View Full Version : Copyright wedding photos
if you guys do wedding photo's who do you give copyright to the person that paid for it?
Investigate the Australian copyright act. There are specific examples given for weddings in particular.
ricktas
13-09-2010, 7:56pm
Copyright over photos for weddings is based on who the contract is with, thus with weddings, it is generally with the couple getting married. Whether the mother of the bride, or rich Aunt Fanny pay for it, it is about who the contract is with.
Yeah there's a copyright info sheet floating around somewhere... basically outlines that for shoots for domestic/personal purposes like family portraits or weddings etc the copyright generally defaults to the client unless otherwise agreed between photographer and client. So it really depends on what your contract states...
Weddings and No contract... then the client owns the copy.
Make sure you have a contract!
Longshots
14-09-2010, 5:17pm
Weddings and No contract... then the client owns the copy.
Make sure you have a contract!
absolutely spot on.
Thats the "default" setting for copyright in that situation. Suppliers are free to choose how they do business though, and many photographers will prefer to have terms and conditions in their contract that reverses that position back to the photographer.
Well worth reading up on the information available from the Australian Copyright Council.
Links are always being posted to them on AP - there is probably a link somewhere - I'm sure someone else can produce that previously posted topic for you.
Links are always being posted to them on AP - there is probably a link somewhere - I'm sure someone else can produce that previously posted topic for you.
This one http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=20673 ;)
I give the couple the copyright but reserve the right to use images for promotion etc - my contract states they can't sell the images (like to a magazine) without me getting a cut (but honestly you would be lucky to find out if they did...)
I give the couple the copyright but reserve the right to use images for promotion etc - my contract states they can't sell the images (like to a magazine) without me getting a cut (but honestly you would be lucky to find out if they did...)
If you get a cut, not that this would happen often, this is the same as you getting a royalty so its like you still own copyright. If it was me i would negotiate that out of the contract or you would loose the job.
The answers im happy to hear is the case.
Two more questions: do you give the digital files to the couple in case they later think they would like to make a few more prints for whatever reason and do they get all the pics you take?
*edit for above.:Doh:
The OTHER answers im happy to hear is the case
ricktas
14-09-2010, 9:19pm
If you get a cut, not that this would happen often, this is the same as you getting a royalty so its like you still own copyright. If it was me i would negotiate that out of the contract or you would loose the job.
The answers im happy to hear is the case.
Two more questions: do you give the digital files to the couple in case they later think they would like to make a few more prints for whatever reason and do they get all the pics you take?
You have to be careful about what you 'negotiate out' of a contract. A contract cannot break the law, so your contract has to be worded correctly, cause by trying to sign full copyright back to yourself, you could be seen to be in breach of the law related to copyright. So if you are gong to have a contract it is worthwhile considering approaching a lawyer with experience in copyright to have your contract worded correctly
Well my little sis in law is getting married next year, the photographer she chose had in the standard terms that the photographer retains copyright, and the images are licensed to the client. I made a number of suggested changes to the contract, she put those to the photographer, and the photographer was not willing to assign copyright to the client. My suggestions in no way disadvantaged the photographer, and their original terms were all for them and nothing for the client.
Needless to say, an alternative photographer has been chosen.
Well my little sis in law is getting married next year, the photographer she chose had in the standard terms that the photographer retains copyright, and the images are licensed to the client. I made a number of suggested changes to the contract, she put those to the photographer, and the photographer was not willing to assign copyright to the client. My suggestions in no way disadvantaged the photographer, and their original terms were all for them and nothing for the client.
Needless to say, an alternative photographer has been chosen.
If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO
ricktas
14-09-2010, 9:39pm
If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO
Photographers cannot RETAIN copyright over wedding photos. Copyright, by law, is assigned to the couple. Therefore photographers are not RETAINING copyright, they are getting couples to sign it over to them. I am sure a copyright lawyer would love to get one of these contracts into a courtroom, if it contained the word retain in it. I have seen a contract where it stated that 'copyright remained with the photographer at all times', this contract went to lawyers and it was settled out of court (in the couples favour).
I know that in most cases the contract will never see the inside of a court-room, but I re-iterate, contracts should be checked by a lawyer with experience in copyright law, otherwise a world of pain could await a photographer using one that is incorrectly worded.
Photographers cannot RETAIN copyright over wedding photos. Copyright, by law, is assigned to the couple. Therefore photographers are not RETAINING copyright, they are getting couples to sign it over to them. I am sure a copyright lawyer would love to get one of these contracts into a courtroom, if it contained the word retain in it.
Correct - poor choice of word on my part... Thanks for picking it up.
My contract states that the client agrees the copyright in all photographs is owned by me.
If your sis in law was not happy with those terms then she certainly went about it the right way by suggesting changes to the photographer... Although I will say that the photographers proposed terms regarding him/her retaining copyright is really quite common... Certainly not dodgy IMO
I certainly wasn't suggesting there is anything dodgy about the standard terms assigning © to the photographer, most will try to retain it so they can use images etc, however my SIL is not famous, is never likely to be and I fail to see what benefit there would be to the photographer in wanting to retain © of images they were paid the going rate to take when the client requested © be assigned to them.
I thought it was very inflexible, and it was bad business sense, because that photographer stiffed themselves out of a $4K deal. I would never ever allow a photographer who was commissioned and paid by me to provide images to hold ©. In my eyes, if I paid them to go and do the job, I own it, if they aren't happy with that, I find someone who is.
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:04am
Photographers cannot RETAIN copyright over wedding photos. Copyright, by law, is assigned to the couple. Therefore photographers are not RETAINING copyright, they are getting couples to sign it over to them. I am sure a copyright lawyer would love to get one of these contracts into a courtroom, if it contained the word retain in it. I have seen a contract where it stated that 'copyright remained with the photographer at all times', this contract went to lawyers and it was settled out of court (in the couples favour).
I know that in most cases the contract will never see the inside of a court-room, but I re-iterate, contracts should be checked by a lawyer with experience in copyright law, otherwise a world of pain could await a photographer using one that is incorrectly worded.
While not wanting to enter a debate about the legalities of this, I will offer a direct quote from the Australian Copyright Council's information sheet on how the 1998 Amendment to the Copyright Act affects photographers - this is the section pertaining to a) wedding and domestic photographers, and b) commercial - in each situation there is room for a prearranged agreement to counter any "default" situation on copyright:
• 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; however
• if they were taken for any other purpose (e.g. commercial shots), the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless the photographer and client agree otherwise.
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.
Its also worth noting that to understand the entire "picture" of copyright, the information sheet which is specifically intended to explain photography and copyright, should be read in full and all parts should be read in context.
As you can see the agreement refereed to by Wayne is not in any way breaking the law. Its also worth noting that this is a free democracy and people can work as they choose to within the law. The agreement is within the law. Its also worth noting that the amount of photographic copyright legal specialists are relatively small in Australia. I know of just 10-12 around the entire country. Which indicates a couple of things, that a) the need for them is relatively small - down to market forces/supply and demand; and b) those who are available are expensive to employ.
One of the benefits of joining AIPP, is that as a member you have access to sample contracts with terms and conditions that have been checked for correct legal standing.
As a prospective consumer, if you combine that with the code of ethics that all members are requested to accept, then you as a consumer should feel relatively comfortable that you will not be faced with unethical behaviour. And if all of it does go wrong, then you have an AIPP mediation council who will take action to resolve a dispute.
ricktas
15-09-2010, 7:12am
Agree William, and I m sure that the AIPP would have had their sample contracts checked for legal issues, otherwise it could open the AIPP up to being the recipient of legal action as well. All I was saying, was don't just draft up your own contract without input from elsewhere, cause the wording of it, and in the posts above, one single word, could land you in trouble.
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 7:18am
Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:18am
I certainly wasn't suggesting there is anything dodgy about the standard terms assigning © to the photographer, most will try to retain it so they can use images etc, however my SIL is not famous, is never likely to be and I fail to see what benefit there would be to the photographer in wanting to retain © of images they were paid the going rate to take when the client requested © be assigned to them.
I thought it was very inflexible, and it was bad business sense, because that photographer stiffed themselves out of a $4K deal. I would never ever allow a photographer who was commissioned and paid by me to provide images to hold ©. In my eyes, if I paid them to go and do the job, I own it, if they aren't happy with that, I find someone who is.
Yes your last sentence is fair and very reasonable. As a consumer, you certainly have that right.
From what you've said here though, while your SIL is not famous, that isnt necessarily the reasoning behind a photographer wanting to retain the ©. Let me suggest a different way of looking at it.
Just because you buy a piece of software, in most cases you dont ever own the ©. You'll get a licence to use it.
If you commission an artist to paint your SIL, you wont own the ©. You'll own the paiting, and if the artist wants to they could replicate the painting, they can photograph the painting, and they can make greeting cards out of the painting. You'll own the painting, but you dont own the right to copy it. Fun this © isnt it.
If you buy a book, you own the book, but cant copy it because you dont own the ©
And if you go and buy some music on a cd - you may have paid the company who sell the cd the going rate, but you dont have the ©.
Now lets turn it around one more time - lets say the client has agreed to own the © on the photos. Who can use the images then, the studio/photographer in their website to show off their past work ? No they cant, because the client owns the ©. But the client can then go on and do anything with them because they own the ©
Now for all these examples there are some exceptions to being allowed to copy, and to keep that brief - they include educational and fair dealing purposes. The other reasons may include open source and creative commons, which is too detailed to go into here.
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:20am
Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??
I'm pretty sure that AP has its own (sensible) rules about offering legal advice on the forum. I'll send you a link to some assistance.
From a personal point of view your term seems fair, honest and ethical.
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 7:25am
Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??
I'm pretty sure that AP has its own (sensible) rules about offering legal advice on the forum. I'll send you a link to some assistance.
fair enough too ... rephrase.
As a consumer would you consider that a fair agreement ??
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:26am
Agree William, and I m sure that the AIPP would have had their sample contracts checked for legal issues, otherwise it could open the AIPP up to being the recipient of legal action as well. All I was saying, was don't just draft up your own contract without input from elsewhere, cause the wording of it, and in the posts above, one single word, could land you in trouble.
Scuse me repeating you, but these are words worth repeating - makes a great deal of sense :)
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:28am
fair enough too ... rephrase.
As a consumer would you consider that a fair agreement ??
Well as I promised everyone that after 3 weddings and 3 divorces I wouldnt marry again, I sincerely hope I'll never be a consumer of wedding photography again :efelant:
But from an "involved" (re photo industry) point of view, I think its extremely fair, honest and ethical :)
ricktas
15-09-2010, 7:35am
Darren, as per my posts above, I think you should remove the 'remain' from your conditions (second line) and replace it with alternate wording, cause as stated above, under the copyright act, copyright wasn't yours to begin with, so it cannot 'remain' with you. Remember that AP directs members to seek their own legal advice.
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 8:08am
Well as I promised everyone that after 3 weddings and 3 divorces I wouldnt marry again, I sincerely hope I'll never be a consumer of wedding photography again :efelant:
Im taking the plunge for the first time in about 6 weeks mate .... :eek: :D
But from an "involved" (re photo industry) point of view, I think its extremely fair, honest and ethical :)
Thats all you can ever ask for I guess, regardless of what side of the fence youre looking in from, whether it be the service provider or the customer. Cheers mate :)
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 8:12am
Darren, as per my posts above, I think you should remove the 'remain' from your conditions (second line) and replace it with alternate wording, cause as stated above, under the copyright act, copyright wasn't yours to begin with, so it cannot 'remain' with you. Remember that AP directs members to seek their own legal advice.
Gotcha. Will amend accordingly. Thanks mate.
Yes your last sentence is fair and very reasonable. As a consumer, you certainly have that right.
From what you've said here though, while your SIL is not famous, that isnt necessarily the reasoning behind a photographer wanting to retain the ©. Let me suggest a different way of looking at it.
Just because you buy a piece of software, in most cases you dont ever own the ©. You'll get a licence to use it.
If you commission an artist to paint your SIL, you wont own the ©. You'll own the paiting, and if the artist wants to they could replicate the painting, they can photograph the painting, and they can make greeting cards out of the painting. You'll own the painting, but you dont own the right to copy it. Fun this © isnt it.
If you buy a book, you own the book, but cant copy it because you dont own the ©
And if you go and buy some music on a cd - you may have paid the company who sell the cd the going rate, but you dont have the ©.
Now lets turn it around one more time - lets say the client has agreed to own the © on the photos. Who can use the images then, the studio/photographer in their website to show off their past work ? No they cant, because the client owns the ©. But the client can then go on and do anything with them because they own the ©
Now for all these examples there are some exceptions to being allowed to copy, and to keep that brief - they include educational and fair dealing purposes. The other reasons may include open source and creative commons, which is too detailed to go into here.
I understand that my SIL infamy or lack of may not have bearing upon the photographer wanting to keep ©, however the photographer may want to have © so that they can display, sell, enter into competitions, promote etc using those images, and that is exactly what my suggested changes were designed to stop. My SIL simply doesn't want her images spread over the internet, bridal exhibitions, magazines etc etc.
In your examples of alternative views, the only relevant one here is the artist painting my SIL likeness, because all of the others contain nothing personal.
Is this OK, in terms of fairness to all concerned ??
Looking at it from my POV, I would never agree to that simply because you want to be assigned absolute © and further the statement "may use any images taken on the day to promote Darren Gray Photography in any way he chooses."
Both of those are deal breakers for me, as said earlier, If I commissioned and paid someone to go and shoot something personal for me, I own it. I would certainly offer the chance to amend your terms to exclude those provisions, but if you won't play ball, then you lose the job. There are plenty of photographers out there who will happily leave © with the client for personal shoots where they have been paid the going rate.
If you were to shoot at a significant discount, or with some other concession, then certainly there has to be something in it for you, and part of that may be © and the right to use those images for promotion, display etc.
Longshots
15-09-2010, 9:56am
I understand that my SIL infamy or lack of may not have bearing upon the photographer wanting to keep ©, however the photographer may want to have © so that they can display, sell, enter into competitions, promote etc using those images, and that is exactly what my suggested changes were designed to stop. My SIL simply doesn't want her images spread over the internet, bridal exhibitions, magazines etc etc.
In your examples of alternative views, the only relevant one here is the artist painting my SIL likeness, because all of the others contain nothing personal.
OK, so I can now see your concern.
If you can understand that I'm simply reading what you've posted and then I've had to assume to the specific nature of your concern re ©
Most people want to remove that part so that they can control how much their prints will ultimately cost them. Hence my examples.
But with that additional information there could have been an additional option for you.
As opposed to wanting the copyright, your alternative and better option, would have been to ask for a change/adaptation to the terms so that your SIL's images remained private and you could have asked for a restriction of that.
I am asked that from time to time, and I have no issue with it, because most of the time if thats what the client wants, I'm happy to adapt, as I'm not giving anything away.
I'm assuming again that you did ask and explain why you were asking ? If so, yes the photographer did stiff themselves and gave away a sale.
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 10:09am
Looking at it from my POV, I would never agree to that simply because you want to be assigned absolute © and further the statement "may use any images taken on the day to promote Darren Gray Photography in any way he chooses."
Both of those are deal breakers for me, as said earlier, If I commissioned and paid someone to go and shoot something personal for me, I own it. I would certainly offer the chance to amend your terms to exclude those provisions, but if you won't play ball, then you lose the job. There are plenty of photographers out there who will happily leave © with the client for personal shoots where they have been paid the going rate.
If you were to shoot at a significant discount, or with some other concession, then certainly there has to be something in it for you, and part of that may be © and the right to use those images for promotion, display etc.
No-ones turned me down yet ... I think the key thing is that you as the photographer agree not to sell the images to anyone else for financial gain. Everyone Ive done work for are absolutely fine with that. Selling and using for self promotion are two entirely different things.
Im taking the plunge for the first time in about 6 weeks mate .... :eek: :D
I'm still on my first, 30 years last January. :beer_mug:
bigdazzler
15-09-2010, 10:41am
I'm still on my first, 30 years last January. :beer_mug:
Congrats mate. I only plan on doing it once too Kym :th3:
But with that additional information there could have been an additional option for you.
As opposed to wanting the copyright, your alternative and better option, would have been to ask for a change/adaptation to the terms so that your SIL's images remained private and you could have asked for a restriction of that.
I am asked that from time to time, and I have no issue with it, because most of the time if thats what the client wants, I'm happy to adapt, as I'm not giving anything away.
I'm assuming again that you did ask and explain why you were asking ? If so, yes the photographer did stiff themselves and gave away a sale.
This particular photographer was advised that the intent was to keep the images private, and verbally they agreed they wouldn't use the images without seeking permission first, but when asked to amend the written terms to reflect same, they were not willing to do so. Definitely stiffed themselves...
tracyselena
15-09-2010, 1:54pm
My friend who is a bridal photographer said she just had her work published in a major bridal magazine but credit given to someone else even though she and the bride never authorised this. She called the bridal magazine and they were quite rude saying they signed off on a release to that person who credit was given. What would happen in this situation?
Longshots
15-09-2010, 7:12pm
My friend who is a bridal photographer said she just had her work published in a major bridal magazine but credit given to someone else even though she and the bride never authorised this. She called the bridal magazine and they were quite rude saying they signed off on a release to that person who credit was given. What would happen in this situation?
Why did the magazine have her work in the first place ?
ricktas
15-09-2010, 8:04pm
Why did the magazine have her work in the first place ?
Agree, who gave them the photos?
Can I ask why you are asking to the op, mile?
tracyselena
15-09-2010, 8:32pm
A decorator who they don't know anything about or had anything to do with the wedding has taken credit for the photos and they have no idea who this decorator is or how they got a hold of the photos to give to the magazine.
ricktas
15-09-2010, 8:41pm
A decorator who they don't know anything about or had anything to do with the wedding has taken credit for the photos and they have no idea who this decorator is or how they got a hold of the photos to give to the magazine.
I suggest the photographer contact the magazine, and advise them directly of the issue. Maybe email a RAW file showing they have the originals etc stating they are contracting the services of a lawyer. This could become very serious and it depends how far your friend wants to take it. However, someone provided them to this decorator, and if everyone is deny it, someone is lying!
@Tracy http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/CopyrightInfringmentAndLetterOfDemand/default.asp
:th3:
Interesting thread on WP about a newspaper who stole an image and the 'tog got it sorted
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1481465
tracyselena
15-09-2010, 9:36pm
I suggest the photographer contact the magazine, and advise them directly of the issue. Maybe email a RAW file showing they have the originals etc stating they are contracting the services of a lawyer. This could become very serious and it depends how far your friend wants to take it. However, someone provided them to this decorator, and if everyone is deny it, someone is lying!
She contact them and she said they were a bit rude to her and basically said it wasn't their fault and they signed off a release to the decorator and they will look into it.
Thanks for that Kym I'll pass that onto her.
Im learning all about copyright at tafe atm but mainly about music and entertainment and we brushed on the subject on photography. Because later i will need work from photographers i would like to know what is the norm out there. I know commercial work the Photographer usually gets the copyright but i always wondered for domestic stuff like weddings.
I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.
Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.
If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.
A question: does the couple get all pics taken in digital files also in case they want to make some more prints later on?
I think you need to differentiate ownership of copyrigght and an agreement on how images can be used
No, it's not standard fir yiu to receive digital files....it's often an additional charge, my understanding is that most ft wedding togs won't.
ricktas
16-09-2010, 6:09am
Im learning all about copyright at tafe atm but mainly about music and entertainment and we brushed on the subject on photography. Because later i will need work from photographers i would like to know what is the norm out there. I know commercial work the Photographer usually gets the copyright but i always wondered for domestic stuff like weddings.
I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.
Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.
If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.
A question: does the couple get all pics taken in digital files also in case they want to make some more prints later on?
OK, lets turn this around. I pay you to write some music for me for a special occasion. You do and I like it, but a recording company executive hears it, and wants you to release it as a single and is planning on making you the 'next big thing'. What do you do?
Sorry, but I think you are viewing the issue of copyright with blinkers on. Most photographers don't want to splash your photographs all over the place, they want the right to enter industry competitions (AIPP Photographer of the Year for example), or to promote their services (a portfolio of their work for prospective clients to peruse), nothing more. I see no problem at all in allowing a photographer the right to use my commissioned photos for self promotion, industry competitions, and that is exactly how most contracts are worded. They specify exactly what can and cannot be done with the photos. A well worded contract is something all photographers who are doing paid work for others should damn well have.
I fail to see what the location, clothes etc have to do with the photos, what you are paying for is the SKILL of the photographer to take those photos, and process them, not a wedding planner and stylist to ensure you have a good location and are wearing the right colours for your complexion. I think you have a completely incorrect view of what you are paying for when you commission a photographer for a wedding.
bigdazzler
16-09-2010, 8:12am
I agree with Wayne 100%, it would be a deal breaker for me also if a photographer wanted to keep copyright. This means he can post our personal images anywhere he wanted, and i would not be comfortable with this.
Think of it this way: when i get married what im essentially paying for when i pay for photo's is the photographers experience, their time and lease of their equipment for that time of taking the photo's. I dont see where in this deal they should get copyright.
If they want to use the photo's for their promotion and make themselves look good, you have to remember that its our money that paid for the nice wedding location, its our money that paid for the nice clothing, its our friends and guests there. If they want to benifit from our hard organisational work for putting the wedding together and our many many dollars that paid for the whole thing, then they must pay for that priveledge, if we are willing to give them that. if they want to lease some photos from us, they give us a discount for using X number of photos for X purpose. I would rather keep my photos private and know that thats the way it will always stay.
Well when youre day comes mate, youre gonna have a hard time hiring a photographer. I think your understanding of reasonable usage is a little distorted.
I have spent a bit of time lately looking at wedding photographers, and ultimately choosing one for my upcoming wedding. Most of them want to be able to use the images for promotional purposes but agree not to sell the images to anyone other than the paying client. It seems to be the norm. I dont really see the problem with that to be honest.
A better way to think about copy is to consider a physical piece of art, eg. an artist who paints a portrait of you.
The artists signs that portrait, he then sells you the portrait.
He is still identified as the creator of the work (identified by a signature in this case).
Now, can you make a copy of the painting? Well it depends on the contract of sale.
Most likely you cant copy it as the artist is still the copy holder, you only own the image to hang and display.
Can the artist promote himself showing photographs of that portrait? Yes!
He can say "I painted that" and no one else can say that (unless the artist specifically agrees not to).
The artists is always the creator and may license the use of that creation, you as the purchaser can never say it's your creation.
Depending on license you may have the right to copy and re-publish (or not).
Well when youre day comes mate, youre gonna have a hard time hiring a photographer. I think your understanding of reasonable usage is a little distorted.
Yeah agreed... Having the right to use the images for marketing purposes in various mediums and the right to reproduce and enter in industry competitions is incredibly important to a photographer.... I'd even suggest that the sustainability of ones business may depend on it! People in any trade or line of work are likely to use examples of prevoius work in order to secure more work... and to be frank, having the attitude that 'we payed for all the things to make the photo's nice' is not right IMO.... a crap photographer can still make a mess of the job no matter how pretty and perfect the environment is on the day.
So Mile, lets say hypothetically you're about to hire me as photographer for your wedding. You tell me you want a $500 discount for me to have the right to use the images for future advertising, effectively charging me $500 for the right to reproduce the pictures.
How do you then feel about me charging you $500 in my quoted price for your wedding, to cover the cost of using my previous customers images to make the sale to you?
I dont really need to know how the overall quote is made up just the figure at the bottom of the page.
If in that quote you charge me extra $500 for not being able to use the photo's for self promotion, thats fine. If the overall price is too high i can go elsewhere. If im happy with the price you get a job and i get some photo's.:party6:
The key to any business is giving the customer what they need. A business is a problem fixer and the better you can attend to people's needs the better chance you have for survival.
ricktas
17-09-2010, 6:15am
Wanna answer my questions in post 46?
Longshots
17-09-2010, 6:42am
I dont really need to know how the overall quote is made up just the figure at the bottom of the page.
If in that quote you charge me extra $500 for not being able to use the photo's for self promotion, thats fine. If the overall price is too high i can go elsewhere. If im happy with the price you get a job and i get some photo's.:party6:
The key to any business is giving the customer what they need. A business is a problem fixer and the better you can attend to people's needs the better chance you have for survival.
Well you should want to know.
While I agree with your last sentence, its also the prospective customer's responsibility to understand and discuss their individual needs.
As I said earlier, many photographers would happily do as you say, and adapt their terms and conditions to suit your particular needs without necessarily adding any financial charges.
farmer_rob
17-09-2010, 7:07am
A better way to think about copy is to consider a physical piece of art, eg. an artist who paints a portrait of you.
The artists signs that portrait, he then sells you the portrait.
He is still identified as the creator of the work (identified by a signature in this case).
Now, can you make a copy of the painting? Well it depends on the contract of sale.
Most likely you cant copy it as the artist is still the copy holder, you only own the image to hang and display.
Can the artist promote himself showing photographs of that portrait? Yes!
He can say "I painted that" and no one else can say that (unless the artist specifically agrees not to).
The artists is always the creator and may license the use of that creation, you as the purchaser can never say it's your creation.
Depending on license you may have the right to copy and re-publish (or not).
The rules are pretty clear - but two things pop out at me:
1. In your scenario above, the sitter is giving his or her time and may have commissioned the portrait - they are bring something to the deal, and hence should be able to negotiate the rights in association.
2. In the case of wedding photography, since copyright law clearly says that copyright exists with the buyer/commissioner and not with the photographer. There must be a background to this - so why are photographers so keen on overriding the law contracturally?
There are many other cases in the arts and elsewhere where people doing works for hire don't have copyright as a result of contractural clauses, and you can point to the 1 in a million chance that the portrait might win the archibald or the song might get taken as an advertising jingle or whatever. Tough - if I'd picked the right numbers I would have won tattslotto too.
It seems to me that a lot of photographers who refuse to negotiate on the copyright clauses are a) overrating themselves; b) failing to understand how to run a business; and c) leaving opportunities for others to undercut and take away their business.
ricktas
17-09-2010, 7:23am
It seems to me that a lot of photographers who refuse to negotiate on the copyright clauses are a) overrating themselves; b) failing to understand how to run a business; and c) leaving opportunities for others to undercut and take away their business.
I agree, and it is not up to me, you, the OP or anyone else to tell the photographer what should or should not be allowed under their contract. That is up to each photographer and client to negotiate. Having said that, I believe every photographer who is in business or heading towards being in business need to be able to retain some usage rights (from some clients), even if just for their website/portfolio.
The key is a well written and legally sound contract. Arguing for or against the rights of the photographer or client is completely useless until we see the full contract wording, and know more about what the client is contracting the photographer for. After all, someone like KFC would want full and complete rights to photos of their product, to protect their product, but a wedding couple might happily agree to the photographer using a photo of them to enter the AIPP Wedding photographer of the year.
Each contract/client arrangement needs to be assessed based on full disclosure. There is no 'one size fits all' answer here.
bigdazzler
17-09-2010, 8:06am
Ultimate copyright and terms of usage are two different things .. everyone needs to understand the distinction. A client can ultimately own the images, whilst still allowing the photographer to use them to promote their business. Whats wrong with that ? That is in most cases the default norm anyway, or at least it has been in my recent experience in scouting for someone to photograph my wedding. In fact, I agreed to that very thing, I dont mind if she uses our photos in her galleries or web site, or enters a comp with one of our shots. I only draw the line that the photos are not to be on-sold in any way, to which she readily agreed.
ricktas
17-09-2010, 8:13am
The other thing I find truly odd, is people who say they want full rights over the photos, to keep their photos private and know that that's the way it will always stay. But a week after the photoshoot and payment, with the non-use by the photographer clause in place, they splash the photos all over facebook/myspace for the world to see.
Longshots
17-09-2010, 9:27am
Absolutely Rick.
By the way Rob - its not overriding, its how that photographer chooses how to offer their services
Walk into a shopping centre, or drive you car into a multi storey car park, or buy a train ticket. They have terms and conditions on how they choose to offer their services. Simply by entering the shopping centre, car park or entering a train station you accept their terms and conditions.
Why some photographers choose to work with those terms and conditions mentioned have, I believe, been previously explained very well.
farmer_rob
17-09-2010, 10:28pm
...
By the way Rob - its not overriding, its how that photographer chooses how to offer their services
Semantics. They don't need to mention copyright at all, and the copyright remains with the purchaser. They mention copyright going to them (note - not 'remaining' as pointed out earlier) hence 'overriding'. I think you got the gist of what I was saying.
Walk into a shopping centre, or drive you car into a multi storey car park, or buy a train ticket. They have terms and conditions on how they choose to offer their services. Simply by entering the shopping centre, car park or entering a train station you accept their terms and conditions.
Why some photographers choose to work with those terms and conditions mentioned have, I believe, been previously explained very well.
People can and do enter contracts all the time. It is a matter of negotiation (or refusing to go into the car park) as to the terms of the contract. If photographers are refusing to negotiate, then that is bad business.
I disagree with the 'explained very well'. I think it is more 'outlined clearly but not well argued'. If I was a purchaser or seller of photographic services, there may be more meaning in me arguing against the photographers who choose to try to impose those conditions. However, I choose not to enter the other side of the argument, and happily accept that people can attempt to impose whatever contract conditions they wish. Just don't get upset (on both sides) when the other party does not agree.
(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.)
Sidetracking the O.P. for a moment here but I would like to know how copyright applies in relation to the printing of wedding photographs?
I know X-number of prints would generally be included in a particular package after the couple has viewed the proofs but more couples these days seem to be requesting the disc of digital images (which someone alluded to in an earlier post) presumably to go off and do their own printing.
I guess this is another thing to be negotiated into contract - low res web files or high res printable files.
I wouldn't want this happening. As the photographer I would want to retain control over who, where and how the printing was handled as you could be made to look very second rate by inferior printing services or god-forbid, home printing. This would not endear you to prospective clients who saw those images.
bigdazzler
18-09-2010, 7:24am
.
(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.
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
18-09-2010, 3:20pm
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.
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
18-09-2010, 3:46pm
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.
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?
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
19-09-2010, 6:47am
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
19-09-2010, 6:56am
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
19-09-2010, 11:24am
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.
So now, how about showing us some of your photos instead?
just did one, pls check post.
it was just for you Ricktas:party6::party6::party6:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.