B&G wants full copyright.

[mike_hitchen]

<p>Nataliya - my first ipression of reading your reply is that the language and structure seems (to me anyway) very 'in your face' and given the discussions ongoing could be seen as confrontational.<br>

I would delete sentence 2, then have re-order by starting with with Sentence 3 then 4 then 1. Also, you cannot force them to credit you if they use your images, so i would make that more of a request.<br>

<strong>As I mentioned in our phone call, under UK law the photographer retains copyright unless they do sign an agreement to hand it over. I never have done and will stand by that it's just usual practise for myself and most photographers.</strong> <strong>As I mentioned in our phone call I always retain copyright and if you use my images anywhere I would request that I am credited. </strong><strong>I can amend it to include your other 3 points if you still wish to sign it. You do not have to sign it however. No photo's of yourself or your husband will be used on my website or any other form of advertising.</strong><br>

Can you clarify: you say you have never signed copyright over, but apparently this was your first wedding. Are you a commercial photographer in another field?</p>

<p>But before you go into all of that, do you know what their concerns are? Maybe they are a very private couple who do not want zillions of people seeing their wedding day - you could give a verbal assurance it will only be posted on secure websites and you will as a matter of courtesy contact them before using pictures elsewhere. Maybe they have heard the horror stories of innocuous portraits being sold to fetishist websites for the photographer to make money. Maybe they are control freaks. maybe they see this as a way of getting money from you in the future.<br>

So I would discuss this in more detail with them and find out why they are making this request. And as this is for a 'friend of a friend' then could you consider bending a bit because it could come back to bite you badly.</p>

[captureme]

<p>Yes I see how it's confrontational I got a bit worked up!<br>

Yes I am a family portrait photographer, and have been for 3 years.<br>

Yes highly private people, and paranoid about the internet.<br>

Exactly I need to be careful!</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>Here in Australia, it is the clients who have full copyright, not the photographer. I do not have an issue with this. It's their wedding, their photo's, their negatives. We can, as your bride has requested of you, ask for use of the images on websites, portfolios et al. For what other reason would I wish to retain copyright. If it is revenue, then adjust your up front pricing to suit.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>If you already shot their wedding, that means they already signed the contract, and they are bound by the terms of the contract.<br>

They are now deciding to change the terms of the contract, after you upheld your part of it? Sheesh.<br>

You hold <strong>all</strong> the cards.</p>

[mark liddell]

Find out exactly *why* they want full copyright and address that instead.

 

If that doesn't work charge for copyright since the images have value to you in marketing and promotional use to get more work so you should be compensated for giving up copyright.

[waltonwhittaker]

<p>No other kind of artist would even be discussing this. Note to all prospective photographers: avoid weddings like the plague.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>Live and learn. Make sure future contracts state this clearly so no one makes assumptions. My normal, low wedding photography prices reflect that I retain copyright, and that I will be using them for advertising and promotion on the web and in print. If the B & G would like to purchase copyright it's double my normal prices. That's still extremely reasonable compared to what I'd charge a commercial client who wanted copyright.</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Nataliya,</p>

<p>I have a Copyright and Usage fact-sheet on my Blog which I can refer clients to if necessary. Obviously the salient parts are summarized in my contracts so there can be no misunderstandings: <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=188">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/?p=188</a></p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>In what form did you agree to deliver the pictures to her? Was she going to get any prints, or an album as part of a package? Or were you going to give her the images in high res on disc?</p>

<p>If it was the latter, then there is very little argument here: there is actually not much point in hanging on to the copyright except being able to use the images in your marketing materials, and you need her permission to do that even if you do hang on to copyright.</p>

<p>So if you had been planning to hand over the disc of images to her, you could get out of the whole situation by saying:<br /> (1) you never normally hand copyright over, and very, very few wedding photographers are willing to do that, it's not normal in the market,<br /> (2) that it is not technically possible to stop people copying images from your website - you wish it was as you would be very happy if you could stop people stealing your images,<br /> (3) as a gesture of goodwill, and as a one-off that you won't repeat in future, you might be willing to agree to allow her to have copyright in the images, provided she doesn't object to you using the images in your marketing materials and on website, and accepts the fact that there is always the possibility that someone is going to pinch the images from the website.<br /> In this case, hanging on to copyright, while usually important as a matter of principle, doesn't actually bring you anything, because you have no right to use the images without her consent anyway. What you really want is the ability to use the pics for your publicity. So do a trade with her. It should also hopefully make her happy, feeling that she has won something from you, though in reality she hasn't.<br /> Of course, if you had just agreed to give prints or album and not images on disc, then the above doesn't help much. In that case, just give her what you agreed to, and no more (unless she pays extra of course), and chalk it down to experience.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>The wedding shoot occurred before a contract was written and signed?</p>

[bb photography]

<p>I've wondered why so many photographer's on the forums continually complain about handing over copyright?<br>

Many (not all) clients now want to be able to have digital access to their photos for publication to mediums like Facebook. Not releasing any digital copies serves no one any good, as it causes hard feelings between the Photographer and B&G. And hard feelings usually mean no referrals. I certainly understand the concept of art. (Trademark/Copyright classes in Law school taught me a little something.) However, it seems to me that since the game is changing (no more long hours in a darkroom, or money spent on darkroom supplies. Not to mention the ease of image editing) the photographer must adapt or face the consequences of not booking jobs.<br>

I think that if you want to book more jobs, rather than sweating the details of one, raise your price to reflect the copyright release, keep the B&G happy and get more jobs. Seems to me that having work should be a more important factor than preventing people from printing their pictures at Target.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>You shouldn't normally release copyright, partly because it is simply not necessary to do so. A license to the B&G to use the images however they want would give them everything they possibly need.</p>

<p>I've never had a bride and groom who really wanted copyright, though they often ask how it works - all the ones I've ever met understand that copyright is something that belongs to the photographer as author, and don't presume to demand it transferred to them. All they want to know is that they can do what they want with the pictures (this is an option they have, and like any option, there is a fee for it). Even the ones who take up the option, around half of them contact us to have albums or prints done, even though legally they could do it themselves.</p>

<p>The main reason for not releasing copyright is a matter of perception, rather than legal arguments. Once brides and grooms start thinking that it is normal for the photographer to give up all rights in the pictures and that the pictures are 'theirs' without any restriction, photographers will be in a much worse position. Legally there is little difference to giving an unlimited license, in practise there is a world of difference.</p>

<p>Having said that, as I mentioned above, the OP might just think about doing it in this case as an extreme exception, if she'd already offered an unlimited license, as I guess as her first wedding the images are important to her for use in her portfolio.</p>

[976photo]

<blockquote>

<p>This is what they are requesting be put into the contract.</p>

<ul>

<li>No assignment of copyright over the photographs to you,</li>

<li>Permission is granted to you for use of any or all of the photographs in your own portfolio, including display on website or other medium, for your own marketing purposes</li>

<li>Photographs to be displayed in a manner which prevents them from being copies or downloaded by third parties</li>

<li>If you wish to use any photograph(s) for any purpose other than for your own marketing materials, then you must explain to me/us how they will be used and obtain specific authorisation (which shall not constitute transfer of copyright to you or any other party).</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's how they worded it to you, then it sounds to me like they got a lawyer to look over the release form you gave them, and countered with the above request. Of course their lawyer is going to argue for them to have copyrights, that's their job. Just as your lawyer would argue for you to retain them.</p>

<p>That to me is going to be the sticking point, and if it is a lawyer behind them, I doubt you will be able to argue your point without hiring a lawyer yourself. Which may lead to a court proceeding to determine which party will own the copyrights. Very likely you may win that argument in court, but from a business point of view, do you want to take it that far? How many people do you think the B&G will tell about "<em>the photographer that took us to court over our wedding pictures</em>"?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Unless there's an agreement to transfer copyright to them, copyright is owned by the photographer, it doesn't take lawyers and a court to work it out.The only way they might argue otherwise is if there is some evidence of an agreement to give away copyright.</p>

<p>It's highly unlikely that they have been to see a lawyer (for a start, the fact they're saying 'no assignment of photographs over to the photographer' shows they haven't, since that's not the way the law works - a lawyer wouldn't make that mistake). I think as you say it's just their gut reaction to the model release form - and it's quite a reasonable reaction, the photographer shouldn't be asking the B&G to sign a model release form. No wonder it set their alarm bells ringing.</p>

 

[lawrence_li]

<p>IANAL, but actually copyright of the photographs in Canada and UK are, by default, owned by the person who commissioned them, not the photographer. You are however, allowed to modify this default using a contract. <br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law#Photographs<br />http://www.lr.mdx.ac.uk/copyright/index.htm<br>

Even if you sign over a copyright, that only gives them the right to reproduce the images but does not allow them to modify your work. Doing so could potentially damage your reputation and I would make them aware of this fact.<br>

Cheers.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>copyright of the photographs in Canada and UK are, by default, owned by the person who commissioned them, not the photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lawrence, that's true in Canada, but not in the UK. Since the 1986 Copyright Law came in, the photos have been owned by the photographer.</p>

<p>I was amazed to see Canada still has the old pre-1986 rules still in effect.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>John H.--yes, the wedding shoot occurred 'a few weeks ago' without a contract being signed. The OP states that she told the couple she retains copyright but that this was 'verbal'. So far, the OP has not stated whether the couple has taken delivery of any images, and in what form.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Even if you retain the copyright, it appears that the couple do have rights in determining usage, see section 85 here:</p>

<p>http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf from this page: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-ownership/c-commissioned.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[captureme]

<p>Hi sorry, I am in the middle of moving house so it takes me a while to get back to reply.<br>

The deal was I would provide images on a disc for this occasion I as a rule don't generally hand out discs and when I do, I charge per image. However I set a flat fee as this was a friend of a friend and my 1st wedding. <br>

I have been paid and they have their images. We agreed the form would be signed at the end. WHY I did that I don't know. (my mistake) I don't normally so I don't actually know what came over me, excitement perhaps?<br>

I gave them the disc and have said you can of course print them as much as you like etc. Currently I don't have the time to provide books and prints, with moving house and expecting my 3rd child and running my portrait business as well. <br>

Luc I'd never let it get that far I don't have the money to go to court if they wanted to play that game, and if they did well then I would say fine have copyright here's how much it will cost you.<br>

Simon you hit the nail on the head. I want to be able to use these images to show I have done a wedding, it's all very well showing guests at a wedding and champagne flutes but that could be anywhere!</p>

<p>Thank you everyone I appreciate all the input, I have said to her that it is normal practise in the UK that the photographer owns copyright unless otherwise decided and that I never sell the copyright. It's something important to me as a photographer. If I do it for one and they refer me well then people will expect it. Like friend of a friend can I have a discount now, there comes a cut off point!<br>

I said that as I wouldn't sell the copyright she has no worries in me using any images of her and her husband on my website. I won't disrespect them in that regards. They don't want their images up well I won't use them. I will just have to wait until next time and use my knowledge from here.<br>

I also need to draw up a better contract in future it would appear. All a learning curve.</p>

 

[dan_south]

From the instant that you pressed the shutter you became the copyright holder. They didn't press the shutter button, and

you were not hired on a work for hire basis, so they don't own the copyright. You would have to fill out a form to transfer

copyright to them, but you are not obligated to do so.

 

If you charge them a lot of money for copies of the photos, it's understandable why they might become upset. But if you

give them good service and treat them fairly, there should be no issue. Somebody whispered this "get the copyright"

nonsense in their ear and now they think that's what they should do. Be polite and firm and explain that it doesn't work that

way. This is your work. You composed the shots. You sold them your creative and technical expertise, not exclusive

rights to the output of that expertise.

[john_h.1]

<p>It seems like the things they want are very close to what you want but the clients are confused over what the terms being discussed really mean in practical terms. Proper education of clients helps avoid these problems (as does getting a written contract first of course) but can also help solve the issues now.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems like the things they want are very close to what you want</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, that's why I would give them something ('forget the model release, and you can have a licence to use the images as much as you want') in return for getting something from them ('provided you don't object to me using a few of them on my website even though I technically can't stop folk nicking them).<br>

It all seems to me a breakdown in communication. You can have what you want, they can have what they want, everyone's happy.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>+I agree with Josh Root, as the song goes these boots are made for walking</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>+I agree with Josh Root, as the song goes these boots are made for walking</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its a little too late for that.</p>

[savagesax]

Steve Smith wrote, Jun 22, 2010; 03:02 a.m.

 

 

"Never ever give way to your copyrights - ever!

 

For your own personal artistic work I would agree but for weddings, why would you want to retain it?"

 

 

 

I get a lot of reorders. I am fully aware that most photographers give away their rights. If you are shooting weddings legally, paying taxes, state and federal, plus sales taxes, health insurance, disability, social sucurity, 1099 for people that work for you, insuring camera gear and insurance for places that require it, such as a million dollar policy, your take home pay based on the normal $1000 wedding leaves you with about $200 for an 8 hour wedding. That translates to $25 per hour.

 

Of course you could be illegal and take a chance of never being audited. I'm sure most people don't report taxes. Thats why they can charge $1000 per wedding and make a decent leaving. For those I hope you never get audited.

 

Anyway, this is why I don't give away my copyrights. You can make legal money through reorders and weddings and make a good honest living. You can also do other types of work such as corporate work, large events for companies that write checks and declare it on there tax returns, and even special things such as your images showing up in books. A few years ago I got to photograph Miss America. Trust me they reported my earnings to the IRS.

 

It only takes 1 mistake to attract the IRS.