Can I use MY photos from a wedding?

[anne_morgan]

A family member asked if I would do two weddings with her (i know, I

know...) We both do free-lance photography work. I made it VERY

clear that I was NOT agreeable to giving away the copyright or right

to use to my photos, but did agree that if she set up a shot and I

simply shot a "backup", there was no problem, knowing that this would

limit my usage to totally unique candids. I signed no contract and

said that for future weddings we would have to work out something

that didn't involve my losing my usage rights. Even though she

stated I would have my images to use, I have been VERY careful not to

use the "standards", her poses and ideas, or the repeated shots.

While by myself, I shot a few images of the flower girl (from the

back as she was gazing over a balcony.) When she saw I used the

photo in a brochure(1 x 1.5 inch thumbnail along with some non-

wedding portraits I've done, she was upset saying she planned on

using the images to market herself. I feel that I was very careful

to use only images that were completely unique to me, and therefore

justified. Have I acted in an unethical manner?

[jaimie blue]

You seem very clear and knowledgeable to me on the meaning and subject of "usage." Very clear on your intentions and what shots you are willing to "give up" your usage on, and what shots you intend to retain the rights of. I really believe you have been able to differientiate the standards and her setups and your creative eye in seeing a shot that is unrelated to what she is doing. I really believe and can just tell by the wording in your post that you using the shot you took of the flowergirl is completely justified. I do not know how you could be more clearer to her in communicating what you would and would not agree to. In my opinion you have NOT acted in an unethical manner at all. She has no right to use that image, and I have to say that you defined your boundaries beautifully. That shot is yours and your partner sounds a little jealous over it. I hope you keep seeing those unique shots and poetic moments and make beautiful photos out of them. For her to want to use one of your creative shots as her own is UNETHICAL and you can tell her I said this.

[chris m., central florida]

Doesn't sound like she's your partner to me. Sounds like you acted as her assistant. Your relative went out and contracted the weddings, got the work, and asked you to come along as an assistant. Does that sound about right?

 

If so, most assistants are permitted to use their work in print portfolios only, and not on the web or in print advertising. This helps to avoid potential confusion or issues when the main photographer uses your images in their advertising work. I now have a simple contract/informational sheet for my assistants to sign. Keeps things very neighborly.

 

If you were acting as an assistant, then your relative (the main photographer) owns the copyright. Really, she should of had you sign an agreement. But in the spirit of acting appropriately, I'd select a few images and have a candid conversation with her about using those images in your online portfolio and print materials. If she objects, then back down.

 

Now if you two were just getting together as partners to shoot the wedding - equal responsibilities, splitting the profit, etc., then that changes things a bit and I would say you are totally within your rights to use the images.

 

The danger you are running into in either situation is that you probably don't have a signed release to use the images in any fashion. Yes, you may have the copyright, but that doesn't mean a bride or groom won't get totally PO'd if they see their images in print and demand that you stop using them - or sue you if they really want to be sticklers about it (honestly, never heard of somebody going that far over advertising). That why a signed contract with a clause allowing you to use the images in advertising is essential.

[Jerry_]

Flower girl = minor = release needed, signed by the girl's parent. If you bought the film (or your digital media) and used your camera, the copyright belongs to you. You can use it as you wish. But using the image in your advertising [no mention of a release....] is not the best thing to do.

 

 

 

Owning the copyright is one thing. Use of the photograph is another aspect. That is where the signed "release" is the key to a good day for you.

[wedding-photography-denver]

If you are employed by her, she has the right to use the images. Any other arrangement leaves you with the rights (i believe).

 

I would never use a shot from one of my assistants to advertise. That only shows that she is not getting good enough shot herself (IMO), or that she is threatened by you! In any case, I would use my own work to advertise myself, and would suggest she do the same.

[wedding-photography-denver]

What Gerald said too...

[jake_holt]

She wants to promote herself using photos that you took? That's crazy. Stay away

from her, at least in regards to photography, in the future. You are not being

unethical, she is being super-shady, or at the very least exhibiting a total lack of

common sense. I would use the picture, unless it will put your relationship with her in

jeopardy. (assuming that the relationship matters to you)

 

<p>

<a href="http://www.jakeholtphotography.com">jakeholtphotography.com</a>

[bruce_rubenstein]

Copyright has nothing, NOTHING to do with who bought the film.

 

Unless you signed a "work for hire" contract you are the copyright holder of the images.

[anne_morgan]

Got the release. Thanks for the advice!

[chris m., central florida]

"I would never use a shot from one of my assistants to advertise"

 

Why not? You hired them to produce good work, you brought them along for their skills. I guess there are differing viewpoints on this. But... wedding photography is a business. If you hire someone to work for or with you, they are working for hire and you should have every right to use the images as you see fit. The image your assistant capured actually belongs to YOUR BUSINESS. It's not a question of artistic vison and emotional ownership of the image at this point.

 

I assist a local photographer from time to time when I'm not booked. At least 50% of his presentation CD is filled with images his assistants captured. A lot of them are my images (well, they are his).

 

If you are going to act as a paid assistant/second shooter, you are doing work for hire and you can expect your images to become the main photographer's property and they hold the copyright. Using them for your own print portfolio is a privelege that is almost always granted, and a photographer that allows you to use them in your web gallery for advertising is being very generous. I'm not sure of any leagal standings on this, but a signed agreement is enforcable.

 

I am now asking my assistants to sign an agreement about copyright. Frankly, I have no problems if an assistant wants to use images for print portfoios and in-studio advertising. I don't want to see them on the web... but I want to see them succeed. So I'll overlook it if it happens. But as I begin to move into more expensive weddings, I'm becoming more protective. I want my assistants to learn and get good portfolio work while helping me, but keep in mind I am the business delivering the work. Make sense?

 

Some photographers are now supplying their assistants with CF cards, which they collect on the spot at the end of the venue. They're being overly protective, but then again, losing too many weddings to new competition is not in their business plan.

 

Just my take.

[jaimie blue]

I do not think under any circumstances...business, emotional, detached, professional...could I ever take credit for a photograph that I did not take. In this case I might have a difficult time being a 2nd shooter and or assistant if I have to give up my work so some other photographer can say this is their shot. No way, never, and I in turn would never put my name to someone else's work.

[maiken]

<p>An earlier answer mentions that <i>because</i> the flower girl is a minor, a release is required to use her likeness in promotional material. It's my understanding that using someone's likeness in promotional materials <i>may</i> expose you to liability, but that this isn't any more or less the case with minors.

 

<p>That is, the rules for taking / publishing photos of minors are the same as those for adults, except of course that you seek a release, you need to get it from a minor's guardian, not the minor themself, and that there are special laws for child pornography.

 

<p>Any contrary opinions?

[EricM]

"I do not think under any circumstances...business, emotional, detached, professional...could I ever take credit for a photograph that I did not take."

 

I used to feel the same until reading this forum. I can appreciate how you feel because i feel the same. But i can see the other side of the coin too and agree with it. If a person starts a business to provide a service and goes out with a team to accomplish it, then that team captain has a right and a privealage to show off what the team as a whole can provide. That's how I look at it now.

[oswegophoto]

<i>"... she stated I would have my images to use ..."</i><p>

'Nuff said, in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

[anne_morgan]

I, too, understand that many photographers DO expect assistants to simply work for the check and have no rights whatsoever to any image they take. I know this is fairly common. However, I am to old to dicker around for a tiny paycheck just to have someone else market my work as theirs. If I were 22, it would be different. But I'm starting my business as a 40 year-old. So what most photographers do is irrelevant. Even though she stated I could use my images, I have too much respect for her and her work to use photos that were obvious recognizable wedding shots from that day. I chose that particular photo because it not only it is unrecognizable as being from a wedding job that she took me to, but it isn't even distinguishable as a wedding shot nor is it a recognizable person. (But yes, I have a release - I always get a release.) There could be no impression that I am trying to pass her job off as one of mine. If she had asked me to sign a work for hire contract, I would have declined and told her she needed to find someone else. I made that very clear to her. Just as a photographer is free to ask someone to sign a contract, one is free to decide not to sign. "If you want to work with me you have to accept that I won't be your gopher light carrier, but as another professional."

[anne_morgan]

And Jaimie Blue - I'm SO GLAD TO HEAR SOMEONE ELSE SAY THIS because I feel exactly the same way. I recently did a wedding and hired an assistant whose photos I've been familiar with for years. Despite what most photographers do, her shots will have her name under my business name on them. She has a unique style, much of her work is light and fun and humorous, and I am simply incapable of repeating her style. If a couple hired me based on those photos (without credit to her), then the photos I give them could be technically and compositionally perfect award winners, but they will be a huge disappointment to the couple because that quality that attracted them would be lacking. I would be shooting myself in the foot! I'm working too hard now to try to develop my own style, I don't have time or energy to try to match someone else's work that I've passed off as mine. Thank you for expressing your opinions!

[timages]

I would never consider using assistants or been one regarding Wedding Shoots. I want to take the Credit For ALL my OWN work. And like another said I would never want to take credit for work I have not created. Unless you have clear rules/guidelines prior to the Wedding shoot working with more than one Photographer will only cause problems. EVIDENTLY.

[EricM]

"I want to take the Credit For ALL my OWN work. And like another said I would never want to take credit for work I have not created."

 

You clearly don't understand the people that do promote their service with a number of photogrpahers under the service name of one umbrella. Your tone makes it sound like what they do is wrong. If you looked up a company, a studio, that provides wedding photogrpahy, like, Pixel and Grain Wedding Photography, and noticed that there was two or three shooters that made up the website and portfolio, you'd have different feelings if you looked up a business that had a name of a person, Slickety Jim's Wedding Photogrpahy, containing two or three different styles? Your thinking is limited and has nothing to do with taking credit away from anyone.

 

One thing i have appreciated in some sites, is that there is a photo credit under each photo on sites like this that we are discussing. "Photo by associate photographer Jane Something." Besides, I'd hire a service of a couple photog's over that of a single. I'd be more inclined to hire from a site/portfolio that displayed a range of style's than that of just one.

[jaimie blue]

Eric, I think we are not misunderstanding. Working as a team and providing different styles is great and not the issue. If I had a company with a few photographers shooting for me and the shots were on the website under one umbrella, I would still give photo credit for each individual photographer. No objection to more then one shooter, but objection to the one shooter using the teams photos as their own. Giving photo credit is easy.

[EricM]

"... but objection to the one shooter using the teams photos as their own."

 

yep and what ashame that it happens.

 

"Giving photo credit is easy."

 

yes it is indeed.

[timages]

I think Eric should get a life!

[timages]

P.S. I was simply responding to Anne Morgans Problem and expressing a personal working opinion. I might add that I did not disagree with anything that Eric said in his comments.

[timages]

That is apart from the uncalled insults on my capacity for thinking.

[garrison_k.]

I don't read any insults, Tim. It's a well written responce were he's trying to explain he's changed his mind and maybe yo would too. I'd suggest not shouting with caps lock though. And throwing an insult yourself ater complaining about being insulted, doesn't help.

[EricM]

I don't recall...oh nevermind. I'm going to go get a life.