wedding photo rights..

[EOS mE]

i've noticed a lot of ppl here post photos of their work. i was wondering, as a wedding photographer, do you guys let your customer know that you will be posting up their photos? i mean, do you need to ask for their permission to post up your photos after they purchased them? and how about those that they didn't purchase, can you still post them?

just wanna make sure if that's something that you guys put into your contracts.

[Phil V]

Photographers OWN the rights to images.
All (most?) wedding photographers include some level of release in their contracts, to enable them to use images for marketing etc.
Photographers OWN the rights to images.

[cmM]

depends on contracts. I can do whatever I want with the images according to the contract, granted they're not defamatory in any way.

[Kevin]

Photographers OWN the rights to images.
If you are hired to shoot a wedding or any event all image rights are proprietary to the person that hired you, unless you have a prearranged agreement. That agreement may have certain limitations, if so, make sure they are in writing and clear to all parties. Photographers only have rights to images that they take unsolicited by another party. Contract Law 101.:)
At least in the US. Every country is different.

[liza]

If you are hired to shoot a wedding or any event all image rights are proprietary to the person that hired you, unless you have a prearranged agreement. That agreement may have certain limitations, if so, make sure they are in writing and clear to all parties. Photographers only have rights to images that they take unsolicited by another party. Contract Law 101.:)

You know, I said the same thing in a post the other day, and another photog told me I was dead wrong. I knew I had read this somewhere. Thanks for the clarification.

[EOS mE]

man.. i knew that when my wife and i had our wedding photos done in Taiwan, the photographer had asked if they could use our photos on their site as advertisment. we didn't have any contracts.

do anyone have a sample of the type of contract they use that i can perhaps use in the future? or is there some place i can get a draft of it?

[kawter2]

If you are hired to shoot a wedding or any event all image rights are proprietary to the person that hired you, unless you have a prearranged agreement. That agreement may have certain limitations, if so, make sure they are in writing and clear to all parties. Photographers only have rights to images that they take unsolicited by another party. Contract Law 101.:)
At least in the US. Every country is different.

Sorry Kevin, you are 100% backwards on that, the shooter owns them unless expressly noted otherwise.

[300Dplus]

The way I understand it and apply it, is that the photographer owns the image and its copyright (that is why -in a perfect world - photo labs need a release from the photographer to make prints or reprints) and the client owns the print/cd/dvd (if they pay for it and as per contract). Suffice to say that, legally, the photog can't do much without a release and since the contract supersedes any assumption of what can be done or not with the image, the best thing to do is to have a clear worded one.
But since this is not a perfect world, my interpretation might be a little off ;).

[JayKitty]

the photographer owns all the images even after selling the images. photographers can also sell the copyright to the images, therefore, the images no longer belong to the photographer. my professor told me this- he is a professional freelance photographer and used to work full time for the Rolling Stone.

[EOS mE]

ok.. but how will the photo lab know that it's copyright by certain photographer? i mean how will they be able to tell from the photo? unless if they can see the EXIF or some summary part of the photo. but since some photographer strips their photo of all EXIF.. then how will the lab know?

bump^^ any idea where i may find a draft of a contract to use in the future?

[Phil V]

Firstly, go to a lab with some photo's to process that are of 'professional' quality, you'll get asked if you took them.
Secondly, Type 'wedding contract' into the search box, there's at least one complete draft one here somewhere.
I'm no expert on US contract law, but it is an international standard for an artist (musician, photographer, writer, graphic designer) to own copyright for their creation UNLESS it's considered 'work for hire' ie. the artist was expressly 'employed' by someone to produce the work. This is usually taken as people employed by a company, (ie. photographic assistants or writers on magazines), which would be a 3rd party ie. NOT the end user.
The Customer (normally) buys photographs, albums etc from the photographer NOT the rights to the images.
Or are we suggesting that every wedding photographer who's posted images on a forum, or hung them in a shop window or used them in other advertising is acting in breach of copyright?

[MikeMcL]

as with any contract, the terms are dependant on the particular situation. as the photographer, you can write anything you want, (within reason) and it will fly. In the contract you could easily build in a small paragraph that allows you full use of the photos for your own purposes (non-defamation). If you need help, you should be able to get all you need from any local lawyer for one hour consultation. the photography contract is very basic.

worse comes to worse, call a local wedding photo pro, and ask them for a copy of theirs, most will prolly help you out.

[tim]

My contract says I own the images and specifies what I can do with them.

[cmM]

Sorry Kevin, you are 100% backwards on that, the shooter owns them unless expressly noted otherwise.

Yep, that's right.

There is indeed a rather confusing paragraph in the U.S. copyright law that states that the copyright does not belong to you in the instance of "work for hire" but that does not encompass being contracted to shoot a wedding. I think i even posted that one paragraph here before.

cmM

[TeeJay]

If you are "emloyed" (as in your day job) by a newspaper (say) - then my bet would be that somewhere in your employment contract it would state that copyright of all images would belong to your employer. If, however, you are self employed, and someone hires you to take photo's of their wedding, then YOU (the photographer) own the copyright to those images.

How you can then use them, for advertising etc, depends entirely on how the contract, between you and your client, is worded. Where you have taken photo's of an individual (model shoot for instance) - your use of the pics depends on a "model release" being signed by the person in the photo. You own the copyright but can only utilise the image for commercial use (monetary or otherwise) with the agreement of the person in the picture.

Just my 0.02 worth.

[sapearl]

In my contract I state that I own the copyright to all the images. I also state that I can display all photos for promotional purposes, either electronically or as hardcopy.

Most of my clients don't have a problem with this. A couple of them have been uncomfortable with this over the years and struck that part of my contract, basically revising it. I wanted to be accomodating, didn't want to lose the business, and agreed; it's not a big deal to me if they DON'T want their photos displayed.

I can't remember, but there was a similar thread on this, a month or so ago, with folks posting samples of their contracts..... a lot of good input if you search for it.

[EOS mE]

humm... actually i found some posting from Photoguy.. is that the ones you are refering to?

[sapearl]

I honestly can't remember, but I think a bunch of us had weighed in on the discussion.

Actually, there were probably a couple of threads: one discussed photo rights, another was on contract terminology, another on was on display rights.....you know how these things branch out. Probably most of it was under the Wedding Forum.

humm... actually i found some posting from Photoguy.. is that the ones you are refering to?

[sapearl]

Here was one of the threads:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185108

[EOS mE]

Here was one of the threads:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185108

many thanks~~~

[am_pitbull_terrier]

My contract says I own the images and specifies what I can do with them.

Mine too

[Kevin]

Yep, that's right.

There is indeed a rather confusing paragraph in the U.S. copyright law that states that the copyright does not belong to you in the instance of "work for hire" but that does not encompass being contracted to shoot a wedding. I think i even posted that one paragraph here before.
cmM
If that is indeed the case then I stand corrected in regards to wedding images. I am current on business contract law and that was my basis for my response. I am going to contact my contracts attorney to clarify this issue. I don't shoot weddings but since the opinions on this topic are spread I want to know for sure.

[EOS mE]

Kevin.. definitely.. when you find out let us know. Btw, over the weekend, Rachel Ray did a favorite road tip on the food network and Morro Bay was one of the spot she recommended. Windows on the Water & Chenoa are the two restaurant she recommended. Yummo~ Delish... :lol:

Sorry.. i'm an addict to Food Network. ;)

[Kevin]

Btw, over the weekend, Rachel Ray did a favorite road tip on the food network and Morro Bay was one of the spot she recommended. Windows on the Water & Chenoa are the two restaurant she recommended. Yummo~ Delish... :lol:
Sorry.. i'm an addict to Food Network. ;)
I haven't seen the show yet, but I was around when she was here. Too many of her entourage around for a peak.

[mox]

Is anyone willing to share his contract ?

I'm about to write mine and I have no idea where to start and what to not forget.

Thanks,

[sapearl]

I don't want to hog the forum by uploading my entire contract, but I will post a couple of paragraphs that have bearing on some of our discussion. Regarding other people taking pictures:

Official Photography: Stuart Pearl will be providing the official photography for the wedding of the bride and groom named in this contract. Although other photographs may be taken by guests attending the wedding, no photographs may be taken by any other person which obstruct or interfere with the official PHOTOGRAPHER. When group or individual portraits are being taken, guests must wait until the PHOTOGRAPHER completes the photograph before they can engage in picture taking.

Regarding errors in information, client responsibility and the right to display work:

Client Responsibility: The PHOTOGRAPHER cannot be responsible for errors in instructions provided by the wedding party, for church or synagogue restrictions regarding photography, or for lack of coverage caused by the bride or bridal party not being ready on time. The PHOTOGRAPHER is given permission to display photographs taken at this event and may use the client for referral purposes.

These are just a few of the paragraphs that have "evolved" over the past couple of decades. Sometimes I will make minor tweaks and adjustments, but I like to keep things simple. Complex contracts can scare off potential business ;) . - Stu

Is anyone willing to share his contract ?

I'm about to write mine and I have no idea where to start and what to not forget.

Thanks,

[linarms]

Just looked over the relevant bits of Australian copyright law, which clearly state that for 'original works', the creator owns the copyright, unless they're created under the employ of someone else, in which case they own the copyright. Wedding photographers, however, are not employees of the bride and groom so this isn't an issue. In Australia anyway.

Model releases for commercial sale of images is a separate issue, of course.

[grego]

If you are hired to shoot a wedding or any event all image rights are proprietary to the person that hired you, unless you have a prearranged agreement. That agreement may have certain limitations, if so, make sure they are in writing and clear to all parties. Photographers only have rights to images that they take unsolicited by another party. Contract Law 101.:)
At least in the US. Every country is different.

In the U.S. you own them to the point that you can use them for your portfolio or own website(personal use). Just can't use them for commercial use without model release forms. That's always how its been for photographers.

Of course then the rest comes down to what you write down after negotiations.

[Snelly]

This from the Australian Copyright Council's website:

Specific provisions set out the general rules of ownership of copyright where a person who is not the photographer's employer (a client) pays a photographer to take a photograph.

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
It was always my understanding that in Australia, in particular with wedding photo's, that the copyright of what's in the images rests with the client. The actual disc (or negatives) themselves though belong to the photographer, and they're not under any obligation to give them to the client, that comes down to property law. But in effect, I've always thought that any images that the customer has in their possession, they're free to have them reproduced.

My customers retain the copyright of their images, but I get their permission to use their images for either flyers/brochures, demonstration albums, or on my website.

Snelly

[linarms]

Interesting, Snelly. The bits I read were the sections I was referred to by a lawyer when I sought advice on who owns the code I write as an IT contractor. Photographs were mentioned too (in the document), but the legalese is a bit hard to follow so I might have missed something. I guess I'd better make sure I get me a contract drawn up ...