Copyright wedding photos

[Kym]

@Tracy http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...nd/default.asp

[Kym]

Interesting thread on WP about a newspaper who stole an image and the 'tog got it sorted
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum....cfm?t=1481465

[tracyselena]

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!

She contact them and she said they were a bit rude to her and basically said it wasn't their fault and they signed off a release to the decorator and they will look into it.

Thanks for that Kym I'll pass that onto her.

[Mile]

Im learning all about copyright at tafe atm but mainly about music and entertainment and we brushed on the subject on photography. Because later i will need work from photographers i would like to know what is the norm out there. I know commercial work the Photographer usually gets the copyright but i always wondered for domestic stuff like weddings.

I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.


Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.

If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.


A question: does the couple get all pics taken in digital files also in case they want to make some more prints later on?

[kiwi]

I think you need to differentiate ownership of copyrigght and an agreement on how images can be used

No, it's not standard fir yiu to receive digital files....it's often an additional charge, my understanding is that most ft wedding togs won't.

[ricktas]

Im learning all about copyright at tafe atm but mainly about music and entertainment and we brushed on the subject on photography. Because later i will need work from photographers i would like to know what is the norm out there. I know commercial work the Photographer usually gets the copyright but i always wondered for domestic stuff like weddings.

I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.


Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.

If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.


A question: does the couple get all pics taken in digital files also in case they want to make some more prints later on?

OK, lets turn this around. I pay you to write some music for me for a special occasion. You do and I like it, but a recording company executive hears it, and wants you to release it as a single and is planning on making you the 'next big thing'. What do you do?

Sorry, but I think you are viewing the issue of copyright with blinkers on. Most photographers don't want to splash your photographs all over the place, they want the right to enter industry competitions (AIPP Photographer of the Year for example), or to promote their services (a portfolio of their work for prospective clients to peruse), nothing more. I see no problem at all in allowing a photographer the right to use my commissioned photos for self promotion, industry competitions, and that is exactly how most contracts are worded. They specify exactly what can and cannot be done with the photos. A well worded contract is something all photographers who are doing paid work for others should damn well have.

I fail to see what the location, clothes etc have to do with the photos, what you are paying for is the SKILL of the photographer to take those photos, and process them, not a wedding planner and stylist to ensure you have a good location and are wearing the right colours for your complexion. I think you have a completely incorrect view of what you are paying for when you commission a photographer for a wedding.

[bigdazzler]

I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.


Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.

If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.

Well when youre day comes mate, youre gonna have a hard time hiring a photographer. I think your understanding of reasonable usage is a little distorted.

I have spent a bit of time lately looking at wedding photographers, and ultimately choosing one for my upcoming wedding. Most of them want to be able to use the images for promotional purposes but agree not to sell the images to anyone other than the paying client. It seems to be the norm. I dont really see the problem with that to be honest.

[Kym]

A better way to think about © is to consider a physical piece of art, eg. an artist who paints a portrait of you.

The artists signs that portrait, he then sells you the portrait.
He is still identified as the creator of the work (identified by a signature in this case).

Now, can you make a copy of the painting? Well it depends on the contract of sale.
Most likely you cant copy it as the artist is still the © holder, you only own the image to hang and display.

Can the artist promote himself showing photographs of that portrait? Yes!
He can say "I painted that" and no one else can say that (unless the artist specifically agrees not to).

The artists is always the creator and may license the use of that creation, you as the purchaser can never say it's your creation.
Depending on license you may have the right to copy and re-publish (or not).

[jasevk]

Well when youre day comes mate, youre gonna have a hard time hiring a photographer. I think your understanding of reasonable usage is a little distorted.

Yeah agreed... Having the right to use the images for marketing purposes in various mediums and the right to reproduce and enter in industry competitions is incredibly important to a photographer.... I'd even suggest that the sustainability of ones business may depend on it! People in any trade or line of work are likely to use examples of prevoius work in order to secure more work... and to be frank, having the attitude that 'we payed for all the things to make the photo's nice' is not right IMO.... a crap photographer can still make a mess of the job no matter how pretty and perfect the environment is on the day.

[jasevk]

So Mile, lets say hypothetically you're about to hire me as photographer for your wedding. You tell me you want a $500 discount for me to have the right to use the images for future advertising, effectively charging me $500 for the right to reproduce the pictures.

How do you then feel about me charging you $500 in my quoted price for your wedding, to cover the cost of using my previous customers images to make the sale to you?

[Mile]

I dont really need to know how the overall quote is made up just the figure at the bottom of the page.

If in that quote you charge me extra $500 for not being able to use the photo's for self promotion, thats fine. If the overall price is too high i can go elsewhere. If im happy with the price you get a job and i get some photo's.




The key to any business is giving the customer what they need. A business is a problem fixer and the better you can attend to people's needs the better chance you have for survival.

[ricktas]

Wanna answer my questions in post 46?

[Longshots]

I dont really need to know how the overall quote is made up just the figure at the bottom of the page.

If in that quote you charge me extra $500 for not being able to use the photo's for self promotion, thats fine. If the overall price is too high i can go elsewhere. If im happy with the price you get a job and i get some photo's.




The key to any business is giving the customer what they need. A business is a problem fixer and the better you can attend to people's needs the better chance you have for survival.

Well you should want to know.

While I agree with your last sentence, its also the prospective customer's responsibility to understand and discuss their individual needs.

As I said earlier, many photographers would happily do as you say, and adapt their terms and conditions to suit your particular needs without necessarily adding any financial charges.

[farmer_rob]

A better way to think about © is to consider a physical piece of art, eg. an artist who paints a portrait of you.

The artists signs that portrait, he then sells you the portrait.
He is still identified as the creator of the work (identified by a signature in this case).

Now, can you make a copy of the painting? Well it depends on the contract of sale.
Most likely you cant copy it as the artist is still the © holder, you only own the image to hang and display.

Can the artist promote himself showing photographs of that portrait? Yes!
He can say "I painted that" and no one else can say that (unless the artist specifically agrees not to).

The artists is always the creator and may license the use of that creation, you as the purchaser can never say it's your creation.
Depending on license you may have the right to copy and re-publish (or not).

The rules are pretty clear - but two things pop out at me:

1. In your scenario above, the sitter is giving his or her time and may have commissioned the portrait - they are bring something to the deal, and hence should be able to negotiate the rights in association.

2. In the case of wedding photography, since copyright law clearly says that copyright exists with the buyer/commissioner and not with the photographer. There must be a background to this - so why are photographers so keen on overriding the law contracturally?

There are many other cases in the arts and elsewhere where people doing works for hire don't have copyright as a result of contractural clauses, and you can point to the 1 in a million chance that the portrait might win the archibald or the song might get taken as an advertising jingle or whatever. Tough - if I'd picked the right numbers I would have won tattslotto too.

It seems to me that a lot of photographers who refuse to negotiate on the copyright clauses are a) overrating themselves; b) failing to understand how to run a business; and c) leaving opportunities for others to undercut and take away their business.

[ricktas]

It seems to me that a lot of photographers who refuse to negotiate on the copyright clauses are a) overrating themselves; b) failing to understand how to run a business; and c) leaving opportunities for others to undercut and take away their business.

I agree, and it is not up to me, you, the OP or anyone else to tell the photographer what should or should not be allowed under their contract. That is up to each photographer and client to negotiate. Having said that, I believe every photographer who is in business or heading towards being in business need to be able to retain some usage rights (from some clients), even if just for their website/portfolio.

The key is a well written and legally sound contract. Arguing for or against the rights of the photographer or client is completely useless until we see the full contract wording, and know more about what the client is contracting the photographer for. After all, someone like KFC would want full and complete rights to photos of their product, to protect their product, but a wedding couple might happily agree to the photographer using a photo of them to enter the AIPP Wedding photographer of the year.

Each contract/client arrangement needs to be assessed based on full disclosure. There is no 'one size fits all' answer here.

[bigdazzler]

Ultimate copyright and terms of usage are two different things .. everyone needs to understand the distinction. A client can ultimately own the images, whilst still allowing the photographer to use them to promote their business. Whats wrong with that ? That is in most cases the default norm anyway, or at least it has been in my recent experience in scouting for someone to photograph my wedding. In fact, I agreed to that very thing, I dont mind if she uses our photos in her galleries or web site, or enters a comp with one of our shots. I only draw the line that the photos are not to be on-sold in any way, to which she readily agreed.

[ricktas]

The other thing I find truly odd, is people who say they want full rights over the photos, to keep their photos private and know that that's the way it will always stay. But a week after the photoshoot and payment, with the non-use by the photographer clause in place, they splash the photos all over facebook/myspace for the world to see.

[Longshots]

Absolutely Rick.

By the way Rob - its not overriding, its how that photographer chooses how to offer their services

Walk into a shopping centre, or drive you car into a multi storey car park, or buy a train ticket. They have terms and conditions on how they choose to offer their services. Simply by entering the shopping centre, car park or entering a train station you accept their terms and conditions.

Why some photographers choose to work with those terms and conditions mentioned have, I believe, been previously explained very well.

[farmer_rob]

...
By the way Rob - its not overriding, its how that photographer chooses how to offer their services

Semantics. They don't need to mention copyright at all, and the copyright remains with the purchaser. They mention copyright going to them (note - not 'remaining' as pointed out earlier) hence 'overriding'. I think you got the gist of what I was saying.

Walk into a shopping centre, or drive you car into a multi storey car park, or buy a train ticket. They have terms and conditions on how they choose to offer their services. Simply by entering the shopping centre, car park or entering a train station you accept their terms and conditions.

Why some photographers choose to work with those terms and conditions mentioned have, I believe, been previously explained very well.

People can and do enter contracts all the time. It is a matter of negotiation (or refusing to go into the car park) as to the terms of the contract. If photographers are refusing to negotiate, then that is bad business.

I disagree with the 'explained very well'. I think it is more 'outlined clearly but not well argued'. If I was a purchaser or seller of photographic services, there may be more meaning in me arguing against the photographers who choose to try to impose those conditions. However, I choose not to enter the other side of the argument, and happily accept that people can attempt to impose whatever contract conditions they wish. Just don't get upset (on both sides) when the other party does not agree.

(And I still don't see what the big thing is about insisting on copyright on yet another 1000 wedding photographs of which a typical wedding photographer must have disks full.)

[Paul G]

Sidetracking the O.P. for a moment here but I would like to know how copyright applies in relation to the printing of wedding photographs?

I know X-number of prints would generally be included in a particular package after the couple has viewed the proofs but more couples these days seem to be requesting the disc of digital images (which someone alluded to in an earlier post) presumably to go off and do their own printing.

I guess this is another thing to be negotiated into contract - low res web files or high res printable files.

I wouldn't want this happening. As the photographer I would want to retain control over who, where and how the printing was handled as you could be made to look very second rate by inferior printing services or god-forbid, home printing. This would not endear you to prospective clients who saw those images.