Copyright wedding photos

[Longshots]

Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??

I'm pretty sure that AP has its own (sensible) rules about offering legal advice on the forum. I'll send you a link to some assistance.


From a personal point of view your term seems fair, honest and ethical.

[bigdazzler]

Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??

I'm pretty sure that AP has its own (sensible) rules about offering legal advice on the forum. I'll send you a link to some assistance.

fair enough too ... rephrase.

As a consumer would you consider that a fair agreement ??

[Longshots]

Agree William, and I m sure that the AIPP would have had their sample contracts checked for legal issues, otherwise it could open the AIPP up to being the recipient of legal action as well. All I was saying, was don't just draft up your own contract without input from elsewhere, cause the wording of it, and in the posts above, one single word, could land you in trouble.

Scuse me repeating you, but these are words worth repeating - makes a great deal of sense

[Longshots]

fair enough too ... rephrase.

As a consumer would you consider that a fair agreement ??

Well as I promised everyone that after 3 weddings and 3 divorces I wouldnt marry again, I sincerely hope I'll never be a consumer of wedding photography again

But from an "involved" (re photo industry) point of view, I think its extremely fair, honest and ethical

[ricktas]

Darren, as per my posts above, I think you should remove the 'remain' from your conditions (second line) and replace it with alternate wording, cause as stated above, under the copyright act, copyright wasn't yours to begin with, so it cannot 'remain' with you. Remember that AP directs members to seek their own legal advice.

[bigdazzler]

Well as I promised everyone that after 3 weddings and 3 divorces I wouldnt marry again, I sincerely hope I'll never be a consumer of wedding photography again

Im taking the plunge for the first time in about 6 weeks mate ....

But from an "involved" (re photo industry) point of view, I think its extremely fair, honest and ethical

Thats all you can ever ask for I guess, regardless of what side of the fence youre looking in from, whether it be the service provider or the customer. Cheers mate

[bigdazzler]

Darren, as per my posts above, I think you should remove the 'remain' from your conditions (second line) and replace it with alternate wording, cause as stated above, under the copyright act, copyright wasn't yours to begin with, so it cannot 'remain' with you. Remember that AP directs members to seek their own legal advice.

Gotcha. Will amend accordingly. Thanks mate.

[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.

[Wayne]

Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??

Looking at it from my POV, I would never agree to that simply because you want to be assigned absolute © and further the statement "may use any images taken on the day to promote Darren Gray Photography in any way he chooses."


Both of those are deal breakers for me, as said earlier, If I commissioned and paid someone to go and shoot something personal for me, I own it. I would certainly offer the chance to amend your terms to exclude those provisions, but if you won't play ball, then you lose the job. There are plenty of photographers out there who will happily leave © with the client for personal shoots where they have been paid the going rate.

If you were to shoot at a significant discount, or with some other concession, then certainly there has to be something in it for you, and part of that may be © and the right to use those images for promotion, display etc.

[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.

[bigdazzler]

Looking at it from my POV, I would never agree to that simply because you want to be assigned absolute © and further the statement "may use any images taken on the day to promote Darren Gray Photography in any way he chooses."


Both of those are deal breakers for me, as said earlier, If I commissioned and paid someone to go and shoot something personal for me, I own it. I would certainly offer the chance to amend your terms to exclude those provisions, but if you won't play ball, then you lose the job. There are plenty of photographers out there who will happily leave © with the client for personal shoots where they have been paid the going rate.

If you were to shoot at a significant discount, or with some other concession, then certainly there has to be something in it for you, and part of that may be © and the right to use those images for promotion, display etc.

No-ones turned me down yet ... I think the key thing is that you as the photographer agree not to sell the images to anyone else for financial gain. Everyone Ive done work for are absolutely fine with that. Selling and using for self promotion are two entirely different things.

[Kym]

Im taking the plunge for the first time in about 6 weeks mate ....

I'm still on my first, 30 years last January.

[bigdazzler]

I'm still on my first, 30 years last January.

Congrats mate. I only plan on doing it once too Kym

[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...

[tracyselena]

My friend who is a bridal photographer said she just had her work published in a major bridal magazine but credit given to someone else even though she and the bride never authorised this. She called the bridal magazine and they were quite rude saying they signed off on a release to that person who credit was given. What would happen in this situation?

[Longshots]

My friend who is a bridal photographer said she just had her work published in a major bridal magazine but credit given to someone else even though she and the bride never authorised this. She called the bridal magazine and they were quite rude saying they signed off on a release to that person who credit was given. What would happen in this situation?

Why did the magazine have her work in the first place ?

[ricktas]

Why did the magazine have her work in the first place ?

Agree, who gave them the photos?

[kiwi]

Can I ask why you are asking to the op, mile?

[tracyselena]

A decorator who they don't know anything about or had anything to do with the wedding has taken credit for the photos and they have no idea who this decorator is or how they got a hold of the photos to give to the magazine.

[ricktas]

A decorator who they don't know anything about or had anything to do with the wedding has taken credit for the photos and they have no idea who this decorator is or how they got a hold of the photos to give to the magazine.

I suggest the photographer contact the magazine, and advise them directly of the issue. Maybe email a RAW file showing they have the originals etc stating they are contracting the services of a lawyer. This could become very serious and it depends how far your friend wants to take it. However, someone provided them to this decorator, and if everyone is deny it, someone is lying!