Wedding Photography Copyright

Trojan · 14 Jun 2011 at 01:12

Hi all

I'm getting married next year and am in the process getting the photography sorted. We've pretty much decided on a photographer, however when looking at the booking form, there's a clause stating that the photographer will retain copyright to all photos. Is this normal?

The reason I ask is that from reading several sites, it appears the law here in Australia is that at private functions such as a wedding, the copyright of the photos is owned by the person who paid the photographer, unless otherwise agreed upon.

Now, in terms of the photographer using photos taken at our wedding for their website, or for promotional purposes, I have no issue with that. What I am concerned about is that if they retain the copyright, they could legally stop me from posting the photos online myself, say on Facebook or wherever.

Do you have any views on this?

adamau5 · 14 Jun 2011 at 07:29

photographers, and more so the old school variety (not saying they are wrong) like to make money out of prints. As soon as you 'copy' - read distribute - digital images then you loose the reprint income.

That said, in the modern age where digital is deemed as a free share by the majority of people <30yrs old, i think this method of income generation is doomed for events such as weddings. What this means is that you'll either see the end of £250 quid wedding packages and the base price will be £800 up, or you will see a fair few sueings to make sure the togs can earn a living.

And yes, if they retain copyright then they can stop you distributing.

Trojan said:
The reason I ask is that from reading several sites, it appears the law here in Australia is that at private functions such as a wedding, the copyright of the photos is owned by the person who paid the photographer, unless otherwise agreed upon.

by signing the contract you surely have 'otherwise agreed upon'

Raymond Lin · 14 Jun 2011 at 07:41

It's normal, it's like a song writer writes a song, you buy the cd. He keeps the copyright but you can still listen to the cd, but no distribution, no copying, no sales. Same thing.

If you want the copyright, stipulate it in the contract. What I have in mine is the client gets a limited licence, they can print and pass prints to families but prohibit to distribute the digital copy. Copyright stays with me but they have enough freedom to share it with their friends, make pillow cases, mugs etc. Even putting the odd one on Facebook I don't mind but uploading the entire disc online would prob make up write a letter. It's not them I'm scared of it's some random elsewhere using my work pretend to be his.

This is on top of the print sale argument.

ichabod crane · 14 Jun 2011 at 07:51

Raymond Lin said:
It's normal, it's like a song writer writes a song, you buy the cd. He keeps the copyright but you can still listen to the cd, but no distribution, no copying, no sales. Same thing.

If you want the copyright, stipulate it in the contract. What I have in mine is the client gets a limited licence, they can print and pass prints to families but prohibit to distribute the digital copy. Copyright stays with me but they have enough freedom to share it with their friends, make pillow cases, mugs etc. Even putting the odd one on Facebook I don't mind but uploading the entire disc online would prob make up write a letter. It's not them I'm scared of it's some random elsewhere using my work pretend to be his.

This is on top of the print sale argument.

This question always pops up and is not an easy one to answer it is really down to the discretion of the photographer and for the client to negotiate the terms with them.

But I have to disagree with the CD analogy which is not commissioned by and for a client but produced purely for sale on the general market where as the difference with the wedding pictures is that they have been commissioned and paid for by the client so really they should own what has been produced.

allosunshine · 14 Jun 2011 at 08:04

We had a digital photographer for our wedding and didn't realise about the copyright, so we ended up buying the copyright so we were free to do what we liked with the photos.

Raymond Lin · 14 Jun 2011 at 08:08

ichabod crane said:
This question always pops up and is not an easy one to answer it is really down to the discretion of the photographer and for the client to negotiate the terms with them.

But I have to disagree with the CD analogy which is not commissioned by and for a client but produced purely for sale on the general market where as the difference with the wedding pictures is that they have been commissioned and paid for by the client so really they should own what has been produced.

Only on the "commission" element.

It is down to the terms agreed between the parties. The problem of signing away the copyright (it automatically assign to the photographer), is that I would be asking the client afterwards for permission to put them on my own site, or even have to buy it back if I want to use it...it puts the photographer in quite a pickle.

Side point

If the client wants an NDA, non disclosure agreement, because they value their privacy then agree that beforehand. However, it is a two way street. you can't ask the photographer not to post up photos. Photographs that are retouched, correctly exposed and dare I say it, good photos. Then let's all their guests put up hundreds of out of focus, blur, wacky selective colouring on Facebook. That's illogical and the privacy grounds holds no water.

neil_g · 14 Jun 2011 at 09:09

Trojan said:
The reason I ask is that from reading several sites, it appears the law here in Australia is that at private functions such as a wedding, the copyright of the photos is owned by the person who paid the photographer, unless otherwise agreed upon.

are you sure this is correct? reason i ask is that there is a rule in the UK that if material is created while employed to do a job the copyright belongs to the employer. however this does not apply in a photographer/client situation as the photographer is not employed by the client.

Raymond Lin · 14 Jun 2011 at 09:25

Ok, a better example.

A client ask an architect to design a house. The design of that house will always belong to the architect. The client will have the house, enjoy the house but he won't be allowed to use the same blueprints and build another and then sell it on (can't see this come up often!)

Same situation as the "artist" is commissioned for a job, the client wants a set of photos, which he will have. If he wants more than that, i.e. its copyright then further agreement will need to be put in place.

Entering into an agreement/contract is not the same as being employed by an employer, there is a clear distinction.

Trojan · 14 Jun 2011 at 11:16

Thanks for the replies everyone. Now I don't think the copyright is to encourage me to use them exclusively for prints, as a high res DVD is provided as part of the package. I think it's more to allow them to use the photos on their website and to advertise their services. Still, it's reading posts like the following that has made me question the copyright:

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1414892

I reckon I'll bring it up with them, advise that I plan to put some of the photos on Facebook and Picassa and see what they say.

adamau5 said:
What this means is that you'll either see the end of £250 quid wedding packages and the base price will be £800 up

The wedding packages here in Adelaide range from $1500 upwards. The top established photographers charge $4000 or more.

adamau5 said:
by signing the contract you surely have 'otherwise agreed upon'

I've not signed anything yet.

neil_g said:
are you sure this is correct?

According to this website it's correct - http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/askexpert/s1732417.htm

stoofa · 14 Jun 2011 at 16:41

When we hired our photographer when we got married there was the same clause in the contract.
She would hold copyright to all prints - we had a certain number of "prints" included in the package for the album.

We were then given a CD containing small, low quality copies of all the pictures taken and of course we could order prints.

However in the end we paid her £200 for full rights to all of the pictures.
Her only stipulation was that she wanted to use a couple of the pictures on her website, which was fine by us.
So we then got a DVD with all of the pictures on and full rights to do with them what we wanted.

adamau5 · 14 Jun 2011 at 17:24

thats the way i do it as a photographer. Essentially you pay if you want rights, or its agreed up front in the contract.

33L · 16 Jun 2011 at 15:28

in my contract we reatian copyright, they get a proof cd with watermarked low res images for them to chose from.
If they want the full res unlimited usage then we charge for this. we add a letter to state unlimited usage and a copy is supplied on the DVD. We always have the rights to use for marketing/promotion etc...

englishpremier · 16 Jun 2011 at 15:44

neil_g said:
are you sure this is correct? reason i ask is that there is a rule in the UK that if material is created while employed to do a job the copyright belongs to the employer. however this does not apply in a photographer/client situation as the photographer is not employed by the client.

Plus in the UK you cannot sign away your legal rights