Re: Wedding photo's ownership rights

d-don

Hi guys,
Quick question.... Or a scenario....


Couple get married and hire photographer and pay to have photos taken... and receive the book of photos.. Does the couple own the rights of the photos or is it the photographer? As is can the photographer sell prints to other people without permission of the people who sanctioned the photos to be taken...



D-don

wolfric

If you made no agreement in writing or verbally specified then the photos are really available for the photographer to do what they want (don't take me 100% on word though)

Fajitas!

The photographer owns the rights to the photographs.

smelltheglove

Fajitas! wrote: »

The photographer owns the rights to the photographs.

True, unless otherwise stated in the contract.

CabanSail

This came up at the recent talk on Photography & the Law at DCC.

The Photographer owns the Copyright to the images, however they cannot use those images commercially unless they have a Model Release.


*Unless there have been other conditions in the contract*

AnCatDubh

CabanSail wrote: »

This came up at the recent talk on Photography & the Law at DCC.

The Photographer owns the Copyright to the images, however they cannot use those images commercially unless they have a Model Release.


*Unless there have been other conditions in the contract*

Does "commercially" mean to sell full stop?

So thus, the photographer could use the image for anything of their own purpose - their website, brochure, business card, etc.. or give the image away to someone for their use - Or - is it use of the image commercially which is a whole different legal argument, i.e. for the purpose of selling a product or service which would include the use of an image on a photographers own site.

OP - Do talk to your photographer in a reasoned and rational way (forget the emotion of the subject for the duration). Explain to them your concerns about the use of the image, which means you have to think about where your fears are and be able to articulate them.

If you don't mind me asking, what have they done with your image? Have they sold it to a stock site for instance - I would thus think Cabansail's advice refers here. If they are just using it for their web site or brochure / business card, then you should really take it as a fabulous complement.

I saw a quote recently from a photographer (could have been our quotes thread) which said about them taking a picture of someone they didn't know as being the ultimate complement - that they admired their image so much that they wanted to take it home with them and admire it til the end of their days.

Sometimes, people will have unfounded fears about the use of their image - other times such fears are warranted. But again, talk to the individual and reason with them about your considered fears.

Hope it works out well for you.

smelltheglove

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I saw a quote recently from a photographer (could have been our quotes thread) which said about them taking a picture of someone they didn't know as being the ultimate complement - that they admired their image so much that they wanted to take it home with them and admire it til the end of their days.

Never heard that but it is quite true I guess, there is one image I constantly go back to of an elderly couple I photographed at spwc.

If you have a contract check the contract, my own contract allows me to use images for my website, business or promotional material and for entery into photographic competitions.

Cameraman

CabanSail wrote: »

however they cannot use those images commercially unless they have a Model Release.

That doesn't seem to be so clear-cut if you look, for example, here :

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

I imagine some forms of commercial activity - e.g. use of someones' photos in in an advertisement to endorse a product might render you liable to some sort of civil action.
But what about sale of an image of someone as an 'Art Print' - that's also commercial, I would have thought.
Unless it was in some way a breach of privacy, then it's unlikely to be a breach of the subject's rights IMO, and no Model Release would be required.
Of course having a Model Release would probably make it even safer, and is probably a good idea if you even think you might use the images for something even vaguely commercial.

It seems to me there are a lot of grey or unspecified areas out there, and a lot of incorrect or misleading information - which has no real background in law, or has never been tested in a court.

The one sure thing seems to be that by default the photographer owns the copyright.

PCPhoto

Cameraman wrote: »

The one sure thing seems to be that by default the photographer owns the copyright.

unless agreed before the shoot :P

Fajitas!

Tbh, it's something that would want to be in-contract before shooting, nevermind a general agreement.

Cameraman

PCPhoto wrote: »

unless agreed before the shoot :P

That was what the 'by default' bit meant. Of course you are free to transfer your copyright beforehand or afterwards. I rarely, if ever, do so myself - I do assign specific rights though, but retain copyright.

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, it's something that would want to be in-contract before shooting, nevermind a general agreement.

Contracts should always cover the 'rights' relating to photographs taken in a session. However, in the absence of an agreement specifying otherwise, the photographer will retain copyright and full rights. Were you referring specifically to the 'commercial' bit, or something else ?

Of course the legal position and what is good practice may diverge. It's part of a photographers job to specify and explain to a customer exactly what they're getting. I think it would also be good practice to be sensible in the exercise of your rights. It can be a tricky area, because most Wedding Photographers want to use the images as part of their portfolios for promotion purposes. But what about paid ads e.g. in magazines ? I would be reluctant to use an image in an ad, without checking with the customer first - even though I would be perfectly entitled to do so.

Based on the amount of confusion and questioning I often read post-wedding, I suspect that some photographers either don't fully understand copyright issues or gloss over and ignore them.

I also wonder how many photographers actually use proper agreements and contracts which help to cover all these things in advance.

Fajitas!

Cameraman wrote: »

Contracts should always cover the 'rights' relating to photographs taken in a session. However, in the absence of an agreement specifying otherwise, the photographer will retain copyright and full rights. Were you referring specifically to the 'commercial' bit, or something else ?

I was refering to 'verbal agreements'.