Wedding Photographers - Poll

[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.

[monkey]

thanks

[pbrunottephoto]

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?

Not knocking you, just trying to understand.
Dave, if you hate shooting weddings, why do them? A couple deserves a photographer that loves shooting weddings.. Even if I do a relatives wedding for free, I still want a contract.

[ricktas]

Not knocking you, just trying to understand.
Dave, if you hate shooting weddings, why do them? A couple deserves a photographer that loves shooting weddings.. Even if I do a relatives wedding for free, I still want a contract.

Think you quoted the wrong member there? I am guessing your question was to D700 Doug, not Dave?

[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.

[kiwi]

I believe this may only apply if it's a commercial transaction, ie money changes hands ?

Ie, if I do a wedding for free, what applies ?

[Redgum]

Darren, what's the question? Can you give your photographs to someone else and then tell them what to do with them? Be hard to stand up in court and say, yes, I gave them the photos but I didn't give them permission to use them.
Easiest way to cover this is when you give them the photos give them a note saying these are for your album. If you want any copies they're $5 each, whatever.

[tanalasta]

I would assume most couples prefer contracts where the photography owns the copyright but allows, in his/her contract for the couple to reproduce the photograph(s) as they desire (as long as it's not for commercial reasons), often providing a DVD-R of the images in high-resolution JPEG.

However, although many mid-tier wedding and semi-professional photographers allow for this, the top-tier wedding photographers tend to have more restrictive copyright. They are the ones with the silk bound albums that takes 6-12 months to receive and charge >$100 a page. And also tend to be the wedding specialists who are either AIPP masters or grand masters of photography. And people are often willing to pay the price for the very best...

[MarkChap]

Darren if you read that information sheet, it does not mention anything about payment.
It only refers to the purpose for which the photos were taken
So yes, even if you do the job free the same rules apply

[ricktas]

I would assume most couples prefer contracts where the photography owns the copyright but allows, in his/her contract for the couple to reproduce the photograph(s) as they desire (as long as it's not for commercial reasons), often providing a DVD-R of the images in high-resolution JPEG.

However, although many mid-tier wedding and semi-professional photographers allow for this, the top-tier wedding photographers tend to have more restrictive copyright. They are the ones with the silk bound albums that takes 6-12 months to receive and charge >$100 a page. And also tend to be the wedding specialists who are either AIPP masters or grand masters of photography. And people are often willing to pay the price for the very best...

It is the other way round, under the law, the couple own the copyright and have to allow the photographer to use the photos. If the couple do not want their photos used by the photographer for promotion etc, they have every right to refuse the photographer. This is the exact issue this thread was designed to raise, to make members aware the for Weddings (and domestic photography) in Australia, the photographer does NOT own copyright.

[jasevk]

Most definitely, this was covered in a customised template I use for all my work involving others outside family