Wedding Photographers and Copyright?

Forums › Off topic › Wedding Photographers and Copyright?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#850167 6-Jul-2013 17:04

Copyright is automatic in NZ, but is granted automatically to the commissioner of the works, rather than the creator. This is different to most other western countries.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#850226 6-Jul-2013 18:43

macuser: Copyright is automatic in NZ, but is granted automatically to the commissioner of the works, rather than the creator. This is different to most other western countries.

And that would be the wedding couple, not the photographer. At some point this right is being handed over - most likely as a clause in the contract.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#850227 6-Jul-2013 18:45

A friend of mine used dream life 5 years ago. The photographer didn't speak any English, wore jeans, got lost between the ceremony and photo location, and stood right beside them during ring exchange. The album was cheap. I hope they've picked their game up.

Imho it takes around 5 years and at least 100 weddings to become really competent at weeding photography. I've hired photographers with degrees, and students, in general they were awful with no clue about composition, lighting, or light, but they could write you a good essay about photography. In a studio with a tutor and unlimited time, sure they're ok, but weddings move at an incredible pace and there's no second chances. Experience is key if you want quality.

I'm getting married next year. The photographer we've booked is significantly more than $3k for all day, an assistant, images on DVD,, no album. I'm also paying more than $1k to get them from Auckland to Wellington. I want the best, and I'm happy to pay for it.

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850230 6-Jul-2013 18:53

timmmay: I'm getting married next year.

Congrats man.

McNulty

152 posts

Master Geek

#850253 6-Jul-2013 19:48

Wow, when I posted the question I didn't realise it was such a controversial issue!

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850704 8-Jul-2013 10:45

When my wife and I got married in March we picked our photographer Mel Waite because her previous work was amazing. Our photos turned out to be pretty incredible and I cannot stress enough how important a good photographer is.

You can check out some of the photos here: http://melwaitephotography.queensberryworkspace.com/galleryslide/68944513ee58d91667/list

She also gave us a set of ~700 high resolution images and the same in low res for Facebook. While Mel retains the copyright we are free to use/print the photos however we like as long as it is not for commercial purposes. I don't have any problem with this arrangement and Mel keeps a backup copy of all of the photos for something like 10 years for us also.

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#850708 8-Jul-2013 10:48

The photographer down the road did a deal with the real estate agent who gave us a '$300' free photography session.

Went and checked it out....the $300 included '1' free 6x4 photo and we'd pay a ton of money for any additional photos.

The deal wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

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.

Chainsaw

357 posts

Ultimate Geek

#850779 8-Jul-2013 12:35

Why would the couple need copyright anyway? If they're given a disc then they can print pics to their heart's content. They can't use them for commercial purposes is really the only restriction, which seems natural to me. Similarly the photographer can't sell them to someone for an advertising campaign without their permission, so what do they lose?

All is as it should be.

lokhor

2858 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850789 8-Jul-2013 12:44

Chainsaw: Why would the couple need copyright anyway? If they're given a disc then they can print pics to their heart's content. They can't use them for commercial purposes is really the only restriction, which seems natural to me. Similarly the photographer can't sell them to someone for an advertising campaign without their permission, so what do they lose?

All is as it should be.

QFT

All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#850806 8-Jul-2013 13:02

We paid $300 (and fed/watered him) for our wedding photographer - he was a professional photographer, just didnt do weddings as mainstream .... he was with us from 9am - 9pm, took photos of everyone there, burnt the images to DVDs at the end of the night and said he'd hold onto a copy for a year and use some of the pics as samples if we were ok with that (which we were) and that was it.

He didnt touch the images at all as he knew I'm in IT and happy to do touch ups etc myself with P/shop . No mention of copyrights etc.

Weve taken our kids to that photography lot that run out of the Warehouse in Albany (name eludes me), and we only take the basic pack which is a single image - "no copying/scanning/altering etc allowed" - whatever. Theyre our kids, we've paid for the image, do what we want with it thanks.

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#850829 8-Jul-2013 13:29

Just about everybody can take a photo, only the skilled can create art. How many of the people complaining about the quality of their photos actually took the time to look through their previous work or get recommendations from friends or family.

In the days of film the photographer retained the negatives and the copyright. If you wanted more reprints or albums you had to go back to the photographer. I stamped the back of all my prints with my name and a copyright reserved message - this would prevent my customers from going to the local copy shop and getting copies.

I made just enough on the session or wedding but it was supplemented by the extras - I was never going to get rich, but I was doing something which I enjoyed.

If I took a great photo which I wanted to use in my portfolio then I would get a model release form signed, usually sweetened with a couple of extra prints for the customer. This allowed me commercial use also but only for the advertising of my services.

So back OT. Does the fact that they retain copyright affect you in any way for the intended use of the material? If they are providing a disc with all the JPEGs and they are allowing you to print your own also then probably not. If you are still not happy with this arrangement ask the photographer if they are willing to assign copyright to you - there will likely be a fee.

At the end of the day, they don't want you making money from their work - that's their job and I don't think it is unfair.

Slightly back off topic, I'm a programmer who works for a consulting agency providing services to end customers - imagine that contract; copyright, IP, re-use, re-delivery.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#850835 8-Jul-2013 13:38

Chainsaw: Why would the couple need copyright anyway? If they're given a disc then they can print pics to their heart's content. They can't use them for commercial purposes is really the only restriction, which seems natural to me. Similarly the photographer can't sell them to someone for an advertising campaign without their permission, so what do they lose?

All is as it should be.

The biggest problem is not "copyright" itself. It's photographers not giving material in quality good enough for printing. They claim only them can provide print because it's their copyright - that's what I was told by a series of photographers.

If you don't have the material in a good enough quality you have to go back to the photographers for those prints. You can't "print pics to their heart's content".

Basically holding you hostage to that.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#850840 8-Jul-2013 13:48

I think the problem is getting the raw photos from the photographer. It seems to me, that some are subsidizing the event price, with the hope that they will make money by selling prints, when people can get digital photos printed relatively cheaply at a big box retailer. With copyright, if the photographer owns that, then they can charge a large fee to give you the photos on a disk. This fee possibly covers the loss they would make by not selling prints. In my case it was over 1k to get the disk. SO if I was hiring one, I would make sure I own the copyright.
Otherwise the copyright owner could potentially sell the photos to stock photo websites, and you may find your photo being used in advertising. It is all about checking your contract carefully.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#850857 8-Jul-2013 14:08

xpd: We paid $300 (and fed/watered him) for our wedding photographer - he was a professional photographer, just didnt do weddings as mainstream .... he was with us from 9am - 9pm, took photos of everyone there, burnt the images to DVDs at the end of the night and said he'd hold onto a copy for a year and use some of the pics as samples if we were ok with that (which we were) and that was it.

He didnt touch the images at all as he knew I'm in IT and happy to do touch ups etc myself with P/shop . No mention of copyrights etc.

Weve taken our kids to that photography lot that run out of the Warehouse in Albany (name eludes me), and we only take the basic pack which is a single image - "no copying/scanning/altering etc allowed" - whatever. Theyre our kids, we've paid for the image, do what we want with it thanks.

So you paid $25/hour for his time... From that he has tax, equipment, software etc, insurance and profit as well as many others.

At $300 he was doing you a favour because he was certainly losing money.

Unless someone wants to claim that he did it as a weekend cash job, and that therefore tax, equipment depreciation etc don't count - and if that's the case, again, it's a favour and under what would need to be charged to keep anyone in business.

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.

MattEast

277 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#850859 8-Jul-2013 14:11

Best advice is to get all that fine print sorted before signing the contract (and most definitely before the event). We paid our wedding photographer to shoot the day, touch up some of the better shots, and provide us with full digital copies of all the material she took on the day (she threw in some prints as well). Good deal, photographer knew what she was getting paid up front (without hoping we'd order a certain amount of prints just to break even). And we got the full versions of all the images...which to be fair, we printed a few to give to family, but we just view them on our iPads/TV...the digital world:-)

Matt East

1 | 2 | 3 | 4