothing more. At some point, the agent told the vendor that the photos were theirs to do with as they pleased. They weren't, and the agent had no authority to say so.

From there, the images made their way to the architect who had worked on the property, and then to a local magazine, which ran them as part of a feature. No one asked my permission. No one paid a licence fee. No one credited the photography. Multiple separate parties used commercial work they had no rights to, based on one incorrect assumption passed down the line. Luckily, in my situation, the vendor was honest with me about being misled by the agent regarding the usage rights, and they offered to compensate me with an agreed fee to resolve the misunderstanding. The downside is that my photography credit was never mentioned in that magazine, and at the time I didn't fully appreciate how serious that kind of infringement was. The magazine profited from using the images without paying a cent for that use. I let it go on that occasion, but I know better now if it happens again.

That's the practical reality of how these things unfold. It rarely starts with someone deliberately deciding to infringe copyright. It starts with someone assuming ownership that was never theirs to claim, and everyone after them taking that assumption at face value instead of checking.

Why this actually matters

Photography is a paid, skilled service, not a free resource that becomes available the moment a property sells. The fee a photographer charges accounts for the time, equipment, expertise and post-production that go into producing images fit for a competitive property market. When that work gets picked up and reused for free, by a builder promoting their next project, an architect building a portfolio, or a publication filling pages, it isn't a compliment. It's uncompensated use of someone else's professional output, and it quietly tells an entire industry that photography is only worth paying for once.

Respecting copyright isn't red tape. It's the basic mechanism that lets creative and commercial work function as a paid profession rather than a favour. Every unlicensed reuse chips away at that, and it adds up across an industry that already has a habit of treating photography as an afterthought rather than a specialist trade.

What needs to change

For agents and vendors: check what a licence actually covers before assuming images can be handed off to anyone else, and never represent ownership that isn't yours to give. For builders, architects, designers and publications: if the images weren't shot for you and you didn't pay for the right to use them, ask before you publish. Don't wait to be asked to take them down.

And for photographers: put it in writing. Every invoice and every set of terms should spell out exactly what's being licensed, for what purpose, and for how long. It won't stop every case of misuse, but it makes the position unmistakable when one comes along.

Just ask the question, most photographers will say yes

To be clear, I'm not opposed to third parties using these images. If a builder, architect, designer or publication wants to use a photo I've shot, I'll almost always grant permission, provided an appropriate licence is agreed to and paid for. It's a straightforward exchange: the photography took time, equipment and expertise to produce, and licensing it for a new purpose isn't any different to licensing it for the original one.

"Exposure" doesn't cover those costs or guarantee more clients, and free usage isn't a substitute for a licence fee, however flattering the interest is. A licence fee also protects the original client, since the photography was part of what they paid for, and it isn't fair for someone else to get free use out of work they didn't fund.

Asking first costs very little: a message, a short conversation, and usually an invoice. It's also, by a wide margin, cheaper (and less stressful) than dealing with a copyright dispute after the fact.

This article reflects my own understanding and experience as a working photographer and is general information only, not legal advice. If you're dealing with a specific copyright dispute, speak with a lawyer who practises in intellectual property.