Wedding Photographers and Copyright?

Forums › Off topic › Wedding Photographers and Copyright?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

BDFL - Memuneh
79253 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#850020 6-Jul-2013 10:52

As noted above, using your likeness for commercial use is not an acquired right. Either your family member signed away a release form and didn't know what was being signed, or the photographer in question is a bit dishonest.

timmmay: This is normal. It's so we can make display albums and use them in competitions, though a few may use them for other things that's very rare.

Note that retaining copyright is generally irrelevant to the customer. While I retain copyright I give customers high res images with a license to do anything other than make a profit from them, or allow anyone else to make a profit from them.

And that's how I'd like to see it, but when we had to hire a wedding photographer a few years a back we couldn't find anyone doing it like this.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#850022 6-Jul-2013 11:03

Fair enough the contracts that state photographers have copyright and the customer can veto use. That way the photographer's retains some control over their professional image and the customer retains some control over their personal image.

I have been at two weddings - in the 80s and 90s with film - where professional photographers assigned copyright to the wedding couple for a one-off payment.

sen8or

1787 posts

Uber Geek

#850030 6-Jul-2013 11:18

Save yourself some money, buy a few cameras and give them to people in the wedding party for candid shots. Someone with even a little bit of skill can then take a few nice staged photos.

Wedding albums are nice and all, but once they have done the rounds with the mother in laws, odds are, they will sit in a cupboard somewhere. Couldn't even tell you where ours is to be honest, I'm sure the wife could track it down.

Now a wedding video, that's a bit different, we had a friend do ours who was (could still be?) a camera woman for a tv company, used TV film etc, then mixed it on commercial gear with effects, music etc then cut it down to a 20-30 min "highlights" type movie. Best money we spent, far better than the photos in my opinion.

Must find out about transferring the wedding video from VHS and Beta to DVD one day.....

PDAMan

179 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#850031 6-Jul-2013 11:20

Yes, it is common practice. You need to ask about things like this up front. You will find that any professional photographer has this in their small print on the contract you signed.

If you want an alternative, go to the local university that has a photography course. You might find a great photographer trying to fund their studies. Check their portfolio first though, when you get a top photographer you are paying for years of experience.

You can always negotiate before you sign a contract

Luigi
Helping companies with location based problem solving, blogs and social media
SolomoConsulting
Find me on LinkedIn
Blog http://luigicappel.wordpress.com
Check out my songwriting

insane

3239 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#850063 6-Jul-2013 12:40

sen8or: Save yourself some money, buy a few cameras and give them to people in the wedding party for candid shots. Someone with even a little bit of skill can then take a few nice staged photos.

Well that might sound all fine in theory, but in practice it does not work that well. I hired my friend who is a professional wedding photographer for my wedding in Rarotonga last year, and don't regret the money spent. We haggled over the contract but even as friends I didn't get my way on everything. ie, I didn't get all the .RAWs, only jpegs and the option to get photo's edited/printer again as required.

The pictures taken by my other friends and family were 'ok' but not good enough to be printed. Sure they captured the moment which was great but that's about it.

loceff13

1065 posts

Uber Geek

#850076 6-Jul-2013 13:02

The only worry I would have not having the negatives/raw files would be reprinting years/decades down the track. Do these guys commonly onsell their collections to other firms or have the backups stored somewhere secure in the event of their death?

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#850106 6-Jul-2013 13:58

We went with the cheaper photographer of our time. Results = pathetic. He absolutely lacked composition ability.

One wedding day that can not be rephotographed. Ever.

Of course it might be ok for some, and might not be for others.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

insane

3239 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#850107 6-Jul-2013 14:10

loceff13: The only worry I would have not having the negatives/raw files would be reprinting years/decades down the track. Do these guys commonly onsell their collections to other firms or have the backups stored somewhere secure in the event of their death?

My photographer has three copies of all her RAWs stored on hard drives and DVD in three different locations. I figured that was pretty good.

It's worth asking as it's not cheap to store the TB's & TB's of photos which they churn out.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850117 6-Jul-2013 14:42

Lias: Yes sadly photographers get to keep the copyright on any photo they take, yet another aspect of copyright that needs to be addressed/reformed/disposed of.

You're wrong.

A photographer can choose to assign the copyright, or not to even assert copyright on their images. You are UTTERLY FREE to use a photographer that is prepared to do that.

Hint: The good ones generally don't.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850118 6-Jul-2013 14:45

sen8or: Save yourself some money, buy a few cameras and give them to people in the wedding party for candid shots. Someone with even a little bit of skill can then take a few nice staged photos.

Wedding albums are nice and all, but once they have done the rounds with the mother in laws, odds are, they will sit in a cupboard somewhere. Couldn't even tell you where ours is to be honest, I'm sure the wife could track it down.

Now a wedding video, that's a bit different, we had a friend do ours who was (could still be?) a camera woman for a tv company, used TV film etc, then mixed it on commercial gear with effects, music etc then cut it down to a 20-30 min "highlights" type movie. Best money we spent, far better than the photos in my opinion.

Must find out about transferring the wedding video from VHS and Beta to DVD one day.....

If you honestly think "someone with even a little bit of skill" can produce anything like most decent wedding photographers, you're deluded.

I'm a decent driver, so therefore I could easily replace a professional racing driver? Yeah right.

I guess you may just have incredibly low expectations as well - if that's the case then you're right... But how often do most people get married?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#850120 6-Jul-2013 14:50

The other problem with this practice is trying to track down the photographer after 20+ years to get more prints done if the originals have faded/lost/destroyed. Personally nowadays I would find someone who would provide full digital copies.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#850122 6-Jul-2013 14:51

I'm not a wedding photographer, but do plenty of commercial stuff. I hand over RAW files perhaps 1% of the time, usually only when I know that the person receiving them will know what they're doing. Almost all my clients want to end up with ready to be used images, something that RAW's certainly aren't.

Add that to the fact the files that they don't receive, are probably not fit for the actual brief or unnecessary, no one needs 30 different angles of a wine bottle or a underexposed pair of shoes etc.

I retain the copyright of 99% of my work also, but terms that reflect the intended use given in the brief.

Wedding photographers make money via selling albums/prints etc, so retaining copyright for them is important so they can retain their sales.

As said earlier, most photographers don't make a killing, as they are limited by workable days in a competitive market. If you paid Jack Photographer to shoot your wedding, he can't send Minion Smith to shoot it, he needs to turn up himself.

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#850138 6-Jul-2013 16:20

Talkiet: [

You're wrong.

A photographer can choose to assign the copyright, or not to even assert copyright on their images. You are UTTERLY FREE to use a photographer that is prepared to do that.

Hint: The good ones generally don't.

No, I'm not.. As you say they can assign or not exert the rights to the copyright, but the law gives them the rights automatically. I think copyright should be more like patents or trademark, if you create something and you think its worthy of protection then you can apply to have it copyrighted.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

insane

3239 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#850162 6-Jul-2013 16:39

Lias:

...I think copyright should be more like patents or trademark, if you create something and you think its worthy of protection then you can apply to have it copyrighted.

So if you post a picture on FB and don't copywrite it then some commercial company can use it how they like.. I spot a flaw

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850165 6-Jul-2013 16:58

Lias:
Talkiet: [

You're wrong.

A photographer can choose to assign the copyright, or not to even assert copyright on their images. You are UTTERLY FREE to use a photographer that is prepared to do that.

Hint: The good ones generally don't.

No, I'm not.. As you say they can assign or not exert the rights to the copyright, but the law gives them the rights automatically. I think copyright should be more like patents or trademark, if you create something and you think its worthy of protection then you can apply to have it copyrighted.

I 100% stand by my assertion. I think the law is fine in this area. It protects content creators from theft, and there's essentially no barrier to any creators deciding they would prefer to give their work away for free.

You can flip it around all you like but I would rather have something protected by default rather than open to theft (I don't care about the exact definition of the word in this context - you know what I mean) by default.

Of course as a short sighted consumer, I think all copyright is bad, and I think I should be allowed to copy and use anything I want without having to consider the long term effects on the continued availability of high quality stuff to steal.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4