Waiver in a photo shoot.

samhail

Hey all,
Going to be getting a photographer to take some photos of myself and the gf.
What do people think about the waivers that allow them to publish the photos?
going to be getting a cd with watermarked photos.

Do people just allow then full rights, or just on their site, or none atall

Marsden

samhail wrote: »

Hey all,
Going to be getting a photographer to take some photos of myself and the gf.
What do people think about the waivers that allow them to publish the photos?
going to be getting a cd with watermarked photos.

Do people just allow then full rights, or just on their site, or none atall

Definitely none at all. Your private family pictures are your property. If you want to let them use your pics for their own devices its up to you but I wouldnt dream of it.

If they were willing to give you a reduction in price for the rights then you should consider it.

magicbastarder

ask him what he intends to do with them. if he's just going to use them on a portfolio website to attract more business, would you be happy with that?
make sure you are not signing a model release.

dango

samhail wrote: »

going to be getting a cd with watermarked photos.

Why would you want this?

magicbastarder

i assumed that was so they could pick out the ones they wanted printed.

samhail

magicbastarder wrote: »

...
make sure you are not signing a model release.

What's wrong about the model release?

sheesh

samhail wrote: »

Hey all,
Going to be getting a photographer to take some photos of myself and the gf.
What do people think about the waivers that allow them to publish the photos?
going to be getting a cd with watermarked photos.

Do people just allow then full rights, or just on their site, or none atall

If the photographer is going to use the pics for his portfolio he should be doing it at a cheaper than normal rate. As long as you do not mind your photographs being used for his portfolio its alright. Another way the photographer could use them is to sell them to a stock photography site. The photographer would need a model release for the photographs to do that.

find out exactly what you are signing.

I would advise no to a model release. I would not want my image on a stock site especially if you are paying the photographer.

linearcutter

My understanding is that copyright of the image itself always remains that of the photographer who took it, regardless of what/who is in the frame.

Paying him to take the shots doesn't make the images yours, but any physical prints you pay for and receive are yours to do with as you please.

Here's the backwards bit - If you put them up on display ie - Facebook/Flickr etc, he could legally have you take them down.

Should he want to put them on his website or display them publicly, if the prominent subject in the frame (you) signs a model release, he can put them anywhere he wants.

You could always strike an agreement whereby you can display watermarked images wherever you want to.

PCPhoto

linearcutter wrote: »

My understanding is that copyright of the image itself always remains that of the photographer who took it, regardless of what/who is in the frame.

Paying him to take the shots doesn't make the images yours, but any physical prints you pay for and receive are yours to do with as you please.

Here's the backwards bit - If you put them up on display ie - Facebook/Flickr etc, he could legally have you take them down.

Should he want to put them on his website or display them publicly, if the prominent subject in the frame (you) signs a model release, he can put them anywhere he wants.

You could always strike an agreement whereby you can display watermarked images wherever you want to.

its not as clear as that ..... there are grey areas around the employer/employee status as to copyright.

I recently had this discussion with a fellow professional and he informed me that according to 1953 law ammendments (he showed me some newspaper clipping stating the actual law) the employer owns the copyright (which technically could mean a whole load of trouble for wedding photographers who make profits on after sales - depending on the contract the get their clients to sign obviously)

Anyway my understanding was that the photographer owns copyright of whatever images they take, however (and I'm open to correction) I've been shown copyright law stating that while in employment the copyright is the property of the employer (I had argued that if the person is in employment then the employer must supply equipment and pay welfare contributions etc etc - but was told it is open to interpretation.... most photographers bypass the copyright issue by making the client sign a contract which effectively means they agree to being photographed on the basis that the photographers rules are followed.

OP - if you are unhappy with the terms of a photographers shoot - don't use them, create a set of terms that you want from your photographer (ie. the image is not for publication or display online or print etc etc.)

Lets face it .... if you are choosing a photographer you want them to work for you, not the other way around - you are the client... the person with the money.....Be prepared for some professionals to reject your suggestions (many photographers value their work and will not give away copyright as it means they can potentially make money in the future from the image ...if you need reprints etc etc)

Photography is a tough area at the moment - there are people who claim to be professional and there are amateurs who have all the equipment and know how and can do a better job..... there are also professional photographers out there but because of the ease at purchasing a digital camera everyone considers themselves to be a photographer.

Just because someone has letters after their name or is a member of some organisation does not mean they are professional - it just means they passed a portfolio test set out by the people involved.

EDIT: just to add some kind of back up to my employer/employee copyright claims http://businessandlegal.ie/copyright-law-ireland

linearcutter

Below taken from http://businessandlegal.ie/copyright-law-ireland

The owner of copyright is the author, meaning the person who creates the work. For example a photographer is the owner in the case of a photograph.
However, as copyright is a form of property, the right may be transferred to someone else, for example, to a publisher. Where an employee in the course of employment creates the work, the employer is the owner of the copyright in the work, unless an agreement to the contrary exists.

Interesting! While the above could be interpreted that a professional photographer being paid to do portrait or wedding work is an employee of the paying customer, I would still read it that unless a definite provision for transferring ownership of copyright to the customer be written into a contract before work were to commence, the copyright remains by default that of the originating photographer. Although I doubt that a photographer in business for themselves would enter into such a contract with an individual.

However, perhaps if an intermediary business/company were to "sub contract" photographers out to clients, the intermediary business would potentially own copyright to the images rather than the photographer themselves.

Either way, I don't believe the copyright of the image itself will ever belong to the punter at any point. Their only way of controlling the use of the image is through the model release form.

PCPhoto - I agree with you on the definition of a "professional".....in any trade for that matter, particularly when as you rightly say, an industry becomes saturated by experts or professionals. It's very much down to the old "buyer beware" stance when paying for services rendered these days.

OP - Maybe you should meet the photographer in person over a coffee, allowing your own instincts a piece of the decision making process. Explain your concerns to them and if they're on the level, they'll understand and either work with you or against you on it.

As PCPhoto says, you're the one with the money so if they balk at your concerns, there are many, many more out there that will respect your concerns and be willing to work with you....perhaps you could post an ad here in the "services offered/wanted" thread?

magicbastarder

samhail wrote: »

What's wrong about the model release?

a model release grants the photographer the right to sell the image for any commercial use. usually used when the subject - i.e. the 'model' is being paid.

mdebets

magicbastarder wrote: »

a model release grants the photographer the right to sell the image for any commercial use. usually used when the subject - i.e. the 'model' is being paid.

A model release grants the photographer the rights that he writes into the model release. It doesn't automatically grant him use for any commercial use. He can specify in it for what and what not he can use it.

CabanSail

linearcutter wrote: »

Either way, I don't believe the copyright of the image itself will ever belong to the punter at any point.

They can own the Copyright to an image or images if they purchase it. This is often an option in Wedding Photography Packages where the client can buy copyright from the photographer, who then no longer will have any rights over those images at all.

There is also the middle ground where a licence is granted to someone for specified use of the images depending on the terms agreement.

linearcutter

It sure seems that when entering into a contract with a photographer, or a photographer taking on work for a customer, there is strong grounds for needing a transparent agreement that protects both parties rights and interests.

Paulw

No idea how you can even consider hiring a photographer as being an employer/employee situation. It's far from it.

If you get in to a taxi, is it an employee/employer situation? No.
If you go to a shop to have your photos printed, is it an employer/employee situation? No.

Not even close. It's a contract of service. You contract the photographer to take photos, for a fee.

If it was employer/employee, then the employer would be liable for PAYE, PRSI and other legal payments.

You are hiring someone to provide a service, not employing someone.

So, the photographer will always retain copyright, unless there is a contract otherwise, or unless the photographer is an actual employee of a company (providing photography services).

Every contract (or even a model release form) should be clear and transparent, making as many situations as clear as possible. In the model release forms I use, I clearly specify that any commercial use of the images (to sell for adversiting, etc) would be subject to a separate agreement.

You always need to be clear on what you want, and the photographer should be equally clear on what is expected. You would generally pay a premium for the photographer to hand over copyright to you.

gbee

linearcutter wrote: »

My understanding is that copyright of the image itself always remains that of the photographer who took it, regardless of what/who is in the frame.

To a point. When it comes to commissioning a photographer things can be different.

Photographers rates cover this aspect of things.

I'll shoot a wedding for say €1,000 all in, retaining copyright.

I'll shoot for a business at say €200 an hour plus expenses and mileage. THEY own the copyrights.

gbee

linearcutter wrote: »

Interesting! While the above could be interpreted that a professional photographer being paid to do portrait or wedding work is an employee of the paying customer,

Being hired to do a job does not make for an employee/employer relationship.

gbee

Paulw wrote: »

So, the photographer will always retain copyright, unless there is a contract otherwise, or unless the photographer is an actual employee of a company (providing photography services)..

It's not limited to the brackets. Photography is used in many industrial situations that are not photography related.

Paulw

gbee wrote: »

It's not limited to the brackets. Photography is used in many industrial situations that are not photography related.

If you work for a company (any company) and as part of your duties you take photos, then the company would retain copyright.

As a 3rd party, and you hire a company to take photos, then the company would retain the copyright, not the individual photographer.

That is what I meant by my explanation.

eas

CabanSail wrote: »

This is often an option in Wedding Photography Packages where the client can buy copyright from the photographer, who then no longer will have any rights over those images at all.

I'm not sure about that, it's often the case that a wedding photographer grants limited rights to print & display, but not often they will sell the copyright.

The only times I've heard of the copyright being sold is when celebrities are involved, and I'm guessing the money would make most of our heads spin.