Personally i think the rights should belong to the commisioning company. Think about it this way:

If the company didn't commision the work the artist or agency would never have created it, making no money.

Also ad agencies are a service industry much like dreary and unglamourous jobs like plumbers. Imagine having a new tap installed then the plumber asking you to pay royalities each time you used it.

Unfortunately this is an area that seems very misunderstood.

Either way though it doesn't matter what your opinion is on who should own the copyright - the law is there for a reason, and we have to work with it and around it (and it does conform to international standards).

Obviously it is open to abuse, but that's the writer's point - if we are open and honest about how copyright works at the outset, nobody has to feel cheated because of misunderstandings.

I agree with the previous commentator that we shouldn't burn bridges. It might make sense to hand over the work despite owning it, and make it out as a favour to the former client as thanks for whatever business they did send your way. Just a suggestion...

We have a client who had a similar experience a few years ago when we picked up their account. It is such a short-sighted stance to take, and closes the door on any possible future relationships. If for instance the marketing person changes companies and finds that that agency handles the account at the new company - what's the first thing he or she is going to do? Find a new agency! Don't burn your bridges - concede with dignity and keep the door open for future relationships.

thats why people are still fighting over it. its a law that was legislated in the 70s and doesnt protect artists or photographers as much as it does ad agencies and other commissioners. i dont really want to hand my work over with dignity. I made it and it should belong to me... or i should be able to use it as i please too. in other countries the work belongs to the maker unless all its rights are sold. what ad agency in this country is going to pay me for all the rights they want? none, i think. and they wont reach a licensing agreement with people either. i think thats the best compromise. paying for usage. the problem is that too many people want too much for nothing. and its wrong and unfair.
its just like the little matter of references that are so highly used in this country. why hire someone for their creativity if you dont want them to be creative. thats why every thing looks the same here. only when people are allowed to do their jobs properly and are fairly paid will things change...

I dont agree with this article: the copyright act clearly of 1978 clearly states that if you commission someone to do work for you and you pay them or intend on paying them then the work belong to you, the commissioning party. This can however be altered by way of agreement. So if someone writes in their quote that the work/material remains the property of the freelancer until paid in full and you accepted that term by way of signing the quote/agreement then you only own the material after full payment has been made. The law clearly sides with a person or entity who commissions another to do work for them.

Expert form the copyright act
(c) Where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait, the making of a gravure, the making of a cinematograph film or the making of a sound recording and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money's worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, such person shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), be the owner of any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of section 3 or 4.

(d) Where in a case not falling within either paragraph (b) or (c) a work is made in the course of the author's employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, that other person shall be the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of section 3 or 4.