can i use the images?

[jessika]

hi everyone,
I have just opened a business of my own. I have been 2nd shooting weddings for a while now, so i have a fair few photos.

At the end of the day, sometimes the photographer pays me for my images, sometimes she just asks me and i give them to her.

Now that i have opened my own business, i was just wondering if i could use the images for advertising purposes?

i have picked out my facourites and want to put them into a few display albums, and just put some on my website etc ..

So im wondering if i am allowed to use the images that i took.

thanks :)

[Jeff]

I'd say sure. They're your images that you took at an event that you were asked to shoot. As long as you weren't selling the rights to those images (via a written contract) that the other photog paid you for I'd say those are fair game too.

Key thing to remember is that they're your images and permission was given for them to be taken. (model release)

[jessika]

hi jeff .. thanks .. um no written contract/contract of any type was made or discussed ..

[sapearl]

Hi Jes - you own the copyright so they are your images and I'd say you can use them. Are you now in direct competition with the first shooter, or do you still make yourself available to assist? As a courtesy though, just to keep positive lines of communication open and not burn any bridges for the future, you may want to mention to the "first" shooter what your intentions are.

Even though I have been going it alone for 35 years, I still have occasion to second shoot if somebody gets in a jam. You never stop learning, especially if the first shooter goes about things in a different way and has a different shooting style.

[jgrussell]

So im wondering if i am allowed to use the images that i took.There are TWO issues here: (a) your agreement with the first shooter; and (b) the privacy rights of the person(s) in the photos. You should resolve both before using any of the images for commercial/advertising purposes.

[jacuff]

hi jeff .. thanks .. um no written contract/contract of any type was made or discussed ..

There are TWO issues here: (a) your agreement with the first shooter; and (b) the privacy rights of the person(s) in the photos. You should resolve both before using any of the images for commercial/advertising purposes.

I'm sure there are some differences between US and AU laws, but here's my general commentary.

a) is already resolved if there was no written contract. The first shooter cannot stop you from using those images if you've got no contract with them. But... maybe they can...

b) The first shooter should have had a contract with the B&G. OTOH, you did not have a contract with them. While the first shooter probably can't use a contract to stop you from using the images, they could inform past clients that another photographer is using images that they may not have agreed to be used for commercial/advertising purposes. If the previous clients do not want you using images that they did not contract you to take, then you could find yourself in a legal battle. You may be covered under the first shooter's contract.

You will be much better off to contact the previous photographers and let them know your intentions and square away that it is alright with them to use your images for advertising/promotion purposes. While few would go through the trouble to contact previous clients, you should be aware that some will, especially if they see you as competition in their market.

[razyl]

Australian copyright law is that whoever the photo is taken of owns copyright in the first instance, unless otherwise agreed to. (This is different to the US where the shooter assumes copyright).

So if you have no contract with the couples (or other people) at these weddings then you do NOT have copyright. To use the images commercially you would need to seek a release from them.....which may be an issue if the primary shooter also has a contract with them.

Darryn

[razyl]

Hi Jes - you own the copyright so they are your images and I'd say you can use them.

This might be true in the US, but is not true for Australian copyright law.

[sapearl]

ah - I stand corrected..... thanks for pointing that out razyl; you learn something new everyday, even at my age ;).

This might be true in the US, but is not true for Australian copyright law.

[bnlearle]

Any link to showing that Aussie copyright law states that the person who is shot owns the rights? That's a) hard to believe and b) a stupid law.

Honestly, just use it. People on internet forums make WAY too big a deal about this stuff. Seriously.

The old saying of it being easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission comes to mind. Think worst case scenario. You won't go to jail. You won't be sued. You'll at the very worst receive a pissy email from the shooter or bride saying "you can't use these!" to which you reply with a 20x30 stretched canvas and a charming apology. Sure, in theory maybe worse could happen - but I've NEVER heard of anything bad happening using this method.

Ask and you likely won't get in this case. So either don't ask and use (and be prepared in the .1% chance to take them down with a sweet apology - won't likely happen anyway) or just don't use. Most people won't freely sign a contract that says that a stranger can use their image/likeness for whatever they please ;)

Bobby

[collierportraits]

In the US, as I understand it, work shot for hire belongs NOT to the shooter, but to the company (photographer) you are working under. Now, work shot for yourself remains your copyright. (Again, in the US)

However, to the OP, what is your question? Can you use the images legally? Or is your question ethically/morally?

I agree with Bobby. "It's always easier to ask for forgiveness..."

[lil_miss]

Any link to showing that Aussie copyright law states that the person who is shot owns the rights? That's a) hard to believe and b) a stupid law.

Honestly, just use it. People on internet forums make WAY too big a deal about this stuff. Seriously.

The old saying of it being easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission comes to mind. Think worst case scenario. You won't go to jail. You won't be sued. You'll at the very worst receive a pissy email from the shooter or bride saying "you can't use these!" to which you reply with a 20x30 stretched canvas and a charming apology. Sure, in theory maybe worse could happen - but I've NEVER heard of anything bad happening using this method.

Ask and you likely won't get in this case. So either don't ask and use (and be prepared in the .1% chance to take them down with a sweet apology - won't likely happen anyway) or just don't use. Most people won't freely sign a contract that says that a stranger can use their image/likeness for whatever they please ;)

Bobby

Great way to put it ! :) :)

[*Mike*]

Any link to showing that Aussie copyright law states that the person who is shot owns the rights? That's a) hard to believe and b) a stupid law.

The old saying of it being easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission comes to mind...

This blows my mind... First, because many countries have different copyright laws than the US. I believe even Canada has a copyright law more along the lines of what has been described in the previous post. And secondly, the same photogs that rant and rave about someone scanning their images and violating their copyright turn around and advocate doing whatever you want even if it is unethical or illegal. I'm sure clients rationalize the same way - "What's the worst that he can do if I print off 4x6's at Walmart? It's stupid to have to pay for photos of myself from a session I paid for anyway..."

Regardless, this post is a great reminder of the need for contracts. I can't imagine shooting for someone, or hiring a second shooter, without using a contract. It strikes me as completely irresponsible...

[jgrussell]

Any link to showing that Aussie copyright law states that the person who is shot owns the rights? That's a) hard to believe and b) a stupid law. The fact that it ain't done the way we do it does NOT make it stupid. Different strokes for different folks, okay? The Australia Copyright Council has a PDF on its website (http://www.copyright.org.au/) and it explains it (http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/G058.pdf) clearly:
For a photographer to be the first owner of a commissioned photograph taken before 30 July 1998, the client must have agreed, before the photograph was taken, that the photographer would own copyright. For a photographer to be the first owner of copyright in a photograph commissioned for a “private or domestic purpose” which was taken after 30 July 1998, the client must have agreed, before the photograph was taken, that the photographer would own copyright. (Copyright will automatically be owned by the photographer for a photograph commissioned for any purpose other than a “private or domestic purpose” after 30 July 1998, unless there is an agreement to the contrary with the client.)

[razyl]

ah - I stand corrected..... thanks for pointing that out razyl; you learn something new everyday, even at my age ;).

No worries, it's just different to the US laws (as someone posted below). I dont quite agree with it, and I know that the AIPP here are trying to lobby for it to be changed to the US approach.

[razyl]

The fact that it ain't done the way we do it does NOT make it stupid. Different strokes for different folks, okay? The Australia Copyright Council has a PDF on its website (http://www.copyright.org.au/) and it explains it (http://www.copyright.org.au/information/introduction/G058.pdf) clearly:For a photographer to be the first owner of a commissioned photograph taken before 30 July 1998, the client must have agreed, before the photograph was taken, that the photographer would own copyright. For a photographer to be the first owner of copyright in a photograph commissioned for a “private or domestic purpose” which was taken after 30 July 1998, the client must have agreed, before the photograph was taken, that the photographer would own copyright. (Copyright will automatically be owned by the photographer for a photograph commissioned for any purpose other than a “private or domestic purpose” after 30 July 1998, unless there is an agreement to the contrary with the client.)


Yep that's why wedding photographers (or for any other 'private / domestic' events) in Australia should have a contract with EVERY client.... it's commercial suicide otherwise. Imagine not being legally able to use the great images you take for marketing, sample albums, at expos, etc?

Now to the OP, you dont have a legal right to use the images, that is pretty much cut and dried. And although you would probably get away (legally) with using them I would strongly suggest talking to the primary shooter about it all because there are some ethical / business issues that could arise from their use. Better to keep it all above board i reckon.

Darryn

[bnlearle]

The fact that it ain't done the way we do it does NOT make it stupid. Different strokes for different folks, okay?
Oh please... Don't try and paint me as some hick who thinks only the Uhmerrican way is right. I've lived and traveled all over this world and love it. Funny that if someone thinks something of non-american origin is dumb, they are automatically imbiciles who can't think for themselves - just disliking something because it's different. :rolleyes: Gotta love stereotypes (I see you're American and this is more a general annoyance of mine - not completely directed at you ;))

I thought it was stupid because I took it to it's end result. I was told that people in your photos own the copyright. So my few months worth of photos when I was in Australia basically wouldn't be mine since there are people in many of them. That would be stupid, in my opinion. Fine if it's not in someone else's opinion, but it is in mine ;)

The fact that it is limited to private engagements changes things up a bit. I still like our law better because I feel it is better - not because it's American.

This blows my mind... First, because many countries have different copyright laws than the US. I believe even Canada has a copyright law more along the lines of what has been described in the previous post. And secondly, the same photogs that rant and rave about someone scanning their images and violating their copyright turn around and advocate doing whatever you want even if it is unethical or illegal. I'm sure clients rationalize the same way - "What's the worst that he can do if I print off 4x6's at Walmart? It's stupid to have to pay for photos of myself from a session I paid for anyway..."

Regardless, this post is a great reminder of the need for contracts. I can't imagine shooting for someone, or hiring a second shooter, without using a contract. It strikes me as completely irresponsible...
I'm not the same photographer ;) I couldn't care less if clients take 4x6's to Wal-Mart.

It's easy to equate small things as big things - but I'm too much a pragmatist. I also don't hold everyone to sainthood. Everyone has their own set of morals. In the big picture, posting your own photographs to show the world what you can do isn't just a big deal to me. Selling that photograph for 30k and billboarding it up in Hollywood? Bigger deal to me. Is that inconsistent? Maybe so. But my thought process leads me to see there's a difference, is all. And that difference makes me not really care about one whilst caring about the other.

But again, this comes from the mindset that copyright is immediately the photographers (and I believe that is the way it should be - whether it is legally or not).

Bobby

[tim]

Bobby, it might be like NZ that whoever commissions the photograph owns the copyright, unless it's agreed beforehand copyright stays with the photographer. No idea.

Are you still in Asia are you back in the US?

To the OP, if a 2nd used images taken at a wedding while helping me without permission i'd never use them again. The contract I have with my 2nd spells out usage, which is they can use it in a printed portfolio, but not online, and not in competitions without written permission. This is so I can keep control of what happens with my customers images. Reasonable requests would generally be granted.

[bnlearle]

Back is the US :) Nice to be home after being gone a couple months. Taking off in a couple weeks back to Europe though, as it looks. ALMOST took the plunge to NZ too. Would've loved to hang out...

And I agree with you about not using a 2nd shooter again. Only reason I don't really care in this regard is because the primary didn't even have a contract - no less a contract that specified anything. Odds are, if they weren't professional enough to do that, they didn't have one for the client and it's just a bunch of people who don't really know what they're doing and as long as people aren't doing things that I think are straight harmful - I just don't care that much.

[lil_miss]

Oh we would love to see you in NZ :D its not far from Thailand ;P

[ofdphoto]

It's not a stupid law, it's just a law. It only applies to domestic photography, not commercial (i.e. weddings, family events and portraits, from memory), and most photographers (including me) insist on ownership of copyright in their contracts anyway. In the absence of an agreement, the buyer of photographic services has the most rights. Why not?

@the OP: I suspect the main shooter would have had such an agreement with the client, which covers their interest in the images. Check on this tho. In the absence of an agreement (even a verbal one) between you and the main shooter, however, it gets messy. I suspect you qualify as an "employee" in this scenario, which, again from memory, means the main shooter retains copyright of your images unless you agree otherwise.

Long story short: communicate with the main shooter. Make sure they had a proper agreement with the couple(s), and agree on terms of use for your images. If you do it verbally, confirm it all with them via email to cover your butt. Even if none of this is legally necessary (tho I would call it "expedient" at least), you should do it to ensure you maintain a good working relationship with all involved.

[jessika]

hi .. well i never had a contract with the photographer .. i just rock up with her and shoot. sometimes she gets the images and sometimes she dosnt ..

[bnlearle]

It's not a stupid law, it's just a law. It only applies to domestic photography, not commercial (i.e. weddings, family events and portraits, from memory), and most photographers (including me) insist on ownership of copyright in their contracts anyway. In the absence of an agreement, the buyer of photographic services has the most rights. Why not?

Again, I was told that if there are people in it - and you don't have their permission - it's not yours. That is stupid. It's also not the case ;) Therefore I never said the CURRENT law is stupid. If one existed as I said (where people in the photo own it plain and simple) - then that would be a stupid law, imo.

And here's my "why not." I happen to think it's lame that the buyer of art gets to be the owner of art. I don't think Australia is dumb. I freaking love Australia. Spent two beautiful months there and couldn't think more highly of the people (as a whole). Not specifying that for you, Luke. I know you know I don't hate Australia ;) (Luke and I are friends)

But yeah, I think it's the wrong approach. I think copyright being assumed to the artist is far superior as an entire rule and if the buyer wants the copyright - HE/SHE has to do the legwork to get it and not the artist. I think the other way has less respect for art and more respect for commerce (pointless respect, I might add as I see no benefit for it [explained below]). Within reason, of course, I tend to prefer respect for art on these matters.

Now it has the potential to become somewhat stupid because I imagine it's fairly unnecessary (and that the assumed owner gets no real life, pragmatic benefit - life is just made more difficult for the photographer). My hunch is that you, Luke, are not the only photographer who's realized a way around this law. My hunch is that the majority of photographers value their work enough to retain copyright and specify in the contract - thus making the law somewhat obsolete or unnecessary - giving little real life gain to the buyer. I like necessary laws. Unnecessary ones, however? Well I've been known to think most of them are a bit... stupid :p

Bobby

[bnlearle]

Again, I'd like to restate that my advice could be much different if the storyline were different. If the OP said something like "I second shoot for a photographer and his/her contract says I can't use photos. That's dumb, right? Should I use them anyway?" ;)

Bobby

[ofdphoto]

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the law, but it certainly forces me to explain to my clients why I'm getting them to sign my contract ... and that's a good thing IMO! I like clarity :) Also, I think people like to assume that they own photos of themselves, especially if they're paying for them (heck, I had trouble explaining why this isn't true to my own sister!), so the law protects them and their silly assumptions. And again, it only applies for situations where a photographer is being paid for personal images to be taken.

Of course I as a photographer value my art highly enough to expect to own the copyright to my images, so, like every other self-respecting professional in Australia, I make sure that I do (except in rare situations where images are intensely personal, e.g. early infant loss photography ... which I'm yet to actually do, but have volunteered for).

So, the law has some strengths. If protecting silly people is a strength ;)

@jessika: your latest post confirms to me that you need to communicate with said photographer. If you make a decision on this based on an assumption, you're bound to cause unnecessary offence and damage.

[bnlearle]

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind the law, but it certainly forces me to explain to my clients why I'm getting them to sign my contract ... and that's a good thing IMO! I like clarity :) Also, I think people like to assume that they own photos of themselves, especially if they're paying for them (heck, I had trouble explaining why this isn't true to my own sister!), so the law protects them and their silly assumptions. And again, it only applies for situations where a photographer is being paid for personal images to be taken.

Of course I as a photographer value my art highly enough to expect to own the copyright to my images, so, like every other self-respecting professional in Australia, I make sure that I do (except in rare situations where images are intensely personal, e.g. early infant loss photography ... which I'm yet to actually do, but have volunteered for).

So, the law has some strengths. If protecting silly people is a strength ;)

Fair enough :p

@jessika: your latest post confirms to me that you need to communicate with said photographer. If you make a decision on this based on an assumption, you're bound to cause unnecessary offence and damage.
It's definitely not a foolish thing to contact the photographer - so I'm not suggesting otherwise, necessarily. But really, nothing is "bound" to happen. In fact, nothing could be all that happens. Odds are she'll replace these beginner images with more experienced ones in a year. That time could easily go by with nothing happening.

Not saying the OP should do that - just saying that acting like if she's doomed if she does isn't realistic ;)

Honestly though, if the primary photographer didn't specify, I see little problems with assuming they don't care. Nothing wrong with assuming they might and asking, either. But the primary dropped the ball here. If I didn't discuss this matter with a second, I would see no problem with them assuming they could (and would) use the images.

Again, I really think stuff like this tends to be blown out of proportion on internet forums when it means very little in everyday, practical, real life. Not saying it's unimportant, or that it shouldn't be discussed even. Just that it seems to be taken to seriously on forums (at least that's how I see it).

[jacuff]

Again, I really think stuff like this tends to be blown out of proportion on internet forums when it means very little in everyday, practical, real life. Not saying it's unimportant, or that it shouldn't be discussed even. Just that it seems to be taken to seriously on forums (at least that's how I see it).

Part of it is because while it's just an internet forum, many people are going to be identifiable by their website/business. Their conduct on an internet forum could also be perceived as the way they conduct their business. While you may not advertise your participation on a forum to potential clients, those that are quite good at being an internet sleuth will probably find you out. You could run into a problem when your conduct on a forum doesn't match up with your everyday business conduct.

[Jeff]

So just out of curiosity, in images with more than one person who would own the copyright, the group equally? To legally use an image of Bride, Groom & both sets of parents do you need permission from all 6? If there's one holdout, what happens?

[jessika]

thanks everyone .. thid has helped me a fair bit. hi jacuff! i remeber you from yahoo questions :)

[jacuff]

thanks everyone .. thid has helped me a fair bit. hi jacuff! i remeber you from yahoo questions :)

Hey, yeah I remember you too. I didn't know for sure if that was you... but I thought it might be you, now I know for sure. :) I don't hang around there anymore. Seems like I was always answer the same questions. Maybe a couple weeks too late, but Welcome to POTN.

[Bobster]

hey you want a stupid law? in France i recall from one of my photography magazines if you want to publish a photo which contains people in the picture, you need written permission from every person in that photo! (or something along those lines)

[bnlearle]

Or you could be like a handful of French photographers I've found who just have my photos in their gallery... Much easier, I'm guessing :)