Wedding Photographers - Poll

[ricktas]

I am interested to hear from our Wedding Photographers.

Obviously most (hopefully all) use contracts when dealing with clients. Quite often you would have clause in the contract that allows you to use any photos taken to promote yourself. However, do you have a clause that allows you to post the photos on websites for critique, review by other photographers, or to use a wedding photo in a competition?

Why am I asking this, mainly to make members consider the implications of Wedding Photography (in particular), as by law, copyright belongs to the wedding couple.

Very interested to hear members thoughts on this one.

[nisstrust]

Yes I state it in my contract/agreement, for those i have been primary shooter for.
However i exercise my own judgement on whether to place them on public forums.

[kiwi]

Only if you get paid

[IanB]

Weddings aren't my thing too much; but do I mention it in my portrait registration form. Family portrait stuff is under the same copyright laws. So I voted the #4 yes.

Good poll Rick; I can see where you are come from here.

[JM Tran]

#3 for me, as stipulated in my contract I can use their photos for promotional and marketing purposes, such as using certain photos for my wedding stall at Luna Park wedding expo in Sydney next month, and of course posting on internet forums both as promoting and critiquing.

#4 is too out there, as I certainly dont use it for whatever purposes. If i were to enter a wedding photo or album for an AIPP competition when required to - I will call up the client first and explain to them in order to get permission, if they say no, then I will respect their wishes.

[RememberThis]

So far, we havent bothered with a contract. We have been thinking about using one, however find that a more friendly approach comes across better to clients. We are definitely looking at getting one soon though, as you cant be too careful.

As far as using people's images go, generally we find that most people are really pleased if you tell them you would like to use them for advertising. Also, most people arent aware of the laws in Australia and think that ownership of the photo lies with the photographer anyway.

[trigger]

I think its a trust thing. If they tell you they dont want their photos made public well its a matter of keeping your word.

[TOM]

I agree Trigger, my word is more important to me than a contract. I don't have a clause in my contract relating to the use of images. I don't use my clients images except on an individual basis when required, and I do not get anything in writing for this purpose. I find this the best solution for me.

[virgal_tracy]

My contract states that I can use the images for any purposes and can do anything that I want to them.

My contract states that I realease the photo's to the client for their personal use and printing eg. prints, albums (if they don't buy from me) etc. Any commercial use requires my permission or recompense.

Contracts are very important to cover both parties and it sets expectations on what is required by both. I hope that those that don't use contracts at least have insurance to cover themselves if god forbid something happens outside your control. This is where contracts help.

[IanB]

Anyone interested in posting their wedding contracts/agreement/registration/booking form.?

Good idea or bad idea?

[campo]

Whilst most of my weddings have been done for friends/family and I haven't bothered with much in the way of contractual formalities, I have asked all of my couples to sign a release form so I can use the pics however I like (in the future). Generally speaking, if, in the future, I choose to use a specific photo for advertising in a magazine etc, out of courtesy I will likely contact the person/people in the shot to let them know.

[tonykieuphotography]

last option for me.
It would suck if the couple had the rights on the picture. They could forbid you to enter those pictures in competitions or to feature them on a magazine and a lot of other cases.

[ricktas]

last option for me.
It would suck if the couple had the rights on the picture. They could forbid you to enter those pictures in competitions or to feature them on a magazine and a lot of other cases.

That's the issue, under the Law in Australia, that is exactly how it is, they own copyright, not you, unless you have a contract to state otherwise

[Kym]

That's the issue, under the Law in Australia, that is exactly how it is, they own copyright, not you, unless you have a contract to state otherwise

It's weird. This is a reversal of normal (c) for photography. The (c) belongs to the people paying for it - weddings . (after 30/7/1998)

Ownership of Copyright

In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:

* A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).

* For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).

[Lani]

Just curious why the differentiation between weddings/family portraits and everything else. Who actually comes up with copyright law and who had input into it, anyone know?

[kiwi]

I'm not sure there is a differentiation actually ?

If someone pays you for the photos (ie weddings, family portraits etc) then I think they own copyright unless you agree otherwise ?

I think Weddings is used just as a common example

Happy to be corrected on that assumption.

Where does law come from ? I could say some unkind things to that

[ricktas]

This has been interesting and I hope has made people aware, that unless they have a contract stating otherwise, by posting wedding photos onto the web (including to AP), they could be breaching copyright, as ownership of the photos belongs to the Wedding Couple, by default.

[Lani]

It is interesting Rick.
As I have only dabbled in weddings so far, I have only obtained verbal permission for use of images. Well the first one wasn't paid anyway. Must look into more formal agreements to be on the safe side for if and when I do another one.

[kiwi]

Money does not necessarily have to change hands to have a valid contract FYI, could be an exchange 'in kind"

[Photogra]

My contract -

I verbally get permission to use photos for my website or place in the Mercury and make note on the bottom of the contract.