Copyright wedding photos

[jasevk]

Well my little sis in law is getting married next year, the photographer she chose had in the standard terms that the photographer retains copyright, and the images are licensed to the client. I made a number of suggested changes to the contract, she put those to the photographer, and the photographer was not willing to assign copyright to the client. My suggestions in no way disadvantaged the photographer, and their original terms were all for them and nothing for the client.

Needless to say, an alternative photographer has been chosen.

If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO

[ricktas]

If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO

Photographers cannot RETAIN copyright over wedding photos. Copyright, by law, is assigned to the couple. Therefore photographers are not RETAINING copyright, they are getting couples to sign it over to them. I am sure a copyright lawyer would love to get one of these contracts into a courtroom, if it contained the word retain in it. I have seen a contract where it stated that 'copyright remained with the photographer at all times', this contract went to lawyers and it was settled out of court (in the couples favour).

I know that in most cases the contract will never see the inside of a court-room, but I re-iterate, contracts should be checked by a lawyer with experience in copyright law, otherwise a world of pain could await a photographer using one that is incorrectly worded.

[Longshots]

Photographers cannot RETAIN copyright over wedding photos. Copyright, by law, is assigned to the couple. Therefore photographers are not RETAINING copyright, they are getting couples to sign it over to them. I am sure a copyright lawyer would love to get one of these contracts into a courtroom, if it contained the word retain in it. I have seen a contract where it stated that 'copyright remained with the photographer at all times', this contract went to lawyers and it was settled out of court (in the couples favour).

I know that in most cases the contract will never see the inside of a court-room, but I re-iterate, contracts should be checked by a lawyer with experience in copyright law, otherwise a world of pain could await a photographer using one that is incorrectly worded.

While not wanting to enter a debate about the legalities of this, I will offer a direct quote from the Australian Copyright Council's information sheet on how the 1998 Amendment to the Copyright Act affects photographers - this is the section pertaining to a) wedding and domestic photographers, and b) commercial - in each situation there is room for a prearranged agreement to counter any "default" situation on copyright:

• 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; however
• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.
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.

Its also worth noting that to understand the entire "picture" of copyright, the information sheet which is specifically intended to explain photography and copyright, should be read in full and all parts should be read in context.


As you can see the agreement refereed to by Wayne is not in any way breaking the law. Its also worth noting that this is a free democracy and people can work as they choose to within the law. The agreement is within the law. Its also worth noting that the amount of photographic copyright legal specialists are relatively small in Australia. I know of just 10-12 around the entire country. Which indicates a couple of things, that a) the need for them is relatively small - down to market forces/supply and demand; and b) those who are available are expensive to employ.

One of the benefits of joining AIPP, is that as a member you have access to sample contracts with terms and conditions that have been checked for correct legal standing.

As a prospective consumer, if you combine that with the code of ethics that all members are requested to accept, then you as a consumer should feel relatively comfortable that you will not be faced with unethical behaviour. And if all of it does go wrong, then you have an AIPP mediation council who will take action to resolve a dispute.

[Wayne]

If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO

I certainly wasn't suggesting there is anything dodgy about the standard terms assigning © to the photographer, most will try to retain it so they can use images etc, however my SIL is not famous, is never likely to be and I fail to see what benefit there would be to the photographer in wanting to retain © of images they were paid the going rate to take when the client requested © be assigned to them.

I thought it was very inflexible, and it was bad business sense, because that photographer stiffed themselves out of a $4K deal. I would never ever allow a photographer who was commissioned and paid by me to provide images to hold ©. In my eyes, if I paid them to go and do the job, I own it, if they aren't happy with that, I find someone who is.

[Longshots]

I certainly wasn't suggesting there is anything dodgy about the standard terms assigning © to the photographer, most will try to retain it so they can use images etc, however my SIL is not famous, is never likely to be and I fail to see what benefit there would be to the photographer in wanting to retain © of images they were paid the going rate to take when the client requested © be assigned to them.

I thought it was very inflexible, and it was bad business sense, because that photographer stiffed themselves out of a $4K deal. I would never ever allow a photographer who was commissioned and paid by me to provide images to hold ©. In my eyes, if I paid them to go and do the job, I own it, if they aren't happy with that, I find someone who is.

Yes your last sentence is fair and very reasonable. As a consumer, you certainly have that right.

From what you've said here though, while your SIL is not famous, that isnt necessarily the reasoning behind a photographer wanting to retain the ©. Let me suggest a different way of looking at it.

Just because you buy a piece of software, in most cases you dont ever own the ©. You'll get a licence to use it.

If you commission an artist to paint your SIL, you wont own the ©. You'll own the paiting, and if the artist wants to they could replicate the painting, they can photograph the painting, and they can make greeting cards out of the painting. You'll own the painting, but you dont own the right to copy it. Fun this © isnt it.

If you buy a book, you own the book, but cant copy it because you dont own the ©

And if you go and buy some music on a cd - you may have paid the company who sell the cd the going rate, but you dont have the ©.

Now lets turn it around one more time - lets say the client has agreed to own the © on the photos. Who can use the images then, the studio/photographer in their website to show off their past work ? No they cant, because the client owns the ©. But the client can then go on and do anything with them because they own the ©


Now for all these examples there are some exceptions to being allowed to copy, and to keep that brief - they include educational and fair dealing purposes. The other reasons may include open source and creative commons, which is too detailed to go into here.

[Wayne]

Yes your last sentence is fair and very reasonable. As a consumer, you certainly have that right.

From what you've said here though, while your SIL is not famous, that isnt necessarily the reasoning behind a photographer wanting to retain the ©. Let me suggest a different way of looking at it.

Just because you buy a piece of software, in most cases you dont ever own the ©. You'll get a licence to use it.

If you commission an artist to paint your SIL, you wont own the ©. You'll own the paiting, and if the artist wants to they could replicate the painting, they can photograph the painting, and they can make greeting cards out of the painting. You'll own the painting, but you dont own the right to copy it. Fun this © isnt it.

If you buy a book, you own the book, but cant copy it because you dont own the ©

And if you go and buy some music on a cd - you may have paid the company who sell the cd the going rate, but you dont have the ©.

Now lets turn it around one more time - lets say the client has agreed to own the © on the photos. Who can use the images then, the studio/photographer in their website to show off their past work ? No they cant, because the client owns the ©. But the client can then go on and do anything with them because they own the ©


Now for all these examples there are some exceptions to being allowed to copy, and to keep that brief - they include educational and fair dealing purposes. The other reasons may include open source and creative commons, which is too detailed to go into here.

I understand that my SIL infamy or lack of may not have bearing upon the photographer wanting to keep ©, however the photographer may want to have © so that they can display, sell, enter into competitions, promote etc using those images, and that is exactly what my suggested changes were designed to stop. My SIL simply doesn't want her images spread over the internet, bridal exhibitions, magazines etc etc.
In your examples of alternative views, the only relevant one here is the artist painting my SIL likeness, because all of the others contain nothing personal.

[Longshots]

I understand that my SIL infamy or lack of may not have bearing upon the photographer wanting to keep ©, however the photographer may want to have © so that they can display, sell, enter into competitions, promote etc using those images, and that is exactly what my suggested changes were designed to stop. My SIL simply doesn't want her images spread over the internet, bridal exhibitions, magazines etc etc.
In your examples of alternative views, the only relevant one here is the artist painting my SIL likeness, because all of the others contain nothing personal.

OK, so I can now see your concern.

If you can understand that I'm simply reading what you've posted and then I've had to assume to the specific nature of your concern re ©

Most people want to remove that part so that they can control how much their prints will ultimately cost them. Hence my examples.

But with that additional information there could have been an additional option for you.
As opposed to wanting the copyright, your alternative and better option, would have been to ask for a change/adaptation to the terms so that your SIL's images remained private and you could have asked for a restriction of that.

I am asked that from time to time, and I have no issue with it, because most of the time if thats what the client wants, I'm happy to adapt, as I'm not giving anything away.

I'm assuming again that you did ask and explain why you were asking ? If so, yes the photographer did stiff themselves and gave away a sale.

[Wayne]

But with that additional information there could have been an additional option for you.
As opposed to wanting the copyright, your alternative and better option, would have been to ask for a change/adaptation to the terms so that your SIL's images remained private and you could have asked for a restriction of that.

I am asked that from time to time, and I have no issue with it, because most of the time if thats what the client wants, I'm happy to adapt, as I'm not giving anything away.

I'm assuming again that you did ask and explain why you were asking ? If so, yes the photographer did stiff themselves and gave away a sale.

This particular photographer was advised that the intent was to keep the images private, and verbally they agreed they wouldn't use the images without seeking permission first, but when asked to amend the written terms to reflect same, they were not willing to do so. Definitely stiffed themselves...