B&G wants full copyright.

[mark_tate]

<p>Ahhh these threads always end up the longest .</p>

<p>Copyright laws are different all over the world so it can be hard to get good advice from an internet forum with members from all over the world .</p>

<p>I am in Australia and here it is the commissioning party who owns the copyright , so if some one pays me to do a wedding or photograph there dog then they are the ones who own copyright .</p>

<p>Adversely if I pay some to to model for me then I am the owner of the copyright .</p>

<p>In either case ownership of a copyright does not mean you have permission to use that photo for any reason and this include having the photo on display in a book you show future clients .</p>

<p>Why would you want copyright of them photos when really they are not yours , you was doing them a service .it was there wedding, they were not doing you a service nor where they working for you .<br /> If they say you can not use them photos then you can not use them photos for any thing .<br /> I did many weddings through the ninety's and there were many wedding photographers who thought better and they all lost big time in law courts .</p>

<p>I always gave my client the negatives once all the printing was done and I really didn't care what they did with them after , every now and then I would get a very very special one and I would get written permission to use that in my advertising .</p>

<p>So ask your self . DO you really want the copyright when you cant do anything with the photos.</p>

<p>What do you think the couple would do with the photos that they have to credit you when wedding photos are mostly shared around with family and friends , unless they are doing something commercial with the photos then they don't have to credit you with anything</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may still be able to do this but the business and customers' perception of it is changing. Once you give your customers image files and/or prints they are going to print their own pictures from the files or scan the prints rather than come to you for prints. The legality of this is irrelevant because it's going to happen anyway.</p>

<p>My point is that wedding photographers are going to have to change their business model to fit in with this practice. Charge a realistic hourly rate for the work you put into the wedding and include all rights in that price.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>I agree Steve. I offer my clients a high res disk of images at a cost, however the caveat is that a print package must be purchased also. This gives me the assurance that my clients will have at least one set of good quality prints to show their family and friends, and it also gives them assurance as well, particularly when they put their K-Mart prints and my wet prints in juxtaposition.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>the caveat is that a print package must be purchased also. This gives me the assurance that my clients will have at least one set of good quality prints to show their family and friends</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's certainly a good idea.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Steve--Bob has been doing business that way for years and apparently, his model still works for him. I mostly agree with what you say, but you can't argue with what works for someone.</p>

<p>As for why a photographer would want to retain copyright, particularly in countries that grant the copyright to the buyer--for self promotion (not necessarily limited to websites and portfolios) and for possible other uses which may involve income. If these two situations can be fully spelled out and included in a contract, then I personally would consider either transferring copyright or not obtaining copyright. However, since apparently, in the UK, copyright is automatically granted to the creator, it makes sense to retain it and spell out the issues for the client, whatever they may be.</p>

[william_johnston1]

<p >If all my points have been made my apologies.</p>

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

<p >Response: The copy right is the photographers, send the Bride and Groom the following <a href="http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright">http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright</a></p>

<p >· 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 </p>

<p ></p>

<p >Response: I know photographers that have sold images from weddings as 'art' , you need to decide what you want the images for.</p>

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

<p ></p>

<p >Response: this makes a nonsense of the previous point. If an image can be seen it can be copied. I have disabled right hand click and copy mouse function on my website, but the images can still be copied. I came across one of my photos on a blog about wedding photographers. (<a href="http://www.softtonesphotography.co.uk/images/images/Wedding_photographer_Peterborough_030_JPG_jpg.jpg">image</a>) so I have plastered it with a copy right notice. It spoils the image, but it was copied, because even though the actual webpage at www.softtonesphotography.co.uk is protected the image can be accessed both through Google images and by a screen shot etc. </p>

<p >· 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). </p>

<p ><br>

 

<p >Response: The copy right is the photographers. If they wish to force the issue, ‘good will’ may suggest you agree to the request. If however wish to sell the images or use them for competitions and the like, then stand your ground if they signed the original agreement. </p>

<p >They may ask a solicitor to right to you and threaten legal action, but this would not get far. </p>

 

<p>

<p > </p>

</p>

 

<p >Regards, William</p>

</p>

[captureme]

<p>Thank you william. I emailed them couple of days ago, as I said above. I haven't heard from them. I suspect they could be talking to a lawyer to find out what to do. Or they are planning an email. If it gets all to messy then I'll write it off and give copyright, but charge for it. <br>

If it comes down to it, and I'm threatened legal action which we can't afford how much should I charge for selling the copyright?</p>

[ianivey]

<p>You're not obligated to give them copyright, nor is there any legal basis for legal action against you for refusing to do so. The fact that they misunderstood the law during your negotiations does not entitle them to judgment against you now. I'd be less concerned with legal action than with making the customer happy within the bounds of principle. </p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with offering to sell the copyright. First, though, clearly articulate three things.</p>

<ol>

<li>You're giving them full reprint permission without any serious reservation, and this is usually the primary concern of wedding clients (i.e., "may I use the files to make inexpensive prints?").</li>

<li>Your retention of copyright does not entitle you to sell their images for use in ad campaigns or the like, nor do you have any intention of broadly publicizing their images. To sell their images for commercial use would require additional permission from them, and it's worth saying that you have already inferred from their prior comments that they would prefer not to have their images sold for that kind of use.</li>

<li>They are not in any way injured by your retention of copyright, nor are they entitled to demand its transfer to them. </li>

</ol>

<p>If my client still insisted on owning the copyright, my conversation with them would then sound something like this:</p>

<p>"I <em>can</em> sell you the copyright to these images for $1,000. Copyright is valuable to the artist (to be able to claim credit and demonstrate skill and experience, among other things). But to most clients it is of very limited value unless you're planning to publish your photos somewhere.</p>

<p>"That's why I don't include copyright purchase in any of my packages and rarely even discuss it. Sometimes clients ask me to transfer copyright, but very often this request is based on a misunderstanding of what that really means. Can you help me understand how you believe you would benefit from having copyright, rather than full reprint permission? It may be less valuable to you than you think, and it's very likely I can provide you with exactly what you want at far less cost to you."</p>

<p>Keep us posted. My guess is they'll respond favorably to your initial email. If it goes more than three days without a response, I would call -- personal contact and tone of voice are exceedingly effective at smoothing ruffled feathers, which to me is what this controversy sounds like.</p>

 

[ianivey]

<p>Let me rephrase my three points in terms of what the client values.</p>

<p>"If I interpret your values correctly, you want to be sure that you can order prints and do other things with the photos such as post them to Facebook and share them with friends and family. All of those things are definitely okay, and I would go so far as to say I strongly encourage you to do so. </p>

<p>"You also want a sense of control, and assurance that your photos won't show up on a billboard or in some magazine advertisement somewhere. Let me reassure you right now of two things. First, I have no intention of using your photos for anything other than normal self-promotion, such as on my own web site and in my own printed portfolio. Second, you are already protected against commercial use of your images: just because I, as the artist, own the copyright, does not mean I can sell or use your images for commercial purposes -- that kind of use requires a separate permission from you, and I can tell that's something you want to avoid. Therefore, I want to avoid it, too.</p>

<p>"It's important for you to understand that any time your photos are visible to others, they can be copied. Such unauthorized copying would be illegal. Although there are ways to make illegal copying a bit more difficult, there is no way to prevent a determined -- or even a lazy and marginally technically competent -- person from making copies and using them for <em>evil</em>. But I do take copyright infringement seriously, because it hurts my business and my clients. So if you post a photo to Facebook and it gets copied and published elsewhere, or if someone takes images off my web site and claims authorship, the infringer will get nasty, terrifying lawyer letters from me. And they will be printed on very expensive paper, signed with a <em>fountain pen.</em> I do not mess around."</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>I really don't understand why any photographer would want to retain copyright on a wedding they were hired to shoot.<br>

Copyright of these things really does mean nothing .<br>

Weddings are a personal event for the couple and most would not even remember the photographers name after its all done and expecting to be given credits as a photographer when a client puts a photo on there facebook is just pure egotistical nonsense , why should the client give you free advertising ?</p>

<p>Just because you live in a county where you own the copyright by default does not mean you should .</p>

<p>Wouldn't it make better sense to just let the couple do what ever they wish to do with there photos and keep them happy and in return they would probably give yu permission to use there photos in your advertising making you happy .</p>

<p>In the end every one is happy .</p>

<p>You will get a lot more recommendations and advertising from the clients if you keep them happy, the way you are going about this right now they will never recommend you to any one .</p>

<p>This is an incredibly competitive industry so don't go burning down your bridges now if you want to get more work .</p>

<p>The only time when copyrights do mean anything is when there is a commercial interest in the shoot like endorsements of products etc</p>

[ianivey]

<p>It's poor and exceedingly short-sighted advice to encourage photographers to treat copyright as a frivolous concern.</p>

<p>Copyright is valuable to wedding photographers for a number of reasons, not least of which are the rights to claim authorship of photos and to exclude others from making authorship claims. Just recently a clown in California stole a large number of images belonging to Photo.net members. He fraudulently implied authorship and used the photos to promote his own business (or his scam -- it was never clear which he was running).</p>

<p>Transferring copyright to the client deprives the photographer of the right to demand that an infringer cease his infringement, even if the infringer falsely claims ownership or authorship.</p>

<p>Clients (as well as many photographers) are frequently ignorant about copyright law and the value of copyright to the photographer. Some clients request a transfer of copyright as a shorthand for specific goals, such as the right to reprint and the right to limit publication. These are things we can easily provide clients by contract, without abandoning copyright. Many clients -- and as we see in this thread, some photographers -- fail to grasp the value of copyright to the photographer, and simultaneously greatly exaggerate its value to the client.</p>

<p>Mark says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Copyright of these things really does mean nothing .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's arguably true for the <em>client,</em> but absolutely not for the photographer. And a simple explanation, along with clear language in the contract that provides the client what she really wants, is usually enough to settle the matter and delight the client.</p>

<p>Mark says wedding photography is "an incredibly competitive industry...." We often see people in these forums ruing competition, when they should be trying to adapt and innovate. I'm never one to discourage competitive practices. And I roll my eyes every time someone complains about being price competition from CL photographers.</p>

<p>But disparaging copyright is not a competitive practice. It is a failure to acknowledge one of the most important principles of human existence: property, and more specifically, the right to exclude others from using one's property without permission. This leads to a longer, philosophical, discussion that I won't explore deeply here, but I will say that -- in any country, but particularly in the US, where it is actually part of our Constitution -- copyright is an important matter of principle, and deserves attention and study by artists, whose livelihoods it influences.</p>

<p>It's quite right for Mark to focus on making the client happy, but photographers need not -- and should not -- carelessly cast copyright aside to do so.</p>

[david_prouty]

<p>You've made all of the mistakes a wedding photographer can make in one job.</p>

<p>You had no contract before the wedding.</p>

<p>You haven't been paid before the wedding.</p>

<p>You gave the images away without getting paid.</p>

<p>You are negotiating a contract after the wedding.</p>

<p>You are letting the client tell you what you are able to do with YOUR images.</p>

<p>I really don't think you are ready for the wedding market, or any market for that matter. But, at least you knew enough to start asking questions.</p>

<p>I hope you come out of this OK. But rethink your business before booking ANY more jobs.</p>

[neilambrose]

Perceptive advice from Ian.

 

I must say, I'm frequently surprised by the careless way in which some people can treat their copyright. I've never really

understood it, and can only think it's a symptom of not actually understanding what the concept really means. Far from

being nothing, copyright is everything.

 

I value my copyright more than I value my equipment. It's the right to be identified as the creator of the image and to have

control over what happens to that image. Without copyright, the process of photography is reduced to an empty series of

button presses. If you didn't have copyright, there'd be no point in being a photographer.