Local Photolab will not print photographs!?!

[aok photography]

<p>

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I offer the following package which includes all day photography (Preparation of the bride, Wedding and Reception) then all images post processed and put onto a DVD/CD in a stylish leather wallet letting the clients then print the images from home or a photo lab.<br>

But the problem is, is that a bride just emailed me stating "When we tried to get some prints done at Asda they wouldn't release them because they said they looked like professional photos and we need a letter from the photographer giving us permission to make copies".<br>

Now me being new to wedding photography, I've never actually come across this, now of corse I will provide a letter of realise but is there an easier way to resolve this?<br>

Any response is appreciated and also some advice on the letter of realise. Thank you</p>

</p>

[rebecca_eby]

<p>No, there isn't a better way to resolve it because that is exactly what they should do. The photo lab is protecting YOUR copyrights by requiring that letter. You should give all your clients a letter with a *printing/usage release* for the bride and groom's personal use if you are going to give the disk and printing rights. Do not give a copyright release if you plan on using those photos for your own use. Also, I would specificy it's for personal use. (I've had vendors try to rip off my photos from the bride/groom --- which I would gladly share freely for a credit back to me.)</p>

<p>The scary thing is that many photo labs do not ask for the printing release... so kudos to this lab for actually doing it.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I see you are located in the UK. The following info applies to those of us here in the USA..........</p>

<p>Simply take some letterhead with your studio name on it. Date it with a subject line titled copyright. Insert: <strong>Copyright release and unrestricted personal use of all wedding images is granted to Melissa & Ben Smith. </strong>Then, your signature. Easy peasy.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Do not give a copyright release if you plan on using those photos for your own use..." -Rebecca</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Giving the B/G a copyright release for their personal use would not effect your rights to copyright.</p>

[eliza_beth]

<p>Just for clarification, you're looking for an easier way than of emailing a release? Is that what you're asking? For next time, you can include a PDF on the photo disc. Mine says this:<br>

<em>I do hereby declare and warrant that I, the copyright owner of the photos, have given permission and license to the customer to submit for processing or reproducing these photos. I hereby grant a nonexclusive license to ____________________________________ to reproduce these photos for personal use only, and I represent that I have a legal right to grant such a license. You do not have permission to make copies for sale or for the purpose of circumventing sale of the images by the photographer, nor will you authorize any reproductions of the images for commercial use. You are personally responsible for communicating the limitations of this contract to any person who receives a copy of this disc.</em><br>

Then my name and date.</p>

[eliza_beth]

<p>I also have it in my contract that I retain copyright, but that I give them printing permissions.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>In addition to giving the couple a permission letter, there are several places in the metadata where I put copyright info and usage permission. </p>

[aok photography]

<p>Thank you all so much! I'le be on the case asap!</p>

[kiva]

<p>What you're granting them is: Re-print Rights ... the right to reprint among thier circle of family and friends. </p>

<p>Note: this is a good time to include an "information" sheet on Caring for thier DVD of image files with tips on how to make a copy and save the master copy of the DVD of image files and how to re-copy it onto new medial ever few years to keep up with technology and to assure good image files over the years.</p>

<p>Email me if you want me to send you the documents I use so you can make your own version to fit what you want to do.</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>David has it right on and is almost word for word with our copyright release. We issue what we call a limited copyright, which is stated in our contract, just meaning that they can't use the photos as their own work. </p>

<p>I personally am not too concerned with what people do with their own wedding photos. Yes, it is our work, but their wedding. So they can pretty much do as they please. These aren't freelance images that I am trying to sale and make money from prints on. </p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>However you choose to do it, just make sure you always include the release with the disc and it's done. The pdf idea is great because it will never be separated from the disc....-Aimee</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>David has it right on and is almost word for word with our copyright release.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, in this case David has it wrong. Never, ever transfer copyright. What you need to give someone (and all you need to give) is a license to reproduce. Something along the lines of Eliza Beth's suggestion would do the trick. </p>

<p>Copyright should always be a non-disputed and protected asset of the photographer. Anything in writing that says you've transferred copyright to another party can and may be used against you.</p>

[kiva]

<p><strong>Re</strong> -<strong>Print</strong> Rights is what you are allowing, imo. </p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>Neil, I'd like you to elaborate on how allowing a copyright release, NOT transfer, can be used against you...thanks.</p>

[nuzumphoto]

<p>To Note, I'm not trying to be combative about it, but if I am putting myself at risk, I would like to know how.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>"Copyright release" is not the usual term used. As contained in the law, the owner has the exclusive right to do and to authorize copying/reproductions (which would include making prints), prepare derivative works, distribute copies (sale, lending, rental, lease, etc.) and publicly display the work. So one usually uses those or other similar unambiguous terms in describing what one licenses to another party.</p>

<p>http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106</p>

<p>So it's perhaps a nit but if you give a copyright release to another party, it may be the source of some confusion as to what you intended.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Steve - pretty much as Craig has outlined.</p>

<p>Copyright means intellectual property right -- not the right to make copies. (It's actually the right to prevent copying or other use by anyone else).</p>

<p>You don't want to give your IPR to any other party. And if you do, you may find your sole rights to your own work are prejudiced.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[You don't want to give your IPR to any other party]]</p>

<p>People sign work-for-hire contracts every single day.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Yep. That's something else entirely.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>We use "release" in things like a release of liability or a final release when dealing with a claim. We give up rights to revisit the issue legally. We use a "model release" to pass control or validate permission from an individual who has privacy and publicity rights, etc., over to another to use images in a way that might be or is otherwise an infringement on those rights. So using "copyright release" might be interpreted as saying you have turned over or relinquished the various exclusive rights that the copyright owner holds. That's probably not what you would mean but it might be what the customer takes from it. By using specific language, we reduce that potential communication problem.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Yep. That's something else entirely.]]</p>

<p>Yes it is. But your statement regarding property rights does not distinguish this.</p>

<p>If you wish to have a clear discussion on the topic, generalizations are not the way to go.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Rob, if this were a post entitled 'please explain the various forms of IPR and how they are managed in contract' then I'd agree with you. But it isn't. The issue is about what one needs give a client in order that they can get a disk of images printed by a lab.<br>

In that context, talking about work for hire agreements isn't really germane to the discussion. I think mentioning the distinction between copyright and licensing (and the perils of casually and inadvertently transferring IPR) is all that needs be said.<br>

Your point about the danger of generalisation is certainly accurate. For which reason I'd also trust that no one would read this forum as a substitute for legal advice. </p>