Who own the rights?

[ZGMF-X20A]

I'm starting of my business with focus on wedding and engagements, however I lack images in my portfolio. Do I have the right to use people I have shot (Bride, groom, attendee, etc) in my album/slideshow/website for the purpose of portfolio?

If I don't, I can always offer bride and groom discount for the photography service in return for model release agreement. However, what should I do for shots including the attendee, DJ, MC, restaurant, waiter/waitress, etc?

[DozerLYP]

You own the right of your images. You can use them in your portfolio, but you can't use them for advertising (mailers, flayers ext.) without them signing a realest.

[ZGMF-X20A]

Thanks Dozer, would a website slideshow be considered advertising?

[cory1848]

There is a lot of conflicting information about what can and cant be used. Yes you own the rights but that doesnt mean you can use them anyway you choose. There is a fine line between editorial use and commercial use and I believe that line is drawn by a judge deciding a case. I would think technically if you are using them on you webpage for promoting your business, that is commercial usage. You are using the images to generate income. However, using them in a blog, may just be considered editorial usage in which no release is needed. Usage laws havent really caught up with the technology of the internet so I dont think there is any real concrete answer. If someone knows of one, please share.

I have a model release in my wedding contract, I dont discount specifically for that, however if they want full control, that cost more.

[ZGMF-X20A]

Hey Cory, that's a great idea. Thanks for sharing.

[RDKirk]

At least three states in the US have had cases that defined the difference between non-commercial and commercial fairly clearly. NY, FL, and NE have identified commercial use as that which sells or promotes the sale of a product or service not including the photograph itself.

In other words, you can sell the photograph and that sale in itself is not a commercial use of the photograph. You can even use that photograph in an advertisement to sell it, and that's not a commercial use (for instance, in an eBay ad). That's why news magazines can use their own editorial covers in ads to sell the magazine. That's not considered a commercial use of the photograph, but rather a promotion of an editorial or artistic use...which isn't commercial. Get it?

But using the photograph to sell another product or to sell your services as a photographer would be commercial use.

The line can get fuzzy, though. If you create an editorial website with contact information, clearly you have identified yourself a photographer and given people a way to contact you for additional services, but is that a commercial use?

[ZGMF-X20A]

From here I think it's best to include model release form :)

[cory1848]

At least three states in the US have had cases that defined the difference between non-commercial and commercial fairly clearly. NY, FL, and NE have identified commercial use as that which sells or promotes the sale of a product or service not including the photograph itself.

In other words, you can sell the photograph and that sale in itself is not a commercial use of the photograph. You can even use that photograph in an advertisement to sell it, and that's not a commercial use (for instance, in an eBay ad). That's why news magazines can use their own editorial covers in ads to sell the magazine. That's not considered a commercial use of the photograph, but rather a promotion of an editorial or artistic use...which isn't commercial. Get it?

But using the photograph to sell another product or to sell your services as a photographer would be commercial use.

The line can get fuzzy, though. If you create an editorial website with contact information, clearly you have identified yourself a photographer and given people a way to contact you for additional services, but is that a commercial use?

Seems its not as clear as you think it is... Maybe I read the original post incorrectly but as I read it the OP wants to use wedding and engagement photos to promote his wedding photography business. That wedding photography business is a product, hence commercial usage.

I would like to see that case law from Florida, as I live in Florida and have not heard of it. Would be useful information. Care to share where I can find it?

[cory1848]

From here I think it's best to include model release form :)

If you have past clients that you want to use and if you still have their contact info, shoot them an email and ask them. Just tell them that you love the photos so much that you want to portray them on your site and are they ok with that... If they are, email them a model release to sign.

[ZGMF-X20A]

Thanks Cory. Actually I'm shooting TFP for a friend's wedding. I'm doing this to build up my portfolio and also as his wedding gift (he's on a very limited budget). I don't really want to make him sign a form if not needed, but what I learn so far I think it's better to be cautious than sorry.

[Zansho]

Incorporate the model release into your contracts with the bride and groom. I hope you DO have a contract to cover your butt - just trust me on this. Last thing you want is some misunderstanding ruining your friendship.

[cory1848]

Thanks Cory. Actually I'm shooting TFP for a friend's wedding. I'm doing this to build up my portfolio and also as his wedding gift (he's on a very limited budget). I don't really want to make him sign a form if not needed, but what I learn so far I think it's better to be cautious than sorry.

Like Zansho mentions, sign a contract, even if its free. A contract protects both parties for more than just exchange of money. Spell out what you are exactly including by doing this.

[ZGMF-X20A]

What about the other people in the photos? Parents, guests, relatives, etc? How do I get everyone's signature, etc.

Cory, for example on your portfolio and categories, there are pictures where other parties (not including the bride and groom). What can one do about that?