The viewer’s question about website image ownership
Towards the end of the livestream, a viewer brought up a copyright question that drew Nathan’s interest. Before we dive in, though, a quick disclaimer that nothing in this blog post is legal advice. Everything is simply the way we and Nathan understand the situation and how copyright works.
During the stream, a viewer and agency owner shared that a client moved their site to a new developer and some issues with image ownership arose. Here’s exactly what our viewer said:
Who owns photos on a website? I have a client that moved her site, and now the former developer is claiming that she owns all the photos.
Such a statement is worth taking seriously, even though it might seem hollow at first glance. It all comes down to what was agreed upon when the site was initially built: was there any sort of contract for the photos or who took them?
Nathan’s initial reaction to this question was straightforward:
Well, it depends on what their agreement was.
That makes sense assuming anyone thought to include them in the contract since everything else flows from there.
Begin with the contract
Before anyone disputes what they own, the first step in such a situation is to go back to the original agreement between the client and the former developer. As Nathan put it:
The client should look at their contract and their proposal to see how photography is addressed.
If there is, indeed, such a signed contract or proposal, it should clearly state how the work was classified. And while this blog focuses on photography, almost everything we outline can be applied to other content, too.
Firstly, there are two terms that matter here, which we’ll explain shortly:
However, if the contract clearly transfers ownership of all work to the client, the photos almost certainly belong to them. If so, the developer’s claim from earlier shouldn’t hold.
On the other hand, if there’s no contract at all, or the agreement never addressed the ownership of images specifically, things become less clear-cut. We’ll explain that a little bit later, but we must lay out a few distinctions first.
Work for hire and licensed use
It helps to understand why this distinction exists and why we brought it up in the first place as it’s not unique to web development.
The default assumption in the U.S. is that the creator owns their work. However, simply paying for a service doesn’t automatically hand over the rights to what was created. Someone might have made content for you, but your money doesn’t guarantee you ownership.
This is why the wording in a contract matters immensely. It’s what determines if ownership of content shifts from the person who made it to the person who paid for it.
When it comes to agencies, a plain “this is work for hire” clause doesn’t always cover freelance photography the way people assume. To that end, a clearer copyright assignment clause is a safe bet.
In short, with work for hire (or a copyright assignment), the client owns the photos outright, while with licensed use, the creator keeps ownership and simply grants the client permission to use them.
Why photography is treated differently
Things get a little more nuanced with photography, and it’s where Nathan’s answer during the livestream pointed to something agencies don’t always consider. Photography has its own norms that are different from other website assets.
It’s standard, and even expected, for photographers to retain copyright over the photos they take, as the Copyright Alliance explains. Photographers can typically license specific rights to a client while keeping the underlying copyright for themselves.
For example, when you hire a photographer for a headshot session, you aren’t usually buying the photos outright. Instead, you are buying the right to use them, often for a specific purpose or a specific length of time. As Nathan explains:
It's very standard practice for the photographer to retain ownership of the photos, and then you license the photos from the photographer.
This is common enough in professional photography that, according to him a developer who wasn’t a professional photographer but still took the photos may be borrowing that convention. As he put it while talking about our viewer’s scenario:
If I had to guess, the developer is being petty and is taking a typical structure of the way photographers operate... and applying it here.
That’s an important distinction for clients to understand. Just because photographers operate like that doesn’t mean every developer who takes a few photos for a website is automatically entitled to the same treatment. Whether that claim holds up depends entirely on what was agreed to (or wasn’t) at the time.
What happens when there’s no contract at all
Situations like this are more common than most people think and it’s where things genuinely get more difficult for both parties.
Without a signed agreement addressing ownership, a dispute like this basically comes down to one person’s word against another’s. Nathan put it bluntly:
If they don't have a contract, good luck.
If a situation like this ever escalated to a legal dispute, the developer of the site would have to prove they are entitled to compensation or continued rights over the photos. The client, on the other hand, could just as easily argue that the photos were always meant to be part of the deliverable (in this case the website).
Without documentation of any sort, Nathan’s take on this was direct:
There's no legal case there, as I understand it.
It’s not that the client is automatically in the wrong or that the developer’s claim is instantly invalid. It’s that neither side has anything solid to point to, which makes the situation harder (and more expensive) to sort out than it needs to be.
Because of that, genuine disputes over intellectual property are worth a conversation with a proper attorney. What Nathan explained and what we’ve outlined in this blog post is just our logical view on things based upon what we know of the laws that exist, not a concrete judgment.
Understanding how such situations typically resolve themselves, though, can help both agencies and clients avoid landing in one to begin with.
Protecting your photos and your clients going forward
The good news is that this entire scenario is avoidable with a little bit of upfront clarity. You noticed us use the word “contract” often and that’s because when things are clearly laid out, the headaches are fewer.
To that end, here are a few practical steps to keep in mind for your next project:
Use a copyright assignment clause, not just “work for hire" language: For custom photography, an explicit written transfer of ownership is more reliable than just “work for hire” phrasing alone, especially since photography doesn’t automatically qualify as work made for hire for a contractor.
Clarify who owns what and who’s licensing what: If you or a photographer you hire intend to retain rights and license usage to the client instead, say so in writing. It should include the terms of the license, such as duration, exclusivity, and allowed uses.
Keep documentation of custom assets: If your agency creates or commissions original photography for a client site, note it in the project files, not just the invoice. This becomes a paper trail if ownership is later disputed.
Advise clients to keep their contracts: When a site changes hands, the new developer isn’t usually part of the original agreement. Still, the client has to be able to produce that agreement if a dispute comes up.
Here’s the plain-English version of all that: ownership follows the contract, not someone’s assumptions, nor industry conventions alone. If the agreement clearly transfers ownership, then that client owns it. If it’s silent, it becomes a matter of who can make the stronger case.
Questions like this come up all the time, and the answer often depends on details that aren't obvious at first glance. That's exactly the kind of topic we tackle during Office Hours.
If you have any questions regarding other website, WordPress, hosting, or AI issues, come join us for Office Hours, every Thursday at 2 p.m. EST. Nathan and the community will be happy to help you, live, during the stream.
FAQ
What if the photos in question are stock photos rather than original photography?
Stock photos work differently than custom photography. Neither the client nor the former developer owns a stock image outright; ownership stays with the stock photo platform or the original photographer who submitted it. What actually matters is the license terms of the stock subscription used to download it. If the developer downloaded the photo under their own personal or agency license, that license may not legally transfer to the client, even if the photo has been on the site for years. This is a good reason to confirm whether any "photos" in a dispute are custom shots or licensed stock, since the resolution path is completely different.
Yes, if the developer genuinely owns the copyright to the photos (or reasonably believes they do), they can file a DMCA takedown request with the hosting provider or platform where the images are published. This doesn't require a court ruling first, it's a formal notice-based process. That said, filing a takedown without a legitimate ownership claim can expose the person filing it to liability for misrepresentation. This is often why these disputes get resolved through negotiation rather than escalating to a formal takedown or lawsuit.
Does this same contract logic apply to other website assets, like logos or written copy?
Largely, yes. The same work-for-hire versus licensed-use distinction applies to copy, graphics, and custom illustrations. Logos are a bit of a special case, though, since they can also be protected under trademark law in addition to copyright, especially once a business has been using one publicly to identify its brand. That adds a second layer of protection beyond who technically "authored" the design file, which doesn't typically apply to photography in the same way.
If there's no contract, is there a way to resolve a photo ownership dispute without going to court?
Often, yes. Many of these disputes get settled through a simple retroactive agreement, sometimes called a rights buyout, where the current site owner pays a one-time fee to the original creator in exchange for a signed release or license covering continued use. It's far less expensive than litigation, and most developers or photographers would rather get paid for past work than spend money pursuing a claim with no paper trail behind it. This is usually the first thing worth proposing before involving an attorney.