Wedding Photographers - Poll

[ricktas]

I am interested to hear from our Wedding Photographers.

Obviously most (hopefully all) use contracts when dealing with clients. Quite often you would have clause in the contract that allows you to use any photos taken to promote yourself. However, do you have a clause that allows you to post the photos on websites for critique, review by other photographers, or to use a wedding photo in a competition?

Why am I asking this, mainly to make members consider the implications of Wedding Photography (in particular), as by law, copyright belongs to the wedding couple.

Very interested to hear members thoughts on this one.

[nisstrust]

Yes I state it in my contract/agreement, for those i have been primary shooter for.
However i exercise my own judgement on whether to place them on public forums. :th3:

[kiwi]

Only if you get paid :p

[IanB]

Weddings aren't my thing too much; but do I mention it in my portrait registration form. Family portrait stuff is under the same copyright laws. So I voted the #4 yes.

Good poll Rick; I can see where you are come from here.

:)

[JM Tran]

#3 for me, as stipulated in my contract I can use their photos for promotional and marketing purposes, such as using certain photos for my wedding stall at Luna Park wedding expo in Sydney next month, and of course posting on internet forums both as promoting and critiquing.

#4 is too out there, as I certainly dont use it for whatever purposes. If i were to enter a wedding photo or album for an AIPP competition when required to - I will call up the client first and explain to them in order to get permission, if they say no, then I will respect their wishes.

[RememberThis]

So far, we havent bothered with a contract. We have been thinking about using one, however find that a more friendly approach comes across better to clients. We are definitely looking at getting one soon though, as you cant be too careful.

As far as using people's images go, generally we find that most people are really pleased if you tell them you would like to use them for advertising. Also, most people arent aware of the laws in Australia and think that ownership of the photo lies with the photographer anyway.

[trigger]

I think its a trust thing. If they tell you they dont want their photos made public well its a matter of keeping your word.

[TOM]

I agree Trigger, my word is more important to me than a contract. I don't have a clause in my contract relating to the use of images. I don't use my clients images except on an individual basis when required, and I do not get anything in writing for this purpose. I find this the best solution for me.

[virgal_tracy]

My contract states that I can use the images for any purposes and can do anything that I want to them.

My contract states that I realease the photo's to the client for their personal use and printing eg. prints, albums (if they don't buy from me) etc. Any commercial use requires my permission or recompense.

Contracts are very important to cover both parties and it sets expectations on what is required by both. I hope that those that don't use contracts at least have insurance to cover themselves if god forbid something happens outside your control. This is where contracts help.

[IanB]

Anyone interested in posting their wedding contracts/agreement/registration/booking form.?

Good idea or bad idea?

:)

[campo]

Whilst most of my weddings have been done for friends/family and I haven't bothered with much in the way of contractual formalities, I have asked all of my couples to sign a release form so I can use the pics however I like (in the future). Generally speaking, if, in the future, I choose to use a specific photo for advertising in a magazine etc, out of courtesy I will likely contact the person/people in the shot to let them know.

[tonykieuphotography]

last option for me.
It would suck if the couple had the rights on the picture. They could forbid you to enter those pictures in competitions or to feature them on a magazine and a lot of other cases.

[ricktas]

last option for me.
It would suck if the couple had the rights on the picture. They could forbid you to enter those pictures in competitions or to feature them on a magazine and a lot of other cases.

That's the issue, under the Law in Australia, that is exactly how it is, they own copyright, not you, unless you have a contract to state otherwise

[Kym]

That's the issue, under the Law in Australia, that is exactly how it is, they own copyright, not you, unless you have a contract to state otherwise

It's weird. This is a reversal of normal (c) for photography. The (c) belongs to the people paying for it - weddings . (after 30/7/1998)


Ownership of Copyright

In Australia, the artist or photographer initially owns the copyright in their work with the following exceptions:

* A photograph taken by a photographer as part of their terms of their employment is owned by their employer. (Except in the case where the employer is the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, in which case the photographer will retain the right to control inclusion of the photograph in a book or as part of a hard copy news clipping service).

* For a photograph taken prior to 30 July 1998, the copyright in photograph which was commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person. For a photograph taken after 30 July 1998, the copyright in a photograph commissioned by a person other than the photographer belongs to that person only if it was taken for a 'private or domestic purpose' (such as a family portrait or a wedding photograph).

[Lani]

Just curious why the differentiation between weddings/family portraits and everything else. Who actually comes up with copyright law and who had input into it, anyone know?

[kiwi]

I'm not sure there is a differentiation actually ?

If someone pays you for the photos (ie weddings, family portraits etc) then I think they own copyright unless you agree otherwise ?

I think Weddings is used just as a common example

Happy to be corrected on that assumption.

Where does law come from ? I could say some unkind things to that

[ricktas]

This has been interesting and I hope has made people aware, that unless they have a contract stating otherwise, by posting wedding photos onto the web (including to AP), they could be breaching copyright, as ownership of the photos belongs to the Wedding Couple, by default.

[Lani]

It is interesting Rick.
As I have only dabbled in weddings so far, I have only obtained verbal permission for use of images. Well the first one wasn't paid anyway. ;) Must look into more formal agreements to be on the safe side for if and when I do another one.

[kiwi]

Money does not necessarily have to change hands to have a valid contract FYI, could be an exchange 'in kind"

[Photogra]

My contract -

I verbally get permission to use photos for my website or place in the Mercury and make note on the bottom of the contract.

[Photogra]

The most important page of all -

[wideangle]

Any commercial based work I do I have a written contract. It can all be nice to have things informal, but what happens if (and they can) go a little pear shaped between photographer and client? It's good to have something written up so everyone is clear as to where they stand.

[Seven]

dont do weddings, but was interested in the poll can we have a box for non wedding people so we can see the poll.

Pretty please

[ricktas]

dont do weddings, but was interested in the poll can we have a box for non wedding people so we can see the poll.

Pretty please

Done. Your wish is my command :rolleyes:

[CapnBloodbeard]

My contract states that I can use the images for any purposes and can do anything that I want to them.

My contract states that I realease the photo's to the client for their personal use and printing eg. prints, albums (if they don't buy from me) etc. Any commercial use requires my permission or recompense.

Contracts are very important to cover both parties and it sets expectations on what is required by both. I hope that those that don't use contracts at least have insurance to cover themselves if god forbid something happens outside your control. This is where contracts help.


How do you release the photos when the couple owns copyright?

Or does your contract stipulate that ownership of copyright will lie with the photographer?

[ricktas]

How do you release the photos when the couple owns copyright?

Or does your contract stipulate that ownership of copyright will lie with the photographer?

By having a contract that the bride and groom sign, they are actually releasing the photo copyright back to the photographer.

As an aside, would be interesting to know how many brides and grooms were aware they owned copyright by default, in the first place. I reckon most would be completely unaware of this.

[CapnBloodbeard]

ricktas - I'm not trying to argue, but I don't see how that would be the case unless the contract specifically states that the photographer will retain ownership of the images?

After all, by default the bride and groom own the images, and I can't see how signing a contract automatically changes that, only if the contract specifies ownership.

[CherylB]

Under the Copyright Act 1968 (as amended - Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000), if a person makes a payment for photographs, then copyright belongs to the person who paid. Under the terms of the Act, it would be very difficult to justify ownership elsewhere if money has changed hands. In other words, if YOU paid for the photographs, YOU own them - regardless of what the photographer's contract says.

The only "control" the photographer has in the case of wedding photographs is if he or she learns that the photographs will be used for something other than their intended purpose (ie. as a memento of the wedding) - in that case they have the right to veto.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All I did was a Business Law (Contracts) subject as part of a master's degree. I do have a better perspective on Acts and/or contracts as a consequence and this is my interpretation based on the information in the Act.

For further info, refer to the relevant section in the (amended) Act: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s35.html. In particular:


5) Subject to the last preceding subsection, where:

(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph for a private or domestic purpose, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and

(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement;

the first‑mentioned person is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, but, if at the time the agreement was made that person made known, expressly or by implication, to the author of the work the purpose for which the work was required, the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.

[clcollins]

My job is to write and interpret contracts, and I have worked in the legal industry for the past 15 years - I am also a partner in a small photography side business that is owned by me & my husband - so I would say I have a fairly good background for this kind of stuff - my disclaimer would be that I do not specifically work in Copyright law and also, under the terms & conditions of this site I can't be seen to be giving legal advice and would urge people to seek advice from a lawyer if they have a specific issue regarding copyright.

In terms of law, a contract CANNOT write out peoples rights as prescribed in legislation, ie an employment contract can not have terms and conditions that do not meet minimum standards set out in other pieces of legislation any attempt to do so would be found to be invalid and THAT PARTICULAR CLAUSE could not be enforced in court (even if it was signed by all parties and had really good monetary compensation for the lost conditions). Same goes for any piece of legislation and any contract that refers to copyright issues.

Now the interesting part about the Copyright Act is that the definition of "private or domestic purpose" includes a portrait of family members, a wedding party or children."

As most people know - law is generally about interpretation. Some may say/argue (interpret) that going to a professional photographer with a business name, ABN, advertising, shopfront etc is not a "private or domestic purpose" but is indeed a "commercial purpose" - regardless of the inclusion of the domestic purpose definition.

Therefore, it really could come down to what types of photographs you are taking AND what side of the argument you want to stand on. Both sides of the argument are equally valid until they are tested in court (and caselaw has arisen). I haven't had the time to look up and see if there has been any caselaw about copyright and wedding/portrait photographers (which is relevant to my photography business) but instead CHOOSE to stand on the side of the easier and clearer argument (from my point of view) that the client does in fact own some copyright as they are commissioning the works, but state very clearly in the contract that they are not allowed to publish without our permission & acknowledgment of the source nor profit from the images (or use them in any way that was not intended or specified in the contract).

Law is all about interpretation - the Australian Copyright website is really a good tool as it provides good up to date information and is a "general - one size fits most" kind of info". You should check it regularly and also look up the news sections on copyright from some of the big law firms as they will send updates. Just be weary of the issues, and decide what side of the argument you want to stand on, and also be aware that what you write in your contract may or may not stand up to legal scrutiny in court - EVEN IF IT WAS WRITTEN BY A LAWYER!!!

Cheers,

Cath.

[Kevin M]

I have only taken probably 25 - 30 weddings not many at all....& this is from the day when I shot photos with pro grade 160 iso Kodak or fuji film..... & in every single instance when I asked the couple if they would mind if I used 1 or 2 shots as "sample images" (in frames) I never had a single objection (mind you this was before the advent & the rise of internet based web discussion forums).

[D700 Doug]

I hate shooting weddings and I am cutting them down as much as possible.

I no longer shoot weddings that need contracts but they are a really good idea if you are in the business. It stops any argument or debate over what is agreed on.

Weddings are such emotional events it is always better to be safe.

Make sure you keep your copyright to all images !!!!

[davesmith]

I hate shooting weddings and I am cutting them down as much as possible.

I no longer shoot weddings that need contracts but they are a really good idea if you are in the business. It stops any argument or debate over what is agreed on.

Weddings are such emotional events it is always better to be safe.

Make sure you keep your copyright to all images !!!!

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?

[rikphoto]

My contract/agreement attempts to grab as much of the rights as possible.

[ricktas]

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?

Exactly. Australian Copyright Law by default assigns wedding photo copyright to the couple getting married. So without a contract detailing what you (as the photographer) can/cannot do with wedding photos you have taken, you legally have no right to use them for any purpose, including uploading to AP for critique.

[Redgum]

Thanks Cheryl and Cath, copyright words are always illuminating. I don't have a background in law, thank God, but have been subject to copyright issues for 25 years in the film industry.
During that period my company has been to court twice to defend a copyright issue. On one ocassion I was filming the arrival of the XPT at Roma Street station, a piece that went to air on Channel 7 that night. The clip clearly showed a woman alighting the train and walking past the camera. In short it was revealed she should have been in Sydney and this clip revealed her whereabouts. Her case was it should never have been shown on TV because she owned copyright. We needed her permission to broadcast. The judge didn't agree, thankfully.
The other case was a photograph of a VIP taken in front of a government building. The complainant wanted to supress the photograph by claiming copyright. They didn't win on the basis of professional news gathering, we paid for its production and there was no contract between the claimant and us as the producer.
I guess what I'm saying is that people will vigorously defend copyright and if you intend to make a living from photography protecting your business (and wealth) should be at the very top of your thoughts/actions. Thanks Rick for raisung this issue.

PS: I also believe that copyright cannot be transferred and always remains with the producer. As I understand it you can gain or give permission for use and that is done for a specific period of time and under contracted conditions.

[monkey]

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?

[monkey]

i assume that if a photographer is not claiming copyright on photos taken then he probably charging ALOT more for his services?

[Redgum]

Monkey, copyright is automatic. Any contract you sign is about service and that should include what is and what isn't included.

[monkey]

yes but im asking if they dont mention it or no contract is involved - or just a simple one that confirms date and times then what? accroding to ricktas the copyright is automatically with the couple being married.

[clcollins]

Monkey,
There are some rules and restrictions about publication of photos of people that haven't consented (this is a different issue to copyright), but generally the photographer owns the copyright on all photos that they take - as a client you have to look at what is in the contract to know what your rights are, but commissioned works copyright does go to the person paying UNLESS the contract says otherwise.

You really should read the copyright information for photographers - http://www.copyright.org.au/publications/infosheets.htm - under the letter P.

In terms of weddings both the photographer and the couple have automatic copyright (which is the right to copy or publish the photos) UNLESS a contract says otherwise. Therefore as both people have copyright they both can print or copy the images.


Cheers,

Cath.

Hi Ricktas. i have a question,

if there is no mention of copyright belonging to the photographer in the contract do you have the right to every frame he has shot even if he isnt please with them?
what can you do as the client to make this happen?

if he/she deletes images that you would have liked to see before and can tell from data that some images are gone what can you do as a client? obviously have a hard time recovering them but would this maybe lead to photographers being sued?

does this copyright issue apply for all photography styles? and how far does it span. if im in the street and a random photographer snaps a photo of me do i have copyright to that photo?

[ricktas]

Monkey, as Cath says, if there is no contract, the Copyright Act takes over. The Copyright Act details what the baseline law is, then above that contracts can change/amend certain conditions. It is the Copyright Act that specifies that Wedding photographs are the property of the wedding couple. This thread was to make members consider what the Act says and therefore when and if they want a contract to over-ride any aspects of that.

[monkey]

thanks

[pbrunottephoto]

Under copyright law, my understanding for weddings is that copyright is automatically owned by the clients. You say you no longer shoot weddings that need a contract but advise to make sure you keep copyright of all images. Wouldn't you need a contract to ensure that you keep copyright of those images?
Not knocking you, just trying to understand.
Dave, if you hate shooting weddings, why do them? A couple deserves a photographer that loves shooting weddings.. Even if I do a relatives wedding for free, I still want a contract.

[ricktas]

Not knocking you, just trying to understand.
Dave, if you hate shooting weddings, why do them? A couple deserves a photographer that loves shooting weddings.. Even if I do a relatives wedding for free, I still want a contract.

Think you quoted the wrong member there? I am guessing your question was to D700 Doug, not Dave?

[MarkChap]

In terms of weddings both the photographer and the couple have automatic copyright (which is the right to copy or publish the photos) UNLESS a contract says otherwise. Therefore as both people have copyright they both can print or copy the images.
Cath.

G'day Cath,
I think you may have this wrong.
Excerpt from the Information Sheet G011 (http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/g011.pdf/view) from Australian Copyright Council

• For photographs taken on or after 30 July 1998, the general rule on ownership depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken:
• if the photographs were taken for “private or domestic purposes” (such as family portraits, or wedding photographs), the first owner of copyright in them is the client, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.

The photographer does not have any automatic copyright to wedding photos.

The photographer can however restrict the use to that for which the photographs were taken, if that use is known at the time of taking the photograph

Excerpt from Information Sheet G011 - Australian Copyright Council

If someone owns copyright in a photograph as a result of having commissioned it (without having reached any
other agreement about ownership), the photographer has the right to restrain the use of the photograph for
purposes other than those for which it was commissioned (provided these purposes were made known at the time
of the arrangement). This rule applies to any photograph taken on or after 1 May 1969. Even though the client
is the owner of copyright, the photographer can rely on his/her right of restraint to negotiate further payment for
uses that were not contemplated at the outset.

[kiwi]

I believe this may only apply if it's a commercial transaction, ie money changes hands ?

Ie, if I do a wedding for free, what applies ?

[Redgum]

Darren, what's the question? Can you give your photographs to someone else and then tell them what to do with them? Be hard to stand up in court and say, yes, I gave them the photos but I didn't give them permission to use them.
Easiest way to cover this is when you give them the photos give them a note saying these are for your album. If you want any copies they're $5 each, whatever.

[tanalasta]

I would assume most couples prefer contracts where the photography owns the copyright but allows, in his/her contract for the couple to reproduce the photograph(s) as they desire (as long as it's not for commercial reasons), often providing a DVD-R of the images in high-resolution JPEG.

However, although many mid-tier wedding and semi-professional photographers allow for this, the top-tier wedding photographers tend to have more restrictive copyright. They are the ones with the silk bound albums that takes 6-12 months to receive and charge >$100 a page. And also tend to be the wedding specialists who are either AIPP masters or grand masters of photography. And people are often willing to pay the price for the very best...

[MarkChap]

Darren if you read that information sheet, it does not mention anything about payment.
It only refers to the purpose for which the photos were taken
So yes, even if you do the job free the same rules apply

[ricktas]

I would assume most couples prefer contracts where the photography owns the copyright but allows, in his/her contract for the couple to reproduce the photograph(s) as they desire (as long as it's not for commercial reasons), often providing a DVD-R of the images in high-resolution JPEG.

However, although many mid-tier wedding and semi-professional photographers allow for this, the top-tier wedding photographers tend to have more restrictive copyright. They are the ones with the silk bound albums that takes 6-12 months to receive and charge >$100 a page. And also tend to be the wedding specialists who are either AIPP masters or grand masters of photography. And people are often willing to pay the price for the very best...

It is the other way round, under the law, the couple own the copyright and have to allow the photographer to use the photos. If the couple do not want their photos used by the photographer for promotion etc, they have every right to refuse the photographer. This is the exact issue this thread was designed to raise, to make members aware the for Weddings (and domestic photography) in Australia, the photographer does NOT own copyright.

[jasevk]

Most definitely, this was covered in a customised template I use for all my work involving others outside family