The use of wedding photos I have taken

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Hi, I have been around these forums for some time but with the new Google caching I have made another account, not because I'm hiding something but because I don't want everything about me Googled, so hard to not have everything we do achieved into a single search these days.</p>

<p>Anyway here is my question;<br>

While studying photography in University I became an assistant to a local photographer, he himself had only just discovered photography and started to offer weddings. He paid me and I invoiced him - I never received, read or signed any contract. I am finally starting out my wedding photography on my own, (slowly but surely). I wanted to know if I am ok to use the photographs I have taken or if there is any legal issues he could use against me? I wanted to ask him but I am pretty sure he will say no, I wanted to know my rights first.</p>

<p>If you could kindly lead me in the right direction I would extremely be grateful :).</p>

<p>Regards</p>

<p>Tammy</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Tammy,</p>

<p>Why are you so sure he would say no? Asking and getting his blessing would certainly be the easiest route to take. You could perhaps add a note to these images, or an acknowledgement somewhere that you took those images while working as assistant to John Q Smith, with a link to his site.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Indeed William's answer is represents great business development, as well as good networking. Google caching also picks up on links (though a low priority), so including more links can't really hurt.</p>

<p>However, you are not asking about asking him, you are asking about the 'worst case' which is that he is a complete jerk, and wants to continue to be one.</p>

<p>The answer depends on what country you are in (usually), and your local jurisdiction. However, in <em>most</em> of the first world, <em>without</em> a contract, and since you actually<em> took</em> the pictures, you are the owner of them, and can do whatever you want with them regardless of <em>his</em> opinion (though his may not be the only important opinion). This is not true everywhere though. Perhaps you could tell us where you are at so somebody familiar with that locality could give you more specific advice?</p>

<p>There is also the issue of the subject's authorization of your use of pictures of them (ie the other's whose opinion matters). Here in the US it's largely a moot point, but in Europe and other countries, restrictions on the images (and therefore the subject's) use is much higher.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Almost forgot...<br>

... just because a couple has granted <em>him</em> the right to use pictures he took at their event for say promotional use does NOT mean they've granted those 'privileges' to <em>you</em> as well ...in places where it matters anyway ;-)</p>

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>It's just some of the conversations we have had, he doesn't give off a positive approach to me using the photos. What I wanted to know was if I actually need to ask, I am going to ask but I wanted to know my rights before, I don't want to be put in a position that I don't know what I am talking about.</p>

<p>Thank you for responding William.</p>

 

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Hi Marcus, I am in the UK, and good point about the people in the photographs, I haven't seen any of his contracts to his clients so I haven't a clue...</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Marcus writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"However, in most of the first world, without a contract, and since you actually took the pictures, you are the owner of them, and can do whatever you want with them regardless..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's basically my understanding, too, but it might be a little more complicated than that. In the USA, anyway, content creators are generally the owners of the copyright, but not always. There's this legal distinction between work for hire and subcontracting. (I think that's the distinction.) And I'm not sure whether working as an assistant is subcontracting or work for hire. I think it has something to do with who's controlling how you perform your duties. I'm 98% sure that the young folks pressing the shutter buttons at K-Mart Photo Studios aren't the owners of the copyrights for the pictures they take. An assistant or second shooter at a wedding has more freedom than a clerk at a K-Mart photo studio, of course. I'm just not sure about the legal status of the assistant or second shooter.</p>

<p>Best solution: Finesse the legal question by talking to the guy, thank him for his mentoring and guidance, ask nicely for his blessing, offer to give him credit etc. Schmooze. In my experience most folks like helping others in this way. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Tammy, when there is a lead photographer who has invested considerable time and cost in both acquiring a wedding and then applying their expertise to photographing it, it should be no surprise that they might be resistant to a second shooter claiming credit for the images. You have essentially just rolled up on the day and probably photographed many of the scenes which the lead photographer has controlled. However, it is quite commonplace for second shooters to have an agreement with the lead photographer whereby they are able to show the images they have taken on their blog for example, whilst making it clear that the photographs have been taken in their role as an assistant or second shooter. If the second shooter were to promote themselves using these images then they could be implying that the wedding was "theirs" and that they are responsible for the manner in which the event has unfolded photographically. The consequences of taking this course could be quite detrimental to your reputation therefore as William has said a sensible and respectful approach is the best (if not the only) way forward. It's not simply a matter of determining Copyright, as you can see. I have little doubt that you retain Copyright of your pictures but using them to promote yourself introduces the complications I have already mentioned.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>If I were you, I would take a pragmatic approach – always good in business and you might as well get started at it: you never know until you ask and don’t ask a question until you have weighed up all the possible outcomes.</p>

<p>I don’t see this matter is about your rights: it is about you having some samples of your work to show to prospects. So the point is how many samples would you actually NEED from this one Wedding? Look at the big picture and think a bit down board.</p>

<p>You are getting started: sure you might ‘want’ all the lovely pictures you made, (that’s emotion) but how much is the absolute value compared to the energy possibly required to be expended?</p>

<p>I like William’s approach - I’d meet the fellow and buy him a coffee and propose something like:<br />“I am just getting started and I really would like to use five?, ten?, twelve? of the images I made when I was working for you at that Wedding.” <br />“I want to show them to my Clients when I meet them.”<br />“I want to use ONLY two?, three? four? On my website.”<br />“OBVIOUSLY, I will credit your business name when I use them.”<br />“This will benefit both of us, ESPECIALLY YOU as your name on my website will show you up as a good mentor and a collaborative professional in our field.”</p>

<p>The point is next year when you have shot eight Weddings yourself, you won’t need these old images anyway.</p>

<p>The issue which holds many people back from developing their business is their emotions. I suggest that you do not see these images as “yours” or you having “rights” on or over them.<br />But rather approach this situation that a few of the images will be useful to you in the short term and then work out how the other Bloke helping you to do that, will be of benefit to him . . .<br />NOTE that you are thinking about <strong><em>how it benefits him</em></strong> – and not what your rights are to FORCE him to comply.</p>

<p>The worst case is he says “no”. In which case you say: “thank you for your time” – and say NOTHING else.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The matter of who owns the Copyright, under UK and Irish Law, I am not sure: I think there are still remnants of the Act pertaining to “commissioning portraits for private use” and those may still apply – but I reiterate I am not sure – I do recall I was informed that the UK Law was changed (sort of recently), after the time I was in London, I believe. Certainly such laws still apply in many of the areas which were once British Colonies and that law was migrated to them.</p>

<p>But anyway, Copyright is probably the least of the PRACTICAL concerns, for you at the moment.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Sorry for the slow reply. <br /><br />I'm going to ask him this afternoon :S... I do like your approach to this but one thing I'm reluclent to do is to link him on my site, I'm obviously going to put I did them while assisting but I don't want to link to his site, he does his service at a stupidly cheap price to "get the job" he says. <br /><br />You are right about needing samples of work, most of these photos were taken on my instruction, the bridal prep mainly as he was taking photos of the groom getting ready, I set up a fair few shots myself, moved things around engaged with the bridal party, I have never considered using any of the 'main' shots after the ceremony as that just taking the micky.</p>

<p>"The worst case is he says “no”. In which case you say: “thank you for your time” – and say NOTHING else" WW<br /><br />So if he says no I'm to leave it and use some of the work I have done at a wedding I did do? I'm also trying to set up staged shots but I'm having a hard time finding the recently married couples.</p>

<p>I'm just so afraid of people not liking there photos, but that's how I feel about most things - I'm sure many of you guys can relate.</p>

<p>Thank you for your replies and advice, it really does help me.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Did you read my reply Tammy? There is the key difference between the level of input you have applied to the wedding versus that of the lead photographer. Once again, irrespective of how many shots you consider to be your own, you would not have been at that wedding but for the time and often considerable acquisition cost and overhead which is borne by the business owner. You are not the business owner therefore it's unlikely that you would automatically retain the right to use the images as you see fit (irrespective of the fact that Copyright is 'likely' to be yours, notwithstanding work for hire arrangements etc). Therefore the level of effort, and expense, in providing that wedding (for the benefit of the second shooter to gain images and experience) does not end with you. Whether required by the lead photographer or not, it is also a matter of professional courtesy that you credit him accordingly. </p>

<p>In other words the terms of how and where you can use the shots are likely to lie with him. Therefore if he says no, you must consider that that is exactly what he means. As William W has rightly alluded, it really isn't that big a deal, surely? With the right approach it's not going to be that difficult to you to find other relevant opportunities, perhaps with other photographers? I would avoid using too many staged shots in your portfolio, unless you intend to be completely open with your prospects that they were not photographed at a real wedding.</p>

<p>To clarify a couple of legalities, The Copyright Act includes a section whereby "images which are commissioned for private and domestic purposes" (that would be weddings, portraits and some other forms of social photography) afford the subjects the right to decline publication of those images. This is dealt with in our Contracts via a clause, stating that the photographer retains the right to use the images for promotion etc. I know of very few cases were a client would exercise their choice here, but when you speak to lead photographer, presuming you are okay to use the shots you took, you would need to clarify that the relevant permissions exist. Incidentally there is no such thing as UK law, it is the laws of England and Wales. Scotland differs slightly.</p>

 

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Hi Lindsey yes I did read your reply, and thank you very useful, I don't have a contract with him I never signed or read anything.</p>

<p>thank you </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>He should have been clear with you Tammy, but in the future if or when you second shoot remember to ask the photographer to set out the terms in writing, or in an e-mail. </p>

<p>You may want to bookmark my Blog, under the Categories tab there is a "for photographers" section which contains quite a lot of articles relating to the business of photography and several which discuss legal issues such as Copyright and image usage, which may be useful to you in the future. The information given does of course relate to the laws of England and Wales only. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p> I do like your approach to this but one thing I'm reluclent to do is to link him on my site.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not suggest that. I wrote: “OBVIOUSLY, I will credit your business name when I use them.”<br>

“crediting your business name” is NOT a ‘LINK’ – it is a credit.</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />"The worst case is he says “no”. In which case you say: “thank you for your time” – and say NOTHING else"<br /><br />So if he says no I'm to leave it and use some of the work I have done at a wedding I did do? I'm also trying to set up staged shots but I'm having a hard time finding the recently married couples.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I were you and he declined the conversation that I wrote out above, I would simply say, “thank you for your time” and I would NOT use any of the images you took at that Wedding for the promotion of your business.</p>

<p>Not that I want to get into discussing it, but I don’t know why you actually have the image files in your possession, anyway: if I were he, I would have the files and you would not – but it seems to me that he might be new or let’s say “not savvy” at this business, also.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just so afraid of people not liking there photos, but that's how I feel about most things - I'm sure many of you guys can relate.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well that’s got nothing to do with this issue. Just have a go at a nice conversation with him - and it will either work or it won’t and then get up and go on, from that point.<br>

Good Luck,</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>To clarify a couple of legalities . . . [etc . . . goes on to clarify]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks: I was hoping you would do that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Incidentally there is no such thing as UK law, it is the<strong><em> laws of England and Wales.</em></strong> Scotland differs slightly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK! Thanks again, cousin. My head was muddled at the time of writing – I knew it was a “separatist thing” I just didn’t get what bit was separated from what other bit.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Thank you Lindsey I have bookmarked it and it will sure to be used, I gave him the CF card on the first wedding we did and he returned it with the images on...which I was confused about. Tbh I consider naming someone on a website as a link, Google is in the top right corner on most peoples computers/tablets, it's not hard to find someone in a few seconds lol. <br /><br />I will let you know what the response is, fingers crossed.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p><strong>"OK! Thanks again, cousin. My head was muddled at the time of writing – I knew it was a “separatist thing” I just didn’t get what bit was separated from what other bit."</strong></p>

<p>It confuses us too at times William! (-: Actually with respect to photography I don't think there is any difference when it comes to Copyright or general usage, but I think it diverges a bit in terms of harassment and trespass.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Tbh I consider naming someone on a website as a link, Google is in the top right corner on most peoples computers/tablets, it's not hard to find someone in a few seconds lol."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it is usually easy to find someone on Google or another search engine.<br>

But, to be very accurate and with clear business thinking and without laughing out loud: a Credit of a Business Name on a website is <em><strong>not</strong></em> the same as Link to another Business website.<br>

And a credit does <strong><em>not</em></strong> have the same affect or effect, either.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>ASIDE COMMENT-<br>

<em><strong>I think it diverges a bit in terms of harassment and trespass.</strong></em><br>

So when in Scotland, I can "trespass" and "harass" until they feed me on single malt . . .</p>

 

[lindsay_dobson]

<p><strong> I gave him the CF card on the first wedding we did and he returned it with the images on...which I was confused about. Tbh I consider naming someone on a website as a link, Google is in the top right corner on most peoples computers/tablets, it's not hard to find someone in a few seconds lol.</strong><br>

<br>

There are different approaches to this, depending on the circumstances. For example (in your locality) if you were an in-house photographer (in other words if you were under contract of employment by a business or company as a photographer, whether or not you took pictures in their studio or out on location) it is usual that Copyright lies with your employer and also in work-for-hire situations your employer may be able to claim the same, some wedding studios operate on this basis. However the most common scenario I have encountered is where the second shooter hands over his or her cards at the end of the wedding day and the lead photographer hands them back after download - how the second photographer then uses the images is dependent upon the Contract you have with the lead photographer. It's common for the second photographer to be allowed to use the images on his or her blog providing that it is not in any way implied that the images were taken independently, and also credit (and usually a link) for the lead photographer must be stated. And in addition the second photographer may not sell the images nor pass them onward. Occasionally there is a "noncompetition clause" whereby the primary photographer will try to limit exposure if the second photographer is geographically on the same territory. It really depends on what is agreed at the outset.<br>

<br>

I'm finding it difficult to determine why you sound reluctant to include a link, you really need to accept that your audience may even decide to hire him and I cannot see anything wrong with that (even if he is cheap). Put simply, as William W suggested once you have enough experience you will no longer need to use your second shooter pictures and your clients will choose you for your own particular style.<br>

<br>

As has already been said, a very polite and respectful approach, with the suggestion along the lines of what has already been set, will hopefully sort things out for you. And do get it in writing, so there are no misunderstandings further down the line.</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>ASIDE COMMENT-<br /><em><strong>I think it diverges a bit in terms of harassment and trespass.</strong></em><br />So when in Scotland, I can "trespass" and "harass" until they feed me on single malt . . .<br>

<br>

I think you would get away with that Cuz! It's a wonderful ice breaker (pun intended). Actually I think it's unlikely you could be charged with trespass in Scotland unless you did actual damage to something ...</p>

<p> </p>

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>He said yes he said I could use them! No restrictions either! Fab chap! Thank you for your advice, I guess I was afraid of a no as without examples people are not interested and the weddings I had done were with the old lens which had a focusing problem ( I now have lots of backups).<br /><br />I have a wedding of my own in November, I'm hoping she will be ok for me to use them on my site too, I will put this in a contract with a tickable box. Thank you guys, you always seem to help. I was starting to accept that the no may be on the agenda and that I would have to accept I couldn't use them in a portfolio of work.<br>

<br />What do you think of the SWPP? I was pointed in that direction.</p>

[william-porter]

<p>For the record, it was I who first used the word "link". I didn't recommend it or not recommend it, I simply mentioned it as a possibility in addition to an acknowledgement. Me personally, I'd probably use a link; I mean, why not? As Tammy points out, it's not hard to turn a name into a link. But, while I think an acknowledgement is necessary, a link is not.<br>

<br>

@Tammy: You replied to William W,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tbh I consider naming someone on a website as a link, Google is in the top right corner on most peoples computers/tablets, it's not hard to find someone in a few seconds lol. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, of course, but I'm really not sure I understand what you're afraid of here. I think you're thinking like a beginner (which of course you are, so perhaps this is inevitable). Beginners think everybody else in the world is competition, and that mentioning another photographer on your site is tantamount to saying, "Don't use me, use him." </p>

<p>Don't be so worried! It's important to understand that, while this may to some extent be a zero sum game, the field of competition is so ridiculously large that you don't need to worry about any one competitor ever. Your photographs are different from his, surely. You are personally different.</p>

<p>Connect with other photographers. They might throw you work one day, but it's more likely you'll simply find that connecting with other photographers is enjoyable in its own right, not to mention very instructive. And don't be so nervous about something as simple as an acknowledgement.</p>

<p>• </p>

<p>When it comes down to it, you're going to get your own clients, and those who pick <em>you</em> will mostly do so for one or the other of two reasons.<br>

<br>

(1) What you hope is that they'll find you and pick you because they like your work. But remember, they could find a dozen other photographers whose work they'd like as much as yours, in about five minutes. What wins the contract is more often a combination of them liking your work and them <em>liking you.</em> And while you're work isn't unique (nobody's work is, really), you are. So don't worry about the competition. Nobody else is as good at being you as you are.</p>

<p>(2) But it's just as likely, perhaps more likely, especially when you're starting out, that you'll get picked more or less at random — because somebody found your site, liked your price, didn't hate your photos, and was tired of looking at photographers' websites. So don't worry about the competition, because in the end, it's all a bit of a craps game anyway.</p>

<p>At no point in the future is any potential client going to end up with a short list consisting of you—and your former boss. So relax and be gracious. You have nothing to lose! And just for your own personal health, it's worth realizing that the guy did you a favor, even if he does not agree to let you use the photos you took. You got some experience, and that's worth a lot, probably more than those individual photos are worth.</p>

<p>Will</p>

 

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>There you go Tammy - result!</p>

<p>I think it's fantastic you're considering an organisation like The Societies (SWPP). There are other good organisations as well, if you have interests beyond wedding photography, or for when you become established or well-known. But for someone at the very start of their career the SWPP has a huge amount to offer including excellent training, mentoring, and a very active and helpful forum populated by highly experienced professionals. I am a Fellow of the SWPP (and the BIPP) so if you have any particular questions feel free to telephone me or shoot me an e-mail.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Very good</p>

<p>WW</p>