Rights to Photos for advertising purposes

[RememberThis]

Hey guys

Wondering if anyone knows the answer here. We were hired to shoot a wedding early this year, including reception at the required venue. The images were provided to the bride and groom as part of their package and it would appear they have given one of these images (at least one that we know of) to the venue, and the venue are now using this image printed in magazines and ad boards throughout the club to advertise their events, without any mention or credit to us. Neither party sought our permission to use these photos for advertising purposes. Is this venue legally allowed to use these photos for their own promotional purposes?

As we understand it (correct us if we are wrong), the bride and groom are legally allowed to use the photos in any manner they wish, but are a third party allowed to do so?

Any help appreciated.

[kiwi]

Who owns th copyright owns the photos I'd say, unless you have a contract that states otherwise

[Wayne]

My understanding is that unless by way of contract the client (assuming the client paid you for them) has rescinded their automatic copyright (given they are wedding pics), then they own the pics, and they may then permit under whatever agreement with any other party they like the use of those pics.

[kiwi]

I agree with Wayne. I'm not sure what your contract says re copyright but if it's mute then they own the copyright by default and I think you're probably powerless with how those images are used

[jeffde]

I agree, my contract says though that the client can't sell the images - maybe i should include don't give away.

Maybe approach the venue say you have this and other's do they want some more - could lead to more business....

[kiwi]

Nopt sure that would work Jeff - you probably say that they are not to be for personal and non-commercial use only though

[macmich]

go to the venue and see if you can put a buisness card on the bottom of shot
cheers macca

[Wayne]

maybe i should include don't give away.

I think that inserting such a clause, would drive people away. When my sister in law got married a few months back, she sent me the contract for a potential photographer who had a set of terms which basically said he owned everything and you could use the pics under license forever, but they can not be sold, re-distributed, gifted among other things. I drafted some proposed amendments to his terms and put them to him for consideration. I pointed out that wedding pics would automatically have copyright with the client unless contracted otherwise, and that this term was not acceptable, along with the other restrictions on use/distribution. The photographer replied with a huge speil about why he wanted to keep copyright, restrict use etc etc and that he was not willing to omit those terms unless his fee was increased by 50%.

I then had the pleasure of telling him that he wouldn't be getting the work, and the $4800 (for a few days work inc PP and a few prints which we know are obtained very cheaply) would be going to someone else. Two weeks later, he contacted my SIL again, and said he was prepared to re-negotiate, and that he would agree to my terms to secure the work. I then had the pleasure of telling him a 2nd time that he wouldn't be getting the work, and he should have thought of better business sense 2 weeks earlier.

Lots of people don't read fine print as we all know, but including such things as standard form, could turn people away before you even get a chance to close a deal....

[jeffde]

[QUOTE=Wayne;875320]I think that inserting such a clause, would drive people away.

I agree (as with Kiwi's comment) but saying they can't be used for commercial use without permission and/or payment should be Ok ,

I say they can gift to family friends etc - no problem there...

[kiwi]

Wayne, by the way, I'm not sure that clause re photo diustribution that you complained about is all that uncommon. Id say (and yes I am speculating) that a lot of the top end guys make most their cream from additional print sales to the grandma etc on top and above the original pacakage price

[Wayne]

I would agree, and the principle is the same, however believe most punters would try to prevent re-distribution to grandma, parents etc by retaining copyright rather than prescribing re-distribution as a term of the deal. Then they try to sell further prints. To my SIL, that is an unreasonable term and she wanted it excluded.

[James T]

You should have it written into your terms of trade that they assign the copyright to you as a condition of you taking on the job. Then you can choose to hand back whatever rights you like, either included in the package, or at additional cost.

If you didn't have this stipulation (or something similar) then you probably just have to let it go, as they're free to do what they want with them.

Crazy law to adjust to after moving from the UK.

[DavidG]

If its not covered in your contract then its almost as if the horse has bolted ...

[A Zed]

part of the paragraph from my contract, which I think i got from elsewhere. Probably doesnt cover this if they didnt sell it, might need to change some wording

ownership of the resulting images will be transferred to THE CLIENT under the
following conditions:

• The digital images are the property of THE CLIENT for personal use and for the
purposes of the reproduction and distribution of photographs to friends and relatives.
• THE CLIENT must obtain written permission from, and compensate "me" prior to an event where THE CLIENT, THE CLIENT’S friends or relatives
publish or sell the photographs for profit.