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.

[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?

[rikphoto]

My contract/agreement attempts to grab as much of the rights as possible.

[monkey]

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?

[clcollins]

Monkey,
There are some rules and restrictions about publication of photos of people that haven't consented (this is a different issue to copyright), but generally the photographer owns the copyright on all photos that they take - as a client you have to look at what is in the contract to know what your rights are, but commissioned works copyright does go to the person paying UNLESS the contract says otherwise.

You really should read the copyright information for photographers - http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheets.htm - under the letter P.

In terms of weddings both the photographer and the couple have automatic copyright (which is the right to copy or publish the photos) UNLESS a contract says otherwise. Therefore as both people have copyright they both can print or copy the images.


Cheers,

Cath.

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?

[ricktas]

Monkey, as Cath says, if there is no contract, the Copyright Act takes over. The Copyright Act details what the baseline law is, then above that contracts can change/amend certain conditions. It is the Copyright Act that specifies that Wedding photographs are the property of the wedding couple. This thread was to make members consider what the Act says and therefore when and if they want a contract to over-ride any aspects of that.

[MarkChap]

In terms of weddings both the photographer and the couple have automatic copyright (which is the right to copy or publish the photos) UNLESS a contract says otherwise. Therefore as both people have copyright they both can print or copy the images.
Cath.

G'day Cath,
I think you may have this wrong.
Excerpt from the Information Sheet G011 from Australian Copyright Council

• For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:
• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.

The photographer does not have any automatic copyright to wedding photos.

The photographer can however restrict the use to that for which the photographs were taken, if that use is known at the time of taking the photograph

Excerpt from Information Sheet G011 - Australian Copyright Council

If someone owns copyright in a photograph as a result of having commissioned it (without having reached any
other agreement about ownership), the photographer has the right to restrain the use of the photograph for
purposes other than those for which it was commissioned (provided these purposes were made known at the time
of the arrangement). This rule applies to any photograph taken on or after 1 May 1969. Even though the client
is the owner of copyright, the photographer can rely on his/her right of restraint to negotiate further payment for
uses that were not contemplated at the outset.

[monkey]

i assume that if a photographer is not claiming copyright on photos taken then he probably charging ALOT more for his services?

[Redgum]

Monkey, copyright is automatic. Any contract you sign is about service and that should include what is and what isn't included.