copyright release

<p>I am putting together my wedding photo agreement and keep running into advice that I should give a non-exlusive, unlimited copyright release to clients with their photo cd. My plan is to give clients a photo cd after the fact with all finished photos. My packages include an allowance/dollar amount of photos that I will have printed and give to them, but at this point, I'm not pursuing getting prints for them and making money from it. I expect that they will take their cd to a lab and have reprints and enlargements made on their own.<br>

I do have language in my agreement that states: client understand that photographer owns the copyright to all digital images and reserves the right to to use them for display/promotion/etc. Most websites I've browsed show similar language which follows the above statement with such as: Upon receipt of final payment, Client is granted a <em>"non-exclusive unlimited license"</em> to use digital images for their own non-commercial purposes, such as printing, exchange with friends and relatives. Why the words non-commercial? What am I trying to protect? What could clients do with the images I've taken that I should be concerned about?<br>

I'm confused about the non-exclusive license and can see myself fumbling, trying to explain what it means to a client. I'm stating what they can do with the images, but why should I be concerned about not having this? In my situation, where I'm not trying to get sales of images, wouldn't I be just as well off giving them a cd and a copyright release - or by doing this, do I give up my own copyright?<br>

I should mention that I live in a small town and just fact that I'm dragging out an agreement to be signed is going to be an obstacle. I'm trying to make the language in the agreement as clear and simple as possible and hoping to present the agreement as more of a sales tool (i.e., here's the services you're going to get in writing).<br>

Thanks for any advice you may have.<br>

Cindy Wise</p>

<p>"Why the words non-commercial?" Fairly simple: suppose the bride decides to go into the wedding photography business in six months or two years down the road. If she could use your work to get wedding business, that would not make your day, would it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Non-commercial means that they (your clients) can't turn around and sell the images (say, by licensing as stock). You're limiting their use of the images to their own personal enjoyment, and ruling out their giving them to, say, their caterer for use in an advertisement without your consent.</p>

<p>Matt has it right on the money. </p>

<p>Thanks one and all for your quick and to the point responses. Just what I needed to know.<br>

Cindy</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Thanks for any advice you may have.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"I should mention that I live in a small town . . ." </em></strong>Yes, but: in what Country, are you working? This fact is neither clear in your question, nor your Bio.<br>

I am reasonably confident that you are on the right path, if you are working in the USA . . . but you are heading for disaster, if you be working in some other Countries.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>William is right on the money - If you are not in the USA - You could be dealing with a completely different set of rules.</p>

<p>If you are in the USA - Matt is spot on - You should be giving a "License" for Non-Commercial Use - Not a Copyright. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Yes, I'm in the good ol U.S. Thanks again for clarifying my blurred line between license and copyright.<br>

cindy/cdub</p>

<p><strong>Copyrights vs. Licenses</strong><br>

Most people (including many photographers) don't understand the difference between copyright and license. I will simplify the ideas here a bit for ease of understanding.</p>

<p>Copyright is <em>ownership</em>. License is <em>permission</em> (usually from the owner).</p>

<p>In most cases, a photographer should retain <em>copyright </em>(i.e., ownership) of the photograph, and grant a <em>license </em>to use the photograph for specific purposes.</p>

<p>Some clients will want <em>exclusive </em>license, meaning they would be the only ones, anywhere, allowed to use the photograph. Even in this case, the photographer would retain copyright, but grant an exclusive license to the client, meaning the photographer promises not to give someone else permission to use the photograph. For example, a book publisher using your photo on the cover might want an exclusive license to ensure that no other book would be confusingly similar. A magazine might want exclusive license so it can claim to have sole coverage of what you shot (especially if you're the only photographer).</p>

<p>Other clients, such as wedding clients, might be fine with a <em>non-exclusive </em>license, leaving open the possibility that the photographer might, at some point, grant permission to someone else to use the photographs as well. You might want to grant a non-exclusive license if you plan to enter a photography contest, or submit your photos to a bridal magazine, or -- some day -- sell the images as stock photography. Most wedding clients don't have a business interest in being the exclusive licensee, so a non-exclusive license is appropriate.</p>

<p>Others (above) explained the "commercial" vs. "non-commercial" aspect of the phrase in question.</p>

<p>It is important to avoid confusing copyright and license in your contract. If you plan to retain copyright for yourself, and you want to grant a personal-use license to your clients, then any mention of "copyright" should be for the purpose of establishing or reinforcing the fact that you, as photographer, retain copyright; and any time you discuss what the client may do, you are talking about a "license."</p>

<p>Your title ("copyright release") worries me, because you're not "releasing" your copyright (at least, I hope you're not). Instead, you're licensing your images, while retaining your copyright.</p>

<p><strong>Contracts in small towns or less-formal cultures</strong><br>

For what it's worth, even in small towns, a well-worded (and easy-to-understand) contract is a sign of professionalism. You don't need to be defensive about it -- I just remind clients that the purpose of the written agreement is to be sure we both understand exactly what the other person expects from this relationship. The main value of a contract is not enforceability (though that is important when things go wrong); the main value of a contract is clarity and mutual understanding.</p>

<p>So, even when a client says "I trust you -- all this formality isn't necessary," my response is, "I believe you do, and I trust you, too. This is about clarity. I'm doing this so that I can be sure I know exactly what you will expect, because otherwise, it might be easy for me to misinterpret something. This way, not only can you you be sure of my integrity, but you also can be sure you and I understood each other."</p>

<p>Thank you for making it very clear.</p>