DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Who owns the copyright on wedding photos?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/15/2004 04:41:38 PM · #1
I just read something written by a girl who said that she took the negatives of her engagement shots in to Target and they wouldn't print them without a signed form from the company who took the photos. Is this true? That just sound so...hokey. Do wedding photographers retain the rights for the negatives, even if they've sold/given them to the bride and groom?

12/15/2004 04:42:41 PM · #2
If the photographer sells the negatives they need to sign over the rights as well. Nobody should/will print them without the signed release to print them. If the copyrights are sold, however, this should come with a release to print them.

M

Message edited by author 2004-12-15 17:02:40.
 12/15/2004 04:46:53 PM · #3
In my experience (not necessarily wedding shots, but others), places like that are coming under a lot of scrutiny about copyright violations. While I was in Wal-mart the other day, someone came in with a school picture of their granddaughter, and Wal-Mart wouldn't replicate it unless it was a)over 75 years old or b)the customer had signed permission from the photog to print it.

Frequently, I take shots for people but let them get the prints. They advised me to give my "clients" a letter of permission to make prints. So far, with or without the letter, the only person that has been hassled is me -- over my own pictures. I was flattered and annoyed at the same time.
 12/15/2004 04:47:31 PM · #4
They probably signed a contract beforehand ... the terms should be spelled out there.

If it constitutes a "work for hire," then the client owns the copyright -- the photographer would need a release to use them in an ad or brochure.
 12/15/2004 04:53:25 PM · #5
Originally posted by mk:
I just read something written by a girl who said that she took the negatives of her engagement shots in to Target and they wouldn't print them without a signed form from the company who took the photos.


I'd never heard of that before either until a client told me that had happened to a friend of hers!

I usually sell all my negatives so I will start including a "release" form so to speak.
 12/15/2004 04:56:24 PM · #6
I always maintain copyright on every image i make for wedding clients, but i do give them rights to make re-prints for personal use and sharing with family/friends. If the photographer signs over copyright, then the client could (though not likely) re-sell the images as their own.
 12/15/2004 04:59:15 PM · #7
Interesting. Our photographer gave us the negatives with no release (although it may be in the contract, I'll have to check) and I've had no problems having prints made. I didn't know!
 12/15/2004 04:59:56 PM · #8
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I always maintain copyright on every image i make for wedding clients, but i do give them rights to make re-prints for personal use and sharing with family/friends. If the photographer signs over copyright, then the client could (though not likely) re-sell the images as their own.


Same here (I sell negatives but retain copyright, it's in the contract)..it's also in teh contract that they can reprint if they buy the negatives. The problem is most people don't read contracts. So I think I'll start putting in a separate sheet ..with BIG letters and TINY words so they can take it directly to Wal-Mart. LOL
 12/15/2004 05:01:53 PM · #9
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
... I'll start putting in a separate sheet ..with BIG letters and TINY words so they can take it directly to Wal-Mart. LOL

Please post a copy when you're done! : )
 12/15/2004 06:48:10 PM · #10
I include a PDF version of my signed Limited Copyright Release right on the CD with the photos for my clients. That was it is always available when they take it in for prints.
 12/15/2004 07:47:04 PM · #11
Normally there is a screen on the print from CD/CF etc machines about copyrighted images. I have printed out some images with copyrights on the image and not been asked about them, though. However I was talking to someone I had sold some 4x6 images to the other day and she mentioned how she was going to use the kodak instant machines to make an 8x10 of one of the images. I havent used the kodak machines so dont know how the quality is but I dont believe those are handled by any of the lab people at walmart/target etc. In a way it's somewhat disappointing to think that after you sell someone an image they can basically do anything they want with it, including claiming it as their own.
 12/15/2004 08:48:07 PM · #12
When I worked in a minilab, we were not allowed to print commercial portraits from negs or make dupe prints unless there was a release or the customer was the photographer. Most professional photo paper includes "Do Not Copy" or similar languaue on the back. Companies that do allow such printing risk being sued if the photographer finds out.

I had one guy try to tell me that his name was "Olan Mills" and that was his name in the corner. He stomped off after I asked to see his ID.
 12/15/2004 09:36:29 PM · #13
I think the reason why is because the profesional photographer has taken his time and his skill to do a great job and when he prints them out its to his standard and he charges high accordingly
Which I think is fair enough after all you get what you pay for and they are usually very professional and should last a life time also if the copyright remains with the photographer he is the one who benifits

If you take a print or negative to the local store to get it printed while we may be happy with the result and pay a lot less
It may not be the best quaility and takes away the skill and quality of the photography
Usually it's top dollar for the main prints of Bride and Groom
but for family and friends I am sure the normal prints should be alright and could be obtained at a cheaper rate

I havent any money but if you are getting a professional to do the job Expect to pay high and get great results
Get family and friends to do the rest.
A couple of weddings I have been to lately have put several $10 throw away cameras on each table and asked guests to take photos of each other and the couple and some of the best photos have been from them more personal and such a lot of fun of course you always get the idiot who ruins the photo. But if you are not well off thats the way to go

You can of course get the prints and cheat scan them all and print them yourself. But I didnt say that did I?
My son paid top dollar for his wedding photo about $1000 framed plus albums my little one alone was $250 so I scanned some of the proofs for overseas sending to friends. I didnt sell them so made no profit but I suppose niether did the photographer on that but he did make a lot of money so all should be happy
They dont copy kids photos either but scanners can
Say no more !
I feel almost guilty but not much!
 12/15/2004 09:49:48 PM · #14
Originally posted by mk:
I just read something written by a girl who said that she took the negatives of her engagement shots in to Target and they wouldn't print them without a signed form from the company who took the photos. Is this true? That just sound so...hokey. Do wedding photographers retain the rights for the negatives, even if they've sold/given them to the bride and groom?


I do weddings and my contract states that I own the copyright and can use the photos for ads if I wish to. This is standard in most wedding contracts.
 12/15/2004 09:59:03 PM · #15
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If it constitutes a "work for hire," then the client owns the copyright -- the photographer would need a release to use them in an ad or brochure.


How is hiring a photographer to take your wedding photos different from this? Isn't that "work for hire"?
 12/15/2004 09:59:44 PM · #16
I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I didn't mean that the photographer retaining rights is hokey...I just hadn't heard of such things and wondered if it was something Target was making up. It seems like a difficult situation to be in control of if the negatives are given away. But now I am fully learn-ed...thanks!
 12/15/2004 11:48:01 PM · #17
Originally posted by mariomel:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If it constitutes a "work for hire," then the client owns the copyright -- the photographer would need a release to use them in an ad or brochure.


How is hiring a photographer to take your wedding photos different from this? Isn't that "work for hire"?


Under US law, "work made for hire" is a legal term with some complex rules. Suffice it to say that simply because you pay someone to create something for you does not necessarily render the creation a "work made for hire." Since I practice this type of law and don't want to state anything that someone may misconstrue as legal advice, I'll point to this link that hits at least some of the basics...

//www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
 12/16/2004 02:44:25 AM · #18
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Under US law, "work made for hire" is a legal term with some complex rules. Suffice it to say that simply because you pay someone to create something for you does not necessarily render the creation a "work made for hire." Since I practice this type of law and don't want to state anything that someone may misconstrue as legal advice, I'll point to this link that hits at least some of the basics...

//www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


That's interesting...

Under NZ law if I employ someone to create something, and a suitable contract (verbal or written) exists to say that I am paying person X to create object Y, the Y belongs to me, lock stock and barrel unless spelt out...

I'm not a laywer, so I wont give advice, but I was on the 'servant' end of a business deal gone wrong. I had a written contract to do some design work (Electronics design, not art, but similar concept) for a company. The renumeration I was to recieve was in the form of volume profits from the making of the design. So basically I was to suck-up the cost of development and make my money from manufaturing the product.

Long story short, we only ever made 2 of the product, and the company went broke. I sold their product to a third company on the basis that I had not been paid as per the contract, and therefor did not create the design as their servant. They took me to court, I won...

Under NZ law it is implied that all work undertaken as a servant belongs to the employer, unless specifically stated in a contract..

Cheers, Chris.

edit: premature post. :-)

Message edited by author 2004-12-16 02:46:59.
 12/16/2004 05:15:57 AM · #19
About using the kodak koisk: It doesn't matter. They will still be asked for proof that they are the photographer or that they have permission to copy because the pictures will have to be handed in to a salesperson to be paid for. Walmart has asked for proof for at least 3 years. They are the strictest with that.
Thanks for the reminder. I will start adding a permission release on my cd's. Anyone have one they can share that says I hold the copyright?
 12/16/2004 05:43:55 AM · #20
I am sorry, still new, but how does it work with digital copyright? Photos on CD can always be printed and replicated, or am I wrong? How can you proove that it is your work if there are no negatives?
 12/16/2004 07:13:56 AM · #21
So many people have been talking about their contracts. Can you guys post links to copies of your contracts? I have been looking for a good one. It would be appreciated.

If you don't want to post them if you could just email them to the email address listed in my profile I would really appreciate it!!!

Thanks!!!
 12/16/2004 07:33:02 AM · #22
i ran across this Walmart story a while back. It has some pretty interesting and informative entries, especially the ones from Kelly Flanagan.
 12/16/2004 07:51:22 AM · #23
Originally posted by skiprow:
i ran across this Walmart story a while back. It has some pretty interesting and informative entries, especially the ones from Kelly Flanagan.


Thank you for that, so what exactly needs to be done with digital photos? My photos are always being transferred from the chip onto my PC and I change the name of the file to date and location, but would that be enough proof to show that I have taken the photographs?

I think it is great that those places do check and are being cautious of printing copyrighted work, but if it gets me into difficulties to print my own work?
 12/16/2004 07:57:40 AM · #24
Originally posted by Sandymaya:
I think it is great that those places do check and are being cautious of printing copyrighted work, but if it gets me into difficulties to print my own work?

the point of the original poster in the walmart story was that he was producing professional quality portraits--that is why ownership was called into question. if you take in a cd with a lot of stuff (birthday parties, bugs, kids, pets--you know, normal stuff), you will not have any problems. if you are producing professional quality work, you may dash up to walmart once (like the guy in the story), but more than likely, you'll find a professional printing service to use (maybe even DPC Prints...).
 12/16/2004 08:22:56 AM · #25
Originally posted by mk:
I just read something written by a girl who said that she took the negatives of her engagement shots in to Target and they wouldn't print them without a signed form from the company who took the photos. Is this true? That just sound so...hokey. Do wedding photographers retain the rights for the negatives, even if they've sold/given them to the bride and groom?


Depends on your business model/ approach. Some shoot weddings for a lower cost, with the assumption/ implication that a certain number of high quality prints will be purchased. Copyright law protects the photographer in this case and they retain ownership of the the negatives. Getting cheap copies printed at Target does 2 things to damage the photographer:

1/ they don't get the money
2/ it potentially damages their reputation as they lose control of the print quality

Suppose you shot an event and gave away all the negatives/ digital files. The person makes some print on a 10 year old colour dot matrix printer or a really cheap 4 colour ink jet. Then shows the crappy prints to everyone they know as examples of 'your' work. Same thing with copies from a print made at Target or scanned on a colour copier.
Many people don't care so much or aren't as fussy about image quality as we might be - but they get to show it to future potential customers too.

Some photographers price their packages differently so don't expect to profit from the print sales and don't care or haven't been damaged yet by the poor print quality issues that arise.

Message edited by author 2004-12-16 08:24:57.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 06:22:13 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 06:22:13 PM EDT.