Bnack
Established
So I have a question. I'm an amateur photographer who has never done any assignment work before. A friend of mine has asked that I photograph her and her now husband at their farm as engagement photos etc... I explained to her what I expected costs to be etc, and said that I would then get any prints made that they would want, but I would retain copyright on the images and would keep all originals. She has then specifically asked that I would photograph them and give them a CD with all originals so they can print what and release all copyrights to them. This doesn't seem right to me, but I wanted to get others thoughts and opinions on this. Do I hold onto CR at all cost, or is it ok to allow them to have the originals? Thanks for any sage advice I might receive.
kevin m
Veteran
was common practice.
dmr
Registered Abuser
A good friend of mine was recently a MOB. The photographer they hired (I assertively declined) provided CDs of everything and yes, this was a big factor in their hiring. They even said "we're in the business of taking photos, not selling prints."
mhv
Registered User
By giving away your negatives and scans you are not automatically giving away your copy right. Legally, you are still the originator of the work, and copies cannot be sold without your authorization. That's what I understand of Hogarth's law: it's about the right to sell copies (yes, the MAFIAA are also against non-commercial copies, but that's another problem).
I'm not sure why your friend wants you to waive your legal rights to the photos. Maybe she just wants to have the negatives to print as she wants (a reasonable request), and is confusing the legal with the practical.
Personally, I don't have a problem with letting a friend have the negatives of herself, but I would make sure to be very clear on the legal ramifications. IANAL.
I'm not sure why your friend wants you to waive your legal rights to the photos. Maybe she just wants to have the negatives to print as she wants (a reasonable request), and is confusing the legal with the practical.
Personally, I don't have a problem with letting a friend have the negatives of herself, but I would make sure to be very clear on the legal ramifications. IANAL.
Bnack
Established
Ok.... seems to make sense to me. For my own purposes I think what's important is that I'm able to use these to promote my photography in the future. Whatever they do with them doesn't much matter to me (assuming they weren't somehow trying to make money off them). So it sounds like I can allow them to have the originals but still retain the rights to use my photographs for a portfolio etc...
M. Valdemar
Well-known
What do you care what they do with them?
Technically, what you're agreeing to is called a "work for hire".
Traditionally, when an entity hires someone to do a "work for hire", the employer retains the copyright.
This is sometimes waived with big name writers and photographers, but in the case of wedding photos of a non-celebrity, demanding to retain copyright is somewhat ridiculous.
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html
Google "work for hire" in quotes and you can find free contracts and forms if you want to be a stickler for it.
Technically, what you're agreeing to is called a "work for hire".
Traditionally, when an entity hires someone to do a "work for hire", the employer retains the copyright.
This is sometimes waived with big name writers and photographers, but in the case of wedding photos of a non-celebrity, demanding to retain copyright is somewhat ridiculous.
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html
Google "work for hire" in quotes and you can find free contracts and forms if you want to be a stickler for it.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I was once asked by friends to take photos at their wedding, as a "backup" to the professional photographer and to take non-formal photographs. They received an album from the pro with selected photos and I gave them the prints of my photos together with the negatives as a small present. Kept me out of any "business" related stuff ... 
Paul T.
Veteran
First sentence is true, but not the rest. You are a freelance worker, not the employee of the couple. If you were the salaried staff photographer for a newspaper, they would keep copyright; if they had hired you as a freelancer you would retain the copyright, and generally only give it up for an increased fee.
But in any case, you won't be wanting to sell on the prints, unless you expect the couple to become famous (or infamous). Hence you might as well let them have the negs, for non-commercial use, while you retain copyright if you think you might want to use them for promotion etc.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
It sounds like your not a professional and therefore do not do this for a living. That being the case, (IMHO) you could stand to loosen up a bit.
OTOH if their request goes against your principles, just tell them - "I don't do that."
Regarding model releases (those of you who do this for a living can correct me if I am wrong) - your standard contract would cover model releases and your right to use and sell the final images.
As for me, if I had to do photography for a living (I would probably starve to death BTW) and friends wanted to hire me to do some work on the order of what you are representing, I would most likely strike a bargain with them. Friendship (if they are really friends) is more important to me than whatever copyright I would be giving up.
Just remember one thing - they will remember your rigidity - or they will remember your generosity.
OTOH if their request goes against your principles, just tell them - "I don't do that."
Regarding model releases (those of you who do this for a living can correct me if I am wrong) - your standard contract would cover model releases and your right to use and sell the final images.
As for me, if I had to do photography for a living (I would probably starve to death BTW) and friends wanted to hire me to do some work on the order of what you are representing, I would most likely strike a bargain with them. Friendship (if they are really friends) is more important to me than whatever copyright I would be giving up.
Just remember one thing - they will remember your rigidity - or they will remember your generosity.
Last edited:
mikeseb
Member
Paul T. is right. Keep it cordial, keep it businesslike (nowhere more important that when doing business with friends!); but keep the copyright.
In your WRITTEN agreement with the happy couple (you do have a written agreement of some type, don't you?), grant them liberal license to make prints, etc, for PERSONAL use. Retain for yourself the rights to use the images however you wish for promotional purposes.
Friendship works both ways; friends who make unreasonable demands are either ignorant of what they demand, or may not be quite as good friends as you think.
In your WRITTEN agreement with the happy couple (you do have a written agreement of some type, don't you?), grant them liberal license to make prints, etc, for PERSONAL use. Retain for yourself the rights to use the images however you wish for promotional purposes.
Friendship works both ways; friends who make unreasonable demands are either ignorant of what they demand, or may not be quite as good friends as you think.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I must admit that I'm rather shocked at the highly negative commentary about how wedding photographers are all evil for wanting to keep copyright, etc. I do think there is confusion about keeping the negatives (or full-rez files) and copyright. I also think there is a HUGE misconception about where the margins come from with wedding and event photography. Unless someone is charging a LOT ($5000+), then the margins come from the prints and albums, plain and simple. This is if someone is running this as a primary business and they are in fact billing the processing time as part of the job.
Having said all that, my contract states that I gave full-rez files to the couple, they are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's for personal use (ie - don't sell them), and that while I retain copyright I only use them for advertising purposes. Anything above and beyond what would constitute normal advertising would involve notification to the couple. When they ask me what "normal" means I give an example of my becoming so famous that I have a billboard or side of a building painted with an advertisement, and I choose one of their photos. And when they ask what "notification" means, I explain that I would inform them that I'm doing it, but that I technically don't need their permission according to the contract.
At the same time, I also explain that if I ever get that famous, they probably wouldn't mind having a photo of them being part of an advert for me, and also that in all reality I would not do such a thing without their consent. But I retain copyright and use for promotional purposes, plain and simple.
Having said all that, my contract states that I gave full-rez files to the couple, they are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's for personal use (ie - don't sell them), and that while I retain copyright I only use them for advertising purposes. Anything above and beyond what would constitute normal advertising would involve notification to the couple. When they ask me what "normal" means I give an example of my becoming so famous that I have a billboard or side of a building painted with an advertisement, and I choose one of their photos. And when they ask what "notification" means, I explain that I would inform them that I'm doing it, but that I technically don't need their permission according to the contract.
At the same time, I also explain that if I ever get that famous, they probably wouldn't mind having a photo of them being part of an advert for me, and also that in all reality I would not do such a thing without their consent. But I retain copyright and use for promotional purposes, plain and simple.
bobbyrab
Well-known
What is it you find repulsive then, and indeed what are the scams that we're getting up to, as your initial statement implied more than the one issue?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
um. unless someone says that it is work for hire, using those specific terms, in a contract, then it is not work for hire. so since my contract does not say I am doing photography as work for hire, I retain copyright. it's a legal term.
bobbyrab
Well-known
fair enough
M. Valdemar
Well-known
This is really almost in the realm of the absurd.
A couple getting married hires a photographer to take photos of their wedding.
They are not celebrities and the wedding is a private event, not a public "celebrity" or "royal" wedding.
They are paying the photographer to produce images for them, prints, web photos, whatever.
Why on earth would they want the photographer to own unlimited license to market their photos in the future or "own" the photos?
It's ridiculous. Moronic.
The images belong to the wedding couple, the photographer can retain rights to display some of the photos for his promotional web site or portfolio.
That's it. Case closed.
Photographers can chose to work for hire, and publishers can chose to buy all rights. I personally negotiated some of these deals. It's probably little known that photographers like Helmut Newton did work for girly magazines as "work for hire", and relinquished all rights to them. Well, it's true. When someone needs money, they make deals.
If a publisher pays for the shoot, he is entitled to the rights to the photos, in their way of thinking.
Other deals can be "first rights", for example, where a photographer shoots on spec, if the publisher buys them, he has exclusive right of first publication, say for a year or two.
Then the photographer is free to sell "second rights" to all and sundry.
There is nothing set in stone, and most of the "internet generation" of photographers who post online have absurd, childish ideas of ownership, and of the importance of their own work, which is usually quite grandiose.
A couple getting married hires a photographer to take photos of their wedding.
They are not celebrities and the wedding is a private event, not a public "celebrity" or "royal" wedding.
They are paying the photographer to produce images for them, prints, web photos, whatever.
Why on earth would they want the photographer to own unlimited license to market their photos in the future or "own" the photos?
It's ridiculous. Moronic.
The images belong to the wedding couple, the photographer can retain rights to display some of the photos for his promotional web site or portfolio.
That's it. Case closed.
Photographers can chose to work for hire, and publishers can chose to buy all rights. I personally negotiated some of these deals. It's probably little known that photographers like Helmut Newton did work for girly magazines as "work for hire", and relinquished all rights to them. Well, it's true. When someone needs money, they make deals.
If a publisher pays for the shoot, he is entitled to the rights to the photos, in their way of thinking.
Other deals can be "first rights", for example, where a photographer shoots on spec, if the publisher buys them, he has exclusive right of first publication, say for a year or two.
Then the photographer is free to sell "second rights" to all and sundry.
There is nothing set in stone, and most of the "internet generation" of photographers who post online have absurd, childish ideas of ownership, and of the importance of their own work, which is usually quite grandiose.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Okay - back to the original OP, since the rest of this thread is getting stupid. I think you're fine in wanting to keep copyright. But it is also my opinion that it is perfectly legit for the couple to want the right to do whatever they want, as long as it's not commercial, with the photos. so you are giving them an unlimited non-commercial license.
This is my opinion. I don't think anything is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, whatever. This is just my opinion. There is a big difference between licensing and copyright relinquishment. The couple will be fine, in my opinion, once they understand that.
This is my opinion. I don't think anything is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, whatever. This is just my opinion. There is a big difference between licensing and copyright relinquishment. The couple will be fine, in my opinion, once they understand that.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It is absurd to want to retain copyright to photos of a private wedding that one has been hired to photograph. The couple can do WHATEVER they want with them.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
No they can't, not unless the photographer gives them the copyright, or a license to 'do what they want'. Years ago I worked for a major drugstore chain. We were fanatical about refusing to copy professionally made photos because the company I worked for was sued by a photographer who objected to a wedding customer 'doing what they want' with the photos he took. The store lost and paid a LARGE settlement. $50,000 if I remember correctly what the store manager told me back then. (it wasn't the location I worked at, but all the stores got paranoid after that....copyright law in the USA holds the stores responsible for copyright infringing they allow on their machines).
I agree with you that wedding photographers should sell the right to make unlimited prints, but it is not a 'right' the customer has when they pay for the service. Not under US law.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Throwing this notion of copyright-retention at the "internet generation" doesn't make a ton of sense since it's actually mostly younger wedding photogs that are giving up the full rez image files (but not copyright). Most established (I'm not using "older") photogs have been slowly switching to that option over the last few years. Saying a whole group of people have "absurd, childish ideas" is a bit rough...
And when did we switch from wedding photography to iraq? And....thus ends my contributions to this thread. I apologize that I didn't end it earlier.
And when did we switch from wedding photography to iraq? And....thus ends my contributions to this thread. I apologize that I didn't end it earlier.
Last edited:
sirius
Well-known
Most brides that I know are pretty wound-up about the whole marriage thing. Why get on the bad side of all that stress?
You retain copyright to all your creative work until 50 years after your death unless you sign it away. I would just leave it at that with her. Ask her if she minds if you used the images for self-promotion, give her the files, and say she can do what ever she would like with them.
People still have the right to how their images are used. If you wanted to sell the photos to someone else you would still need to get a model release. You might be getting the whole discussion mixed-up with the way photojournalist/artists handle their work. That is a bit different, but it is not likely to be the situation with you being hired for a model shoot.
Make that lady happy and you will have a better experience over-all. Try and get the whole topic of copyright off the discussion with her.
You retain copyright to all your creative work until 50 years after your death unless you sign it away. I would just leave it at that with her. Ask her if she minds if you used the images for self-promotion, give her the files, and say she can do what ever she would like with them.
People still have the right to how their images are used. If you wanted to sell the photos to someone else you would still need to get a model release. You might be getting the whole discussion mixed-up with the way photojournalist/artists handle their work. That is a bit different, but it is not likely to be the situation with you being hired for a model shoot.
Make that lady happy and you will have a better experience over-all. Try and get the whole topic of copyright off the discussion with her.