Professional photo of my baby - Who owns the copyright/Am I entitled to the negatives

Gimpymoo · 29 Oct 2006 at 12:51

We have recently had some pictures taken of our baby by a professional.

They have said that even if we purchase the photos, they will not give us the RAW image file/Negative.

Is it correct that they own the copyright to this photo?

Also, when I receive the originals, if I do not own the copyright, am I not legally allowed to make copys of these photos of my own baby or do I have to pay them the £19.99 for a 6x4 print?

Many Thanks.

ranarama · 29 Oct 2006 at 12:57

Gimpymoo said:
Is it correct that they own the copyright to this photo?

Yes

Gimpymoo said:
Also, when I receive the originals, if I do not own the copyright, am I not legally allowed to make copys of these photos of my own baby or do I have to pay them the £19.99 for a 6x4 print?

You have to pay them for the 6x4 print. Though the chances of anything happening if you copy it yourself is remote to say the least. If you take it in to Boots they will probably refuse to copy it though, especially if it has the photographers stamp on the back.

cyKey · 29 Oct 2006 at 14:21

Do you own the copyright to any cd's you buy, or films? Nope. No different for photography.

bitslice · 29 Oct 2006 at 14:29

I think the photographer also has to retain the negative for something silly like 20 years.

.

growse · 29 Oct 2006 at 14:32

They own the copyright and can do what they like with it. I suppose you could buy the copyright off them, but they'd probably want silly money....

TheBigCheese · 29 Oct 2006 at 15:24

£19.99 is certainly silly money for a 6x4, but unfortunately you don't have any choice...the photographer certainly does own the copyright.

Gimpymoo · 29 Oct 2006 at 16:30

cyKey said:
Do you own the copyright to any cd's you buy, or films? Nope. No different for photography.

It wouldnt be my child singing the song or starring in the film though would it?

olv · 29 Oct 2006 at 16:32

Gimpymoo said:
It wouldnt be my child singing the song or starring in the film though would it?

it's harsh but it's makes absolutely zero difference what the subject of the photo is.

cyKey · 29 Oct 2006 at 16:33

Gimpymoo said:
It wouldnt be my child singing the song or starring in the film though would it?

Do the actors own the films they're in? Nope.

Gimpymoo · 29 Oct 2006 at 17:29

cyKey said:
Do the actors own the films they're in? Nope.

Yes, but im sure if they ask for a copy, they wont be charged

I understand the point your making though.

For someone with zero knowledge on photography law, it just seemed a little strange that even after purchasing an enlarged photo for £300, im not allowed the original, considering it was of my own child and I commissioned it. Im not saying it is right or wrong, just difficult for myself to understand.

I guess they have to make a living.

Thanks for the info guys.

cyKey · 29 Oct 2006 at 17:42

Gimpymoo said:
Yes, but im sure if they ask for a copy, they wont be charged

I understand the point your making though.

For someone with zero knowledge on photography law, it just seemed a little strange that even after purchasing an enlarged photo for £300, im not allowed the original, considering it was of my own child and I commissioned it. Im not saying it is right or wrong, just difficult for myself to understand.

I guess they have to make a living.

Thanks for the info guys.

Photographers aren't doing anything wrong. Its not photography law its normal copyright law. They're not playing the system or trying to con you or anything. It would take a fair bit of money for the photographer to release the hi-res images so you could then go off and print them at whatever size and as many as you want basically ignoring his rights as a photographer. Yes its your child and without them the photographer couldn't take the photo but without the photographer you wouldn't have the photo so a little thought for him too

rG-tom · 29 Oct 2006 at 18:28

TheBigCheese said:
£19.99 is certainly silly money for a 6x4, but unfortunately you don't have any choice...the photographer certainly does own the copyright.

You're not paying for a simple 6x4 print though, you're paying for the services of the photographer too. £20 a print isnt the highest ive seen by a long shot ¬_¬

MacX · 30 Oct 2006 at 08:35

Gimpymoo said:
Yes, but im sure if they ask for a copy, they wont be charged

Yes but they don't get the original 70mm in a stack of tins so they can run their own copying and distribution do they?

But where on earth did you go that they were charging so much anyway? Not this is your adVenture? :eek:

no_1_dave · 30 Oct 2006 at 23:55

Photographers make a lot of money from re-prints. The rights to the raw files can be very expensive!
My Dad is a photographer & when he does a wedding he can make a couple of grand. One couple wanted a CD of all the raw images & were willing to pay £3500 for it. They even knew it'd be worth a lot!