Who owns the copyright on the wedding pictures you take?

I am a UK based wedding photographer and have sometimes wondered about who

actually owns the image. For example, two hotels have contacted me lately to

use some of my photographs for their brochures. They promised me a nice credit

and it's a great free advert. Do I need to contact the people in the

photographs and get their permission (they might say no)? I'm of the opinion I

took the photo so I own it. What do you think? I'd be particularly interested

to hear from a UK based photographer, but all opionions welcome! PS I havent

sold their images, I let the hotels use it for free because of the free

advertising.

.

 

David,

 

As far as I have been able to learn, unless there a signed contract showing consideration (MONEY)in exchange for specific copyright transference, the copyright of a photograph immediately belongs to the photographer even as soon as there is captured a LATENT image, as copyright belongs to the creator in ANY created work.

 

However, as a society, we have built a great deal of protection not only for the creator, as above in copyright protection, but also some consideration for anyone recognizable in a photograph - they have socially/civilly protected rights, also. They could justifiably sue anyone who uses their image against their will and intention, with the also socially balanced exceptions of use in news reporting, journalism, and even "fine art" sales. Your mileage may vary by location, local laws and custom, and the attitude of any local judge should it come to a court battle.

 

David, I think that it now makes great sense for you to start supplementing your actual photographing with professional documentation, including: when and where you took pictures, whom you got permission from if taken on private property, follow up with a thank you notes (keep a copy) for permission, and start to get model releases for people and property, which legitimately should (I think) also contain payment or promise of split royalties for the model's participation and cooperation.

 

No, you don't need permission to take someone's picture (except of their private parts if they are otherwise also in private), but you do need permission to use their image for commerce.

 

In this way we as civil societies have balanced the needs and rights and benefits all 'round - creative artists, personal privacy, control of the use of one's identity, news and information for the common good, and commerce.

 

Fun, eh?

 

There's a gazillion resources to help you bone up on these situations so you are better informed and have a chance to make good decisions on what you plan to do. I suggest joining any of the free on-line stock photo agencies and printing and reading their entire "how to" and "legal stuff" including especially "people and property releases" - quite a load of useful, contemporaneous and authoritative information available free, and go from there. There are books and web sites that also have informative write ups on the subject. May I also suggest that a local lawyer experienced in the subject is probably a good connection to make before you get contacted by someone else's lawyer! ;-)

 

You might also ask the property owners if they already have a standard clause in their contracts that says, essentially, if your stay here in our hotel, we may take your picture in our common areas and use them in commerce, and you agree to this by signing below and paying for your room! If they don't, they might try! Ask them.

 

Let us know how it goes as you try to contact the people in those pictures - yes, the risk in asking is that they might say no, and that should NEVER stop us from asking, as it is their right!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography is Free Speech - but commerce is paid speech, so share the wealth! http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

Yes, you own the copyright, but it's not as simple as that. If you're planning to use someones image for sales or promotional reasons then you'll need a model release to be signed by the 'models'. This is the case in the UK, and most of the rest of the world too I believe.. Whether or not you'll be paid by the hotel doesn't make a difference.

Of course, if it's a shot of the hotel and a group shot with the people virtually unrecognisable due to the print size then you should be able to get away with it.

Photographer holds the copyright. Holding the copyright does not give unlimited usage to the photographer. Subjects in a photograph also have rights that are protected. If your image isused for commercial purposes then you really need a release from clearly identifiable people in the photograph. Even though you have not received money for the use of the images you have received benefit from the use of your picture and the hotel is using the image for financial gain.

Speaking under U.S. standards, the fact that you were not directly paid by the hotels is not going to save you from an invasion of privacy action from the people in your images.

We've been here before I think. Providing that you include your intention to potentially use selected images for promotion of your company in your signed contract with the couple then you are free to do so. Receiving benefit in kind (such as a hotel promoting your company) does not in this case count as it would if you sold such images. This was tested in court some years ago.

 

You do not need a model release under these circumstances as for the purposes of a wedding in a hotel's private grounds it is the duty of the hotel to prevent photography of people who do not wish to be photographed. Of course most people who go as guests understand that they will be photographed anyway.

 

Example

All rights for reproduction of photographs remain entirely with the photographer. The images will always be legally owned by the photographer. The customer may purchase and own prints from the photographer but these may not be scanned, photographed or copied in any way. The photographer may use any images he has taken for his own promotional use.

 

This was upheld as being reasonable despite an attempt to alter it under the Data Protection Act which also failed.

 

That's as far as my memory serves me so I think you don't have a problem and have a great opportunity.

 

Kevin UK

The UK guide is covered in this document.

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

 

It errs on the legal side but remember that you are already selling images of people without their written permission when you take a group shot and put it in an album which you then charge for. So if some are to be believed you would need a model release of everyone liable to be photographed before you started! Daft!

Thank you Kevin for your thoughtful and obviously pleasing response! I think we're not quite as beaurocratic as our US cousins.

When I got married (before my photography days) a photograph of my Bride and I were displayed in a Tuxedo store wall. It looked as if we were proffessional models displaying the clothing that could be rented in the store. (I had rented my Wedding Tux there!). I was amazed and flattered that I was up on the store wall.<P> I contacted the Photographer and asked how my image came to be one the wall since I had not given permission. I was politely told that my bride had signed the rights to my image when the wedding contract was signed but he offered me a discount to buy the image displayed at the large size presented. He was fair and resonable (I couldnt afford the image at the time) so I just ended up being happy displayed as a model at the store. <P> The moral for me was: He protected himself and also offered me a good discount on a print although he didnt have too.

.

 

"...Do I need to contact the people in the photographs and get their permission (they might say no)?..."

 

... sounds like you do NOT have a written contract with the subjects within the photos to use the photos in any commercial way you choose in the future. You may want to contact them for a model release and be prepared for this contingency in the future.

 

Please share some of the images in question. The subsequent tale of the tuxedo shot on the store wall implies that that photo was primarily of a recognizable PERSON wearing the tuxedo, yet the hotel photos you are being asked for may be more of the building, and so the people in the shot diminished and are incidental, so you might make a case that they are NOT being presented as the centerpiece of the photo, and that the photo is not of them endorsing the hotel, and that probably makes a difference - they're more like props, and they are not portrayed as saying, "I stayed here, you should too!" as if they were recognizable celebrities.

 

Permission is a wonderful thing even when it's not legally required as the contact also opens the door for subsequent sales and additional work - as the tuxedo shot almost made an additional sale!

 

ASK!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

"Thank you Kevin for your thoughtful and obviously pleasing response!"

 

It may be pleasing to read but is it accurate?

 

For instance, A hotel having a duty to prevent pictures being taken? Maybe in the UK but I doubt it. If the guide found by the link is accurate, nothing in it supports a duty of a hotel to prevent photography or that a failure to do so alters other's legal obligations. If there is some real authority that can be shown to support this, I would like to see it.

These are images for commerce application ... not personal use, or for news. The Hotel

wants to promote their facilities for profit.

 

Commercial images require releases from all recognizable individuals, and parent releases

for any children.

 

In practice, it's done all the time. Few if any people would object to this application ... but

legally they could sue and most likely would win. The Hotel should know better.

In the U.S., nobody else has the authority to sign for me when it comes to commercial use of my image. Period. My wife can't nor can somebody buying a wedding package. Certainly my mother-in-law before becoming my mother-in-law had no standing in this area. I'd expect it's similar in the UK.

 

The copyright is an entirely separate bit of property.

Robin Williams, The lab monkey :)

There are a lot of legal resources on the net. What they boil down to is essentially what Marc Williams says above. You cannot sell the images of someone for commercial usage without a release signed by that person. The bride can not sign away the rights of usage for other people.

 

A wedding album is not a commercial usage. This is a serious misunderstanding of the concept.

 

Additionally, learn the difference between copyright and model release. It's very important. Every photographer should know the difference.

<I>I contacted the Photographer and asked how my image came to be one the wall since I had not given permission. I was politely told that my bride had signed the rights to my image when the wedding contract was signed</I>....

<P>

While I am not a lawyer, IMO, that photographer's reasoning is a bunch of nonsense. For one thing, when the bride signed that contract, she probably wasn't even your wife yet, and even though she was, she could not signed the rights to your image unless it was a parent/minor situation.

<P>

It is normal practice if the photographer displays your wedding images in his/her studio or web site to promote their own business.

You should have been properly compensated since your image is used for a third-party's advertising.

"she could not signed the rights to your image unless it was a parent/minor situation."

 

Or if she was the fiance's apparent agent. That situation exists when a principal (the groom) holds another out as his agent by consenting to, or knowingly acquiescing in the person's exercise of authority (You handle all the photographer contract stuff for us honey.), and a third person (the photographer) reasonably and justifiably relies upon the appearance of the agency relationship.

 

No, I'm not suggesting that wedding photographers may safely skip out on getting releases on everybody portrayed in a promotional image. Just that the parent/child/guardian situation is not the only means to obligate others in contracts.

At best, the bride was in charge of hiring a photographer to shoot their wedding, not acting as an agent for the groom to appear as a model in a commercial shoot. If you go to court, the photographer and the tux store may have a hard time defending their case.

 

In reality, the chance is that the tux rental store might not have all that much money anyway. Few lawer would be interested in taking on such a case if there isn't much financial reward. Perhaps the only reason to go to court is that the image really bothers you and you want to enforce them to take it down.

I would like to add that I was not upset at all my image was displayed,I was flattered. I just wanted the image for myself after displayed. I have no hard feelings for the Photographer, but it lets people know what limits they have for display.