THSCC Forums

No, you wouldn't need permission from all those folks to have their images in your pictures of the wedding. Fair use says you can buy art and put it in a place that you rent or loan out. The law is also worded such that you *can* resell pictures with other works of "art" in them, it's just that they can't be the *centerpiece* or a major focal point or some such nonsense (ie. you can't be going around profiting off a coffee table book with pictures of church art in it, but you can take wedding pictures in a church with the art visible in the pictures). There is still *some* amount of common sense left in the copyright laws.

I think the main thing that is throwing people here is that to a photographer their work is art that they should be able to own the rights to (and I tend to agree). Then there are folks who are having a wedding who feel like images of said event that they *pay* to have shot should be *theirs* to own. I tend to agree with that as well. And as has been pointed out in this thread, you *can* own those images by finding a photographer that will shoot them for you and give you ownership (via the contract). Yes, you have to do so.

What I find interesting is that you can go hire a photographer to shoot pics and the default is they own them. Try hiring a videographer to film a documentary for you. You'd think a similar situation might exist, but in reality it does not...the defacto is you own it (what I mean is it's generally considered normal for the videographer to sign the rights over to you initially without hesitation). BTDT. In fact, the videographer asked *me* for the rights to use some small pieces in another film they were doing.

I would never hire a photographer to do event photography without me owning the rights to all photos. I did just that for an event last year. He had no problem giving me full rights for what I thought was a very reasonable fee. You can see his work at:

http://www.justinhackworth.com


--Donnie

I think Donnie makes a good point. Since the real talent that a photographer "sells" is the ability to take good pictures why not charge a flat fee to do the event ? I think what drives people nuts is when they feel like they're being taken when someone marks up a process where they add little or no value.
That said, a raw proof strip vs. a properly cropped and touched up print can be vastly different things. So - add value, make a profit.
Its amazing how digital stuff changes things (i.e. MP3, etc.). Glad we were married before digital cams (but after color film was invented ...)

Frank

Jason - If you were going to use the wedding photo with all those people in it for commercial purposes - say for an advertisement in a magazine - you would have to get written permission from everybody who is recognizable in the photo. No permission, no ad.

But if you sold it to the local newspaper (or Time magazine, etc. ) for a story on weddings, you wouldn't need permission. (but the more ethical photographers will get permission anyway)

It's all pretty complicated, and I can understand why some people don't comprehend (and I don't really understand how ALL of this works, either - if I was a "real" pro, I would). Just remember that I'm not telling you my opinion, I'm telling you what the law is.

But like Mike said, if you don't like what the first guy is offering you, find somebody else who will give you exactly what you want! It's not that hard. Always make sure you know what you're getting before you hire somebody to do the work.

I did want to add this, though - the best quality 16x20 print that I've ever considered having done from my work would've cost me around $75 just for the print. I got an 11x14 instead for $40. Add mounting, matting, frame (all done by me) & that comes to > $100 (material costs, not including labor, time to set up the shot, shooting a whole roll of film to just get that one image, travel to & from the lab to get film processed & the enlargement done, etc. etc. etc.). For one 11x14 print in a museum-type frame to display on the wall. If I was going to sell it to somebody else & try to make a profit, how much do you think I should charge?

Photography is expensive, and good photography is EXPENSIVE.

All this is why
a) I have a $1000 digital rebel for all my pics
and
b) Kevin Allen is shooting our wedding (you might now know it yet Kevin, but youre doing it)

-Tom

Any one notice the irony in this thread

_________________
Jim Pastorius
2008 Silverado VortecMax
1992 Camaro CMC#92
2002 BMW R1150R

2009 3rd Place CMC Mid-Atlantic Championship
2009 CMC Hyperfest Winner

I did, but I figured you'd be along shortly to point it out.

I had too, but no hard feelings. I also think I have come to an amicable agreement with the photographer.

_________________
2001 Honda S2000 - SOLD
2012 Boss 302
2003 BMW 330i

I think I'm just slow.....I don't get it....

-Tom

Well first let me say this post is simply for arguments sake, nothing personal to anyone .

But first the link Wes posted to the NCState info on copyright law is lacking to say the least. Here is a much better link to the entire law, from Cornell's law library. As well as court decisions which apply much more to what we are talking about here;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html

Also note as for Kevin stating what the law IS, uh yeah not like he would be skewed or anything , but I don't blame him at all for that. If we were talking construction code or real estate law I am sure I would different ideas of the the law IS, compared to other people.

Of particular note to what we have talked about in the for hire area;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html

So the true issue about this is what did you sign as a contract and did you read it? Also was there a "meeting of the minds" as to the agreement.

Again just stoking the fire a little to contiune the "discussion"

_________________
91 Jetta GLI STS/DSP 111
85 Porsche 944 ASP 11
http://www.blackforestindustries.com

The one big thing here is did you sign an agreement with the photographer and what did it say? If you did and the contract says that you agree to pay $x for the photog to take pictures at your wedding. the pictures will consist of [whatever type and qty]. He should then also have a statement as to who owns the rights afterwards. If in the agreement he says that all ownership, copyright, etc passes to you - then you can copy to your hearts content. If it states that he retains ownership, then you must either pay him for reproductions - or pay a flat fee to get ownership, or get married again and pay another photog to take pictures and give you the rights

If no contract the default would be to standard practice which I think is the photog owns the rights.

Yeah, unless the photographer states in a contract that you own the rights to the images, he owns them. Even with no written contract at all, he owns them. And the copyright exists when the image is created, meaning when the shutter opens to record the image.

Now can somebody answer this one for me... (I don't know the answer for sure, because I never asked)

Let's say I set up a shot, get everyone posed, pick the spot where the camera goes, set the camera exposure, lens focal length, lighting, etc. etc. etc. Then my tripod breaks (& I'm supposed to be in the image). I ask a bystander to "stand here, hold the camera level, point the middle focusing sensor at Mr. Johnson's face, and press the exposure button when I count down from 3 & say 'Cheese!'" Who owns the copyright on that photo? Me, or the human tripod/ remote trigger?

First: I can't believe I've overlooked this thread. I'm backing Kevin up here.

I hate shooting weddings for all these reasons. Mostly, because few people really know how much stuff costs. On occasion I'll get talked into it by a friend or co-worker Even then, people are shocked when I charge cost for a roll of film at $30.

That just covers the film and processing given that I'm not buying Eckerd brand film and having it processed by some mouthbreather at Wal-Mart, who might remember to close the lid on the processor when he runs the film of someone's wedding through the half exhausted fix tank. There's no room in that $30 for my time.

Two: Whoever said, "Read the contract," is the guy with the right answer. Regardless of what the law is, your specific situation is determined by your specific contract. If nothing is written in about transferring copyright, it belongs to the photographer.

Three: Adam's Cornell links don't address photography specifically. Go back and do more homework. Try photo.net. Search the forums for specific links to photography copyright.

Four (this is photog-geek hairsplitting):


There's a fine line here Kevin. If a photograph was taken within a certain set of parameters and it's use is journalistic or documentary then there's no ethical issue in not getting a model releases for anybody or anything in that image. Photogs for the N&O don't get permission from anybody in a photograph that appears in their publication or even if it gets picked up by AP.

However, if that same image is to be used for advertising that changes everything.
Two true stories:

One: A doc-photog friend of mine did a book on horse racing out west, Cadillac wanted to buy rights for use in advertising. The photographer had no model releases. Instead he had GM's ad firm sign a contract stating that if any litigation came up it'd be on them and not him.

Two: National Geographic started overusing that McCurry photo of the Afghan girl for promoting a lot of NG stuff. People accused them of taking advantage of the fact that there were no fees for using the girls image. Geographic finally caved and started a fund specifically for educatiing Afghan girls and has backed off on using that image.

_________________
Not spectacular just decent.
I'm not sure what I'm driving.
Maybe an ITR in DS.
Or half-assed STX prepped 330.

I think the owner of the camera/film owns the picture in this case. The human tripod/shutter release guy was working for you (for free). I tried to use Google to find the particulars, but I remember a case a few years ago of a guy who took some photos that he sold to the media but he was using a company provided camera, etc. So they sued to get rights to the images. He was either an insurance agent and the photos were of the 9/11 stuff in NY or maybe someone out west that shot some photos of a wildfire. I can't remember. But he ended up loosing that one. I don't know if it came down to the issue of the ownership of the camera/film or that he was on company time and there might have been a previous IP agreement that said the company owned his work (regardless of what it was).

Consider this thread hijacked at this point.

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.

I don't have a problem with going to the guy who shot my wedding to get prints, Ron Franklin, did and excellent job in my opinion and was easy to work with, and I understand the points above made about wedding photos and such.

What I don't understand is if they are posted on the internet and the are able to be download is why people get bent out of shape, there are ways to keep people from downloading picuters from the internet, and if you want people to by these prints from you, you should know enought html or asp to know how to keep them from downloading said pictures, if you do not I say too bad. Plus I think its funny that someone who I did not ask to take a picutre of my car, puts on the internet without my permission then trys to get me to buy it from him makes now sesne to me....but I know the law won't back me up on any of those points.

_________________
David Teague
2015 Lexus IS 250c
1994 Honda Del Sol HS 39
2009 Dodge Journey R/T
http://teaguefamily.us

Actually I don't think anyone is giving Kevin a hard time or is looking to rip off photographers. I think this is two things.... People are just hearing how this works for the first time and asking questions and secondly at the same time they are thinking that the ownership doesn't make much sense (see comments above about "service oriented world").

_________________
Richard Casto
1972 Porsche 914
2013 Honda Fit Sport
2015 Honda Fit EX
http://motorsport.zyyz.com
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.