Copyright wedding photos

[bigdazzler]

.

(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.)

Rob are you arguing against the photographer being allowed to use the photographs for promotion ?? If so, 1. What good are disks full if you cant use them for anything ??, and 2. If everyone insisted on their wedding photographs remaining completely private, how would a photographer ever be able to build a body of work to present to potential clients, either in the form of print albums, or web galleries etc. ??

You ask why photographers insist on being able to use the images, but I would also ask why do couples insist on keeping everything completely private, particularly given Ricks earlier post about the sharing aspect of the social networking phenomenon ??

I just think everything comes down to negotiation and compromise. At the end of the day, everyone has the right to not go ahead if they are not happy with the terms. However, as I said previously, in my very recent experience, the norm seems to be that most photographers have no problem agreeing to not on-sell images, but do insist on being able to use wedding images for promotional purposes. Fair enough for most people I say.

[Wayne]

Rob are you arguing against the photographer being allowed to use the photographs for promotion ?? If so, 1. What good are disks full if you cant use them for anything ??, and 2. If everyone insisted on their wedding photographs remaining completely private, how would a photographer ever be able to build a body of work to present to potential clients, either in the form of print albums, or web galleries etc. ??

Perhaps like many business operators who make or sell tangibles, photographers should commission their own shoots, paid for by themselves (venue, models etc) to create a demo product. Just like Car dealers have demo models, Harvey Norman has demo laptops/printers on the shelf to show you (they may have even been provided as subsidised or free demo products by the manufacturer) or the display homes built in display villages to showcase work of a builder, why should a photographer be any different and expect to get demo items not only for free, but expect to be paid to create them?
In my view, any photographer doing work on a commercial basis is like any other business and they should bear the same costs, not get a free ride.

[Longshots]

Perhaps like many business operators who make or sell tangibles, photographers should commission their own shoots, paid for by themselves (venue, models etc) to create a demo product. Just like Car dealers have demo models, Harvey Norman has demo laptops/printers on the shelf to show you (they may have even been provided as subsidised or free demo products by the manufacturer) or the display homes built in display villages to showcase work of a builder, why should a photographer be any different and expect to get demo items not only for free, but expect to be paid to create them?
In my view, any photographer doing work on a commercial basis is like any other business and they should bear the same costs, not get a free ride.

And then they would be misleading as the images would not reflect a real wedding with the pressures of a real wedding.

Display homes are sold - I know I bought one - and they're not sold at a discount. My reasonable reason for buying one, was that as a demo model I was pretty much guaranteed that there would be extra care and attention paid to every aspect of the build. And I was quite happy to allow it to be shown as an example of the builder. And although I've now sold it, I'm quite aware that the exterior and interior shots are still being used by that multinational builder in display brochures

And as I shoot display homes, I can also tell you that after the home has been sold, images of the interior, and exterior are still on show many years into the future. Does the builder give the seller a discount - no. And why is that do you think ? Because that builder, like many others, has that term and condition in their contract, which the buyer has agreed to. Pretty much takes your builder analogy away I fear.

Car dealers - are just that they, dont produce the goods and they dont own the intellectual property of what they sell - the manufacturer does.

Same with Harvey Norman, they dont produce the goods - so same as above.

But the world of the everyday market, people want to see other people weddings as examples, and funnily enough most are quite happy to have their wedding used as examples.


Some on the other hand dont, and as the point has been made over and over again, its quite acceptable for clients to ask or choose for their wedding not to be used in promotional materials.

And then again, some wedding photographers dont think about any of this, and assume that they can use their own wedding images on their websites, but cannot, because they dont have this clause in their contracts - or worse still have no contracts. So yes you'll find someone who has no issues with it, but may also have never even thought about the potential problems. My advice was said earlier, if you dont like a clause then ask if it can be removed or adapted.

[Wayne]

And then they would be misleading as the images would not reflect a real wedding with the pressures of a real wedding.

Display homes are sold - I know I bought one - and they're not sold at a discount. My reasonable reason for buying one, was that as a demo model I was pretty much guaranteed that there would be extra care and attention paid to every aspect of the build. And I was quite happy to allow it to be shown as an example of the builder. And although I've now sold it, I'm quite aware that the exterior and interior shots are still being used by that multinational builder in display brochures

And as I shoot display homes, I can also tell you that after the home has been sold, images of the interior, and exterior are still on show many years into the future. Does the builder give the seller a discount - no. And why is that do you think ? Because that builder, like many others, has that term and condition in their contract, which the buyer has agreed to. Pretty much takes your builder analogy away I fear.

Car dealers - are just that they, dont produce the goods and they dont own the intellectual property of what they sell - the manufacturer does.

Same with Harvey Norman, they dont produce the goods - so same as above.

But the world of the everyday market, people want to see other people weddings as examples, and funnily enough most are quite happy to have their wedding used as examples.


Some on the other hand dont, and as the point has been made over and over again, its quite acceptable for clients to ask or choose for their wedding not to be used in promotional materials.

And then again, some wedding photographers dont think about any of this, and assume that they can use their own wedding images on their websites, but cannot, because they dont have this clause in their contracts - or worse still have no contracts. So yes you'll find someone who has no issues with it, but may also have never even thought about the potential problems. My advice was said earlier, if you dont like a clause then ask if it can be removed or adapted.

So, the printer HP gives to HN to show a prospective buyer as the manufacturer didn't cost them something to produce, and it is then sold at full retail?? I think not. Their are always costs to the manufacturer or reseller to provide samples of work or products they wish to use as demo items, be it the car, the printer, the aluminium windows or aluminium print samples I have sitting on my desk, they all come with a cost to the creator, so what cost does the photographer incur (other than a simple print where a print is used) to create demo works when they obtain © and use images obtained from work they were paid by someone else to do?

[Longshots]

To answer you the cost the photographer incurs is their time shooting the wedding and the post production. Despite how you want to get this discussion on your tangent, it cant be done, because its all about intellectual property - the creativity. And you really should try equating it with something the same - which was done earlier - which you accepted, if you go back and look at your earlier answers.

Look I answered your point the best I could giving you actual examples of how your analogy doesnt really work. And I gave you the viewpoint of why a wedding photographer has the clause to assist some understanding. Others have done the same. It isnt something that can be compared with a printer or an aluminium window frame in my opinion. I've give you a very specific answer to your building analogy and explained why. So IMHO its really its getting no where.

I accept and understand your point of view, but its not what the market place does, (which was the question) and I've tried to assist by pointing to the actual copyright act, which was what this was all about.

[Mile]

Wanna answer my questions in post 46?

no because this thread seems to have tourned into a big arguement, which was not my intention, and i dont think my time is spent to good use justifying what im saying and how i dont agree with this and that. We'll all just keep arguing and at the end of the day, what will it get us for the time spent doing it?

[kiwi]

but we like to argue....it results in debate, merriment, passion, answers.

By the way, my view on this is simple.

Don't hire me if you want copyright...in fact...the only photographers that will probably give you copyright are the ignorant, inexperienced, or foolish ones (or all three) - Im sure you wouldnt want that sort of photographer.

[farmer_rob]

Rob are you arguing against the photographer being allowed to use the photographs for promotion ?? If so, 1. What good are disks full if you cant use them for anything ??, and 2. If everyone insisted on their wedding photographs remaining completely private, how would a photographer ever be able to build a body of work to present to potential clients, either in the form of print albums, or web galleries etc. ??

You ask why photographers insist on being able to use the images, but I would also ask why do couples insist on keeping everything completely private, particularly given Ricks earlier post about the sharing aspect of the social networking phenomenon ??

Sorry Darren, you misinterpreted me. I am commenting on who holds copyright, not who has negotiated usage rights. (There is an overlap, but they are not the same.) I think a fair situation is "Wedding couple has copyright, and contractually lets photographer use images for promotion and competitions". If one or two couples have their knickers in a twist about not letting the photographer use the images at all, let them have it their way - there are plenty of other weddings to use photographs from.

I just think everything comes down to negotiation and compromise. At the end of the day, everyone has the right to not go ahead if they are not happy with the terms. However, as I said previously, in my very recent experience, the norm seems to be that most photographers have no problem agreeing to not on-sell images, but do insist on being able to use wedding images for promotional purposes. Fair enough for most people I say.

Agree completely.

[ricktas]

no because this thread seems to have tourned into a big arguement, which was not my intention, and i dont think my time is spent to good use justifying what im saying and how i dont agree with this and that. We'll all just keep arguing and at the end of the day, what will it get us for the time spent doing it?

So now, how about showing us some of your photos instead?

[Longshots]

While I feel constructive and healthy debate is actually enlightening and educational.

If someone simply makes a statement, and when asked to support their argument, refuse, then in my view thats not a productive discussion.

Personally I enjoy a good debate. What some see as an argument, I often see as robust discussion

Even if I dont agree with someone, if their point of view is justifiable or explained - ie based on something realistic and reasoning behind their position, then I learn and understand and in general the conversation, however seemingly heated, is productive in my view.

To me thats the whole purpose of joining in.

[Mile]

So now, how about showing us some of your photos instead?

just did one, pls check post.

[Mile]

it was just for you Ricktas