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 26 - 43 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/16/2004 08:44:09 AM · #26
Originally posted by skiprow:
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...).


Yes, I was thinking of using DPC, but being from the UK, I do not know if there are any issues with Taxes ?
 12/16/2004 09:02:41 AM · #27
Originally posted by ohmark:
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...

That is also how it currently is in Canada. See this thread though... the Professional Photographers of Canada have a bill before the Canadian senate that would allow the photographer to retain the copyright. The thread I linked to has a link to an interesting Canadian radio station interview where people are fighting this proposed change in Canada.

FWIW, back when I used to have prints done at Sam's Club, I also got the "this looks professional" thing. I had to show them my business card and sign a "copyright release form" (for my own work. Go figure.) That was the impetus to find a real lab... Sam's Club rarely seems any of my photos any more.
 12/16/2004 12:47:21 PM · #28
So let me get this straight...

In the U.S., Assuming there is not contract, if I hire a photographer to shoot my wedding, I get copies of prints. He keeps the copyright.
I cannot reprodude those prints without a release from him, and he cannot use my images without a release from me. Is that it?

In Canada, again without a contract, if I hire a photographer to shoot my wedding, I get copies and copyright? I can therefore do whatever I want with my images? The photographer does not get any rights on the images?

I feel somehow that that makes sense. In Canada I mean. Why should the photographer retain the copyright to the images I asked (and paid) him to take? Without me, there would be no images to be taken.

12/16/2004 01:59:52 PM · #29
Originally posted by mavrik:
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


Actually, not true. Copyright release is only required when making copies of a photo from a print. Not from a negative. If a customer has a negative, then the photographer has granted an implied release on that image.

Now if a customer comes to me with a print from their wedding and wants me to copy it, that's a totally different ball of wax. I've gotten yelled at several times this holiday for refusing to scan a copy of their wedding photo into a greeting card with no release.

The whole copyright issue gets really fun when you have to start dealing with images from the 40s-70s where many of the photographers are now dead. :P

Clara
 12/16/2004 02:00:39 PM · #30
But without his/her equipment, trained eye, editing skills, etc. you'd not have a picture either.

I picture it more like that of an artist doing a painting. You might be the subject, but he's doing all the work. He creates something from nothing with the materials and supplies the he provides. And I suppose in this example, his signature on the work is the copyright.

Conversely a "work for hire" job would be more like that of, say, a software programmer. They work for a company that has hired them to come up with a product that they are guiding the development of. The company retains all the rights to the end result.

Maybe it'd be easier to specify what you are paying for. Are you paying for the end result or the time for the production of the product? i.e. for the photog, the client does not care how many hours gets put into the setup, shoot, editing, and development of the pics. They only want the pic. Whereas the programmer is being paid by the hour to work on the final product.

Dunno...I'm just rambling ;)

edit: you beat me by almost a minute ;) this was in reply to the entry two notches up...

Message edited by author 2004-12-16 14:01:54.
 12/16/2004 02:01:16 PM · #31
Originally posted by blemt:
If a customer has a negative, then the photographer has granted an implied release on that image.


That sounds like it would make much more sense.
 12/16/2004 02:03:59 PM · #32
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by blemt:
If a customer has a negative, then the photographer has granted an implied release on that image.


That sounds like it would make much more sense.


But what about in the case of digital shots where there aren't any negatives?
 12/16/2004 02:05:51 PM · #33
You get a job with a newspaper - as a photographer. You take news shots. They belong to hte newspaper, lock stock and copyright.

You free lance for the same paper and happen by a car wreck, take a pic, send it to the paper - you get paid and they publish it, but the copyright is yours, so you can then sell it to the National Inquirer if you so choose.
 12/16/2004 02:08:15 PM · #34
I haven't read the entire thread but I know someone mentioned being that someone was going to take a 4 x 6 print and then have it turned into an 8 x 10 by using one of the Kodak machines. There is a very simple and easy way to stop this in the future. Take a black perment marker and mark the back of the photo either with your name or a simple little hash mark but do it in an area where on the front is lighter in color and near the center of the photo. It won't hurt the print, it isn't visable on the front of the photo however it does stop people from being able to scan the image.

The Picture People do this all the time then cover the hash mark with a sticker of quality and the customer never knows unless they try to scan the image for some reason.

12/16/2004 02:20:06 PM · #35
I would think that whoever posesses the original source legally has the rights with exception to any written agreements that may have been made
 12/16/2004 03:14:27 PM · #36
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You get a job with a newspaper - as a photographer. You take news shots. They belong to hte newspaper, lock stock and copyright.

You free lance for the same paper and happen by a car wreck, take a pic, send it to the paper - you get paid and they publish it, but the copyright is yours, so you can then sell it to the National Inquirer if you so choose.


This makes sense to me.

But if I hire a photographer for my wedding, and tell him to take pics of me and my wife in the church, park, party, pics of my family, cousins, kids, cats, shoes, whatever, why would I not keep the copyright to those images? If he just happended to be walking by and took pics at the park, without me asking, then yes he would own the copyright, but I don't see why he should if I paid him to do a specific job.
12/16/2004 03:55:59 PM · #37
Originally posted by mariomel:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You get a job with a newspaper - as a photographer. You take news shots. They belong to hte newspaper, lock stock and copyright.

You free lance for the same paper and happen by a car wreck, take a pic, send it to the paper - you get paid and they publish it, but the copyright is yours, so you can then sell it to the National Inquirer if you so choose.


This makes sense to me.

But if I hire a photographer for my wedding, and tell him to take pics of me and my wife in the church, park, party, pics of my family, cousins, kids, cats, shoes, whatever, why would I not keep the copyright to those images? If he just happended to be walking by and took pics at the park, without me asking, then yes he would own the copyright, but I don't see why he should if I paid him to do a specific job.


Think of 'work for hire' as referring to work done by an employee. If you hire a photographer to shoot pictures of your wedding, party, event etc. he is not your employee any more than the plumber you hire to fix your sink. He is still employed by either himself or the studio he works for. You have a contractual agreement regarding the pictures, he can't sell them to a third party without your consent, but the photographer retains the actual copyright.

If you were to hire a photographer as an employee, give him a regular paycheck, withold taxes, pay into Social Security, Disability Insurance and all that the employer/employee relationship implies, then you could claim the copyright to all the pictures he produced while in your employ.
 12/16/2004 04:43:34 PM · #38
The question of who owns the copyrights from wedding photos really should be spelled out in the contract. If you feel that you need the rights then find a photographer who is willing to have this spelled out in the contract. There will be any number of photographers who will refuse to work under this condition so you will find yourself limited in the choice of photographers.

If you are the photographer then and you wish to retain the copyrights then you should really spell this out in the contract, whether you believe this rights are yours by default or not. If it is not spelled out in the contract then you risk a situation where your customer claims you told them that they could have the rights, with out a written contract this becomes one personĂ¢€™s word against anotherĂ¢€™s.

By the same token donĂ¢€™t simply accept a photographers word that you will have the copyrights to the photos, again get it spelled out.

You will also want to spell out who gets the negatives or digital files, just because you have the copyrights does not mean automatically that you get the negatives.
12/16/2004 04:50:53 PM · #39
Originally posted by scottwilson:
You will also want to spell out who gets the negatives or digital files, just because you have the copyrights does not mean automatically that you get the negatives.

Good summary. However, if you own the copyright then you have a right to possession of the negative/file -- the right to make copies implies the ability to do so as well. Although, if I had any expensive negs like that I'd rather the photographer archive then than have to do that myself.
 12/16/2004 04:51:17 PM · #40
I provide 4x6 prints with each wedding package as well as the negatives for $150 extra. I don't offer enlargements, but do point people to good places to get them done. And in my contract it states I always retain the copyright. Thus far, this system works well.
 12/16/2004 05:25:32 PM · #41
I worked in a Camera Store for 6 years. Wedding photos were always a headache for us. When I started the professionals that we saw on a regular basis all kept the negatives and the rights to reproduce them stayed with the photographer. I can tell you more than one customer got angry with us when they brought in 4x6 proofs and wanted to make copies and we wouldn't without a release. About 4 years ago (so my 3rd year at the store) there was a huge switch, the local pros all started including the negatives as part of the package- a set number of prints/proofs + a couple of enlargements. Many photographers got to the point that all they did was provide proofs and if the people wanted enlargements they got a release and the negatives. I had 2 photographers tell me that they wish they had started that years ago. It has long been a belief in the photo industry that reprints are where you make your money. Around here people started figuring out that they were spending more time making out reprint orders than they were shooting. One local photographer even has all the negatives scanned to CD (although she is shooting more digital now) and the CD label has the release written directly on it. It simply says that the person has purchased all rights to reproduce the photos found on the CD.
 12/16/2004 05:29:50 PM · #42
Originally posted by vxpra:
One local photographer even has all the negatives scanned to CD (although she is shooting more digital now) and the CD label has the release written directly on it.


that's a great idea!
 12/16/2004 05:57:31 PM · #43
Originally posted by RobCoursey:
But what about in the case of digital shots where there aren't any negatives?


It gets much more subjective and trickier.

Clara
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 05:33:47 AM

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 05:33:47 AM EDT.