Giving up Copyright??

[WoolenMammoth]

It is absurd to want to retain copyright to photos of a private wedding that one has been hired to photograph.

sure, if photography is some kind of hobby then yes, who cares.

I would sooner eat my own foot than shoot a wedding for $5k, but there is no circumstance (as in NONE in the known universe) where I do not retain all the rights to the images I create. I have a standard free use license which I grant people, but if someone has some problem with me owning my own intellectual property they can hire some other "photographer" lord knows the world is now full of them.

 

[swoop]

1) You're not a professional photographer in any sense.

2) These are your friends.

What's the issue? What are you going to do with the copyright? Sue them if they make copies? Rubbish. They want you, a friend, to take pictures at their wedding. That's all there is to it. They're giving you some cash for your time and energy. Say thanks, enjoy the free meal at the reception. Get her co-workers sisters phone number. Go home, copy your pics to a DVD. Go to her place when she gets back from the honeymoon. Get your cash. Take her co-workers sister out to dinner. You're done.

If anything you should be thanking your friends for giving you the excuse to use your camera, eat their food, and get laid. Not haggling over a copyright issue.

 

[Kevin]

No! Never sell your copyright!

No! Never sell your copyright!

So I have a question ...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.

There are several reasons why you should take care in holding and protecting your visual copyright. For starters, many of the images you take during a wedding are free from the context of the specific wedding party itself: details of flowers, rings, churches, unidentifiable children being themselves, a bouquet flying through the air (you get the point).

Now imagine if your perfectly timed, composed and exposed picture ends up on a commercial greeting card 3 years from now? The greeting card company is an international one and your image has been used for a card distribution of 5 million pieces selling at an average $3 a piece.

You might not believe it right now, but you will undoubtedly take at least one such image at every wedding you cover, whether you intend to or not.
Do you remember how you ruined your new suit got while trying to get that picture??

Before you hand anything over to the client, before you upload any images into the internet ether, before you send anyone your know that cool wedding shot by email, BULK register ALL of the wedding images you took at the U.S. copyright office. A bulk registration costs only $35. In other words, for only $35 you can register all of those wedding images you took (but not yet published on the internet or elsewhere) using ONE single bulk registration form.

In the long-term this registration "insurance" will pay off handsomely. Sooner or later some person or company will use your best images in an unauthorized way. It's only a matter of time before this infringement happens.

Happy shooting!
Kevin

 

[M. Valdemar]

Bulk-registering wedding pix at the copyright office? Waiting for a private wedding photo to be printed in the millions on a greeting card? Refusing to email a photo the next day to the bride?

We have now reached the realm of the "Rarebit Fiend".

There are several reasons why you should take care in holding and protecting your visual copyright. For starters, many of the images you take during a wedding are free from the context of the specific wedding party itself: details of flowers, rings, churches, unidentifiable children being themselves, a bouquet flying through the air (you get the point).

Now imagine if your perfectly timed, composed and exposed picture ends up on a commercial greeting card 3 years from now? The greeting card company is an international one and your image has been used for a card distribution of 5 million pieces selling at an average $3 a piece.

You might not believe it right now, but you will undoubtedly take at least one such image at every wedding you cover, whether you intend to or not.
Do you remember how you ruined your new suit got while trying to get that picture??

Before you hand anything over to the client, before you upload any images into the internet ether, before you send anyone your know that cool wedding shot by email, BULK register ALL of the wedding images you took at the U.S. copyright office. A bulk registration costs only $35. In other words, for only $35 you can register all of those wedding images you took (but not yet published on the internet or elsewhere) using ONE single bulk registration form.

In the long-term this registration "insurance" will pay off handsomely. Sooner or later some person or company will use your best images in an unauthorized way. It's only a matter of time before this infringement happens.

Happy shooting!
Kevin

 

[dmr]

That was just an exaggeration, of course, some guys just can't help it, but most stores won't copy anything with a "do not copy" label on it.

LOL, wasn't it somebody here who went in to a shop (Wal-Mart?) with a self-signed release only to have some "crimson cervical" clerk declare "you ain't no professional!"? 🙂 🙂

 

[mikeseb]

around the world in just one thread....

around the world in just one thread....

Can't remember now why I subscribed this thread, unless it was to be entertained by some of the fanciful---if not outright whacky and ill-informed---responses that have flowed into it.

Respondents are mixing up two issues, therein making sense of neither. First is copyright law: it is what it is, and no amount of wishing it away, at least in the US, will change that. Unless you have a specific work-for-hire contract, you OWN the copyright to a photograph the moment it is fixed in tangible form. Even the store clerks you disdain understood this in their refusal to make unauthorized copies of another person's work. Registration serves to affirm that ownership, and confers specific legal benefits in case of infringement; but registration is NOT REQUIRED in order to "copyright" a work. Several here have heaped scorn upon this notion, or have maintained that the internet has somehow made it obsolete, but their scorn makes it no less a matter of law.

The rest of the OP was really about the other issue, which is whether, and how aggressively, to assert the legal rights the photographer enjoys by virtue of his creation of the work. One hopes that as friends, they can work it out. It should be a situation wherein the most liberal use of the work is granted; but I still say it's an unreasonable, and frankly strange, demand by the bride to "own the copyright". How many "laypeople", ie those not in the professional content-creating business (ie photographers, writers, artists) think about copyright issues enough to ask to appropriate someone else's copyright for nothing? (Thought you had to be an online photo buyer to know that! 😉) Seems unusual for her to bring it up.

Then again, I don't shoot weddings (I'd rather have my man-sack pounded with a ball-peen hammer), so maybe this is yet another item the wedding-industry glossy mags have added to the bride-zilla's bulging to-worry-about list.

 

[Pablito]

Then again, I don't shoot weddings (I'd rather have my man-sack pounded with a ball-peen hammer)

Didya hafta put it that way?

😱

 

[wlewisiii]

LOL, wasn't it somebody here who went in to a shop (Wal-Mart?) with a self-signed release only to have some "crimson cervical" clerk declare "you ain't no professional!"? 🙂 🙂

Every time I've gone to the local Walgreens to reprint something I have to sign a release stating that I am the pro that made the photo and have all legal rights to it... 😱 'tis good for my ego though :angel:

OP: Give them everything with a notice stating that they have an unlimited non-commercial license to use that material but that you retain copyright. If that's not an acceptable option for them, then I'd suggest you respectfully decline the job.

William

 

[Roger Hicks]

Respondents are mixing up two issues, therein making sense of neither.

Dear Mike,

That is my understanding too -- both as a photographer and as a lawyer (well, LL.B., anyway).

'Work for hire' means that someone hires you as a photographer, not for a specific job, and that they can then tell you what jobs to do, and where, and when. Describing a single freelance job as 'work for hire' requires a more creative interpretation of the phrase than most lawyers would be happy with; and the fees that would be demanded by those who would be willing to argue the contrary would be equally unpalatable fo most non-lawyers.

If you are not working for hire, copyright is automatically yours, and must be assigned. (Apart from the loathesome 'Orphan Works' legislation -- and even then, you can reclaim it).

I have shot a handful of weddings, formerly for friends, the last time, for the daughter of my oldest friend. It is always a wedding present, and I put it in writing that while I automatically retain copyright, they have the right to all non-commercial use, i.e. pictures for friends, family etc.

Because, after all, they're FRIENDS, dammit.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Rayt]

If I am not a pro and these people are friends then why would I want the copyright to their wedding? Unless some famous people are in the wedding party naked why would I care?

 

[40oz]

A perfect reason to request copyrights from the photographer of a wedding is so the couple can get additional copies made at their local shop rather than ask a non-professional to run off prints. I have to question the judgement of anyone who thinks there is something wrong with a friend asking for some formal portraits and the right to make prints. The alternative would be for the photographer to be obligated to deliver any and all prints whenever the couple asked. It seems to me that transferring the right to make prints to the subjects of the photos would be entirely reasonable and desirable from the point of view of the friend-photographer.

If one isn't intending to make money off prints, the holder of copyright to portrait photos is irrelevant. The reason to control copyright is protect a revenue stream. The right to make and sell copies sits with the copyright holder, as should be obvious from the term itself. The right to use an image for promotional purposes is a different thing than the right to sell copies. The copyright holder might generally have legal control over promotional usage, but it's not the same issue. I'm not an expert in any way here, but it would sem to me that one could give the friend the right to make prints while retaining the ability to use the images for promotion in the unlikely case that arises, given that we are assuming said shooter is not a professional in that field.