- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
Its too complicated to give a long, well explained answer to this without going into copyright law. The short answer to your subject- who gets the right to photographs?- the artist/photographer automatically gets the rights to anything they create, unless they have a written contract with someone claiming otherwise, or its a work for hire situation (despite the wording there, wedding photography for a client is not work for hire- however, a photographer working for a company that you hire could be in a work for hire situation with that company, and the company would own the copyrights- it's complicated). To answer the question in your post- I would say that "reasonable" is relative. Is it outlandish, or rude, or unattainable to ask for the complete copyright to the images? No. Is it necessary in most cases? Also no. Why do you need to be the sole owner? If its to reproduce the images, you don't need to be the sole owner- the photographer can provide you with permission to do so, giving you in essence a license to reproduce his creative work.
If you don't want him to use your photographs for personal reasons, you can ask him, that's up to him. Whether or not its reasonable depends on the photographer, perhaps where he is in his career, etc. If he doesn't have a lot of wedding work for his portfolio, then by asking him not to use your photos, you're restricting him from adding to his portfolio- something he shows potential clients in order to be hired for future weddings. If all of his clients asked him not to do that, he wouldn't be in the business for very long!
I know that for myself, as an illustrator, if I was in a situation where someone wanted to buy the copyrights outright to an image they commissioned me to create, I would charge them significantly more than if they just wanted to license the image from me. This is a standard practice. I don't know if a photographer would do the same thing, it has to do with him or her personally, where they are with their career, how much they value their work, if they're feeling very generous, etc. Certainly ask, but be specific as to what you want, and what wording specifically that you want in your contract.
I think it's already been said better, but *no*, it's not asking too much to be the copyright holder of your wedding images. However, it's a term in the contract that you'd have to negotiate, and you would probably be charged more for your photography. Instead, I would probably ask to put into writing limits to his use of your images (e.g., I don't mind if my photographer uses my photos in her portfolio online or in print, or posts them to her blog, but I do mind if we end up on an advertisement at a third party site, so we discussed that before signing).
You speak of wanting to be the "sole owner." Unfortunately, that is a pretty un-reasonable request. The copyright actually comes into existence the moment the shutter is clicked. The photographer, by composing, clicking, and editing the photo is no different than Van Gogh and they will hold the copyright. Photographers retain copyrights for a few purposes.
1) Because it IS their work. Yes, you are the subject, but it was created by them and had someone else taken the photo it would have been artistically completely different. They are the sole author and having the copyright gives them the authority to say so and make sure it stays in their safe hands.
2) Quality Control - By giving away the copyright it's giving you control over the images. If you go and edit the photos further, post them elsewhere, and any other number of scenarios people will not get a true representation of their work.
3) Cost - If they were to give you full copyright and not have the ability to use the image for promotional purposes... or by not being acknowledged as the creator of the image... they loose revenue. Some photographers will agree to this, however, you will PAY for it. They also loose the right to sell the image for profit or at all. I looked in an online forum and every time it was brought up every answer was "I'd increase the price" And I'm not saying by $500. People were saying $5000 plus.
4) There's actually no need that you have to retain the copyright that can't be agreed upon with licensing.
there's more, but really... the first 4 should be enough :-)
Really, what you need is licensing to print for personal use, and that IS reasonable. This means you can't circumvent sales of the photographer by posting for family to order on snapfish, but you can share and print for your personal use. If there is a legit reason you need to stay sheltered from marketing and promotion that's one thing. I've had people who work in prison's who I had to be very diligent about how detailed things got for safety. THATS reasonable... and I'm more than happy to work with that. As mentioned above, my clients comfort is paramount and they need to feel comfortable through all stages. Photos I post for proofs online are password protected and it's up to the bride and groom to share the link with anyone else. I blog all my clients, but as I said, there can be discretion... and all my clients love it because they get to see the rockin images just a day or two after the wedding. Many times it's from their hotel room on the honeymoon... AND.... that blog is why YOU will book me... so if I can't blog.. I can't book you ;-)
Unfortunately, Copyright law is very complex and it's one of those things that you "think" means something different I bet. It's nothing you actually need and it won't get you anything better by bearing the copyright. It will make your pocket a bit more empty :-) Just speak with your photographer about your comfort zone and see if you can come to a mutual agreement on licensing. Photographers are more than happy to work with you, but asking for the full copyright is a bit un-necessary.
The creator of a work (your photographer) owns the rights to the photos they create, and can grant you a license which gives you the right to reproduce the images as prints, albums, etc, for personal use.
Your photographer will have the right to use the images they create for advertising, stock photography, reselling, etc. unless your contract states otherwise. However, outside of advertising his/her own business or wedding magazine submissions, there's not much that is often done with wedding photos-wedding photography is custom art made for you and your family and the images have almost no value to anyone else.
It is reasonable to request that your images not be sold to other parties, displayed online, or used for any purpose other than your wedding. Privacy is important to some, and many photographers understand that. I recommend that you ask for a clause in your contract that states this, rather than asking your photographer to give up their copyright completely.
I think what you really need/want is a Non-Disclosure Agreement with the terms/limits of usage on the photographers end?
I suppose you could request that your photographer doesn't use your images in his portfolio because you're not comfortable with your photos being online?
As far as I know, photographers will not give away the copyright (their ownership) of the images. My husband is a photographer, and for weddings, he includes 'permission to print' for the couple of make reprints without copyright violations, but not to negate his ownership of the images.
Yeah that is too much to ask for, not just for what was said above which I agree completely. But also photographers love to post the stories on their blog. We might not tell stories with words, but we are story tellers.
Honestly, I would walk away, if told I could not blog or display the photographs for my portfolio.
Its in our contract that we get full rights to our photos and we signed a contract that he may use our photos online but only those that we choose. we get our photos on a disk and written rights to them.
One of our stipulations in choosing a photographer is that we got rights to the photos. My cousin got married last year, his photographer had rights and anyone who wanted pictures had to pay a fortune per print and order through the photographer's website.
Our photographer can use our photos for whatever she wants (portfolio, website, blog, promotional materials) but after she posts them and gives us the CD, we can order them through Walgreens if we want.
There are a couple forms of rights:
1. Photog retains full original rights, you get personal rights. This sounds like what hotchildinthecity has - the photog still can promote with the photographs but you can print with your own
2. Photog retains permission to publish photographs for promotional purposes, you get personal reprinting rights. This is probably what you'll end up getting because most photographs will charge you a ton of money to give up full copyright (I agree with all the photogs' posts above)... not getting any right to show any picture from your wedding will really, really hurt a photographer who has just started out and needs to have a strong portfolio... and what if they took one of their best photos at your wedding?
3. Photog has no rights to the photos. You retain full copyright. This sounds like what you want, and I really don't know of many photographers who'd be willing to do that for you, it costs their business an intangible amount of money (they could just book another bride on your date who let them promote with the photographs).
In the end, I think you should explain your concerns regarding online privacy to your photographer first and see what they can do to work with you. Maybe they can at least show some detail shots. Or not mention you and your FI's name in the blog post or anywhere online. Or at least be able to show the photos in person to another potential client, but not submit photos to competitions or display as advertisements in a store front, each photog will have his/her own limit on what they are willing to give you and very likely, there will be a privacy or copyright charge.
So I've lost *two* posts trying to reply!
Ditto on what everyone else is saying.... Also, if you're concerned about security, be sure to ask your photographer how s/he protects his/her images. Mine are right-click protected and watermarked on my site *and* blog. Not entirely foolproof (nothing is), but a lot better than just putting them out there (I do a lot of work with children, so I try to be very careful with the images).
Good luck!
Talk to your photog about your concerns and see if they ever amend the copyright portion of the contract. If you don't want your photos online, talk to them about it and see if you can reach a compromise.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| MissBoPeep | 37 |
| hisgoosiegirl | 36 |
| ndreighton | 30 |
| Mrs.KMM | 28 |
| beargoose | 27 |
| Gemstone | 24 |
| Beckster329 | 23 |
| BetterSherm | 20 |
| Rivendeler | 20 |
| KCKnd2 | 20 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| kinglr | 3 |
| Mrs.KMM | 2 |
| Cariad | 2 |
 lovemylife88 |
2 |
| Ryderlove | 2 |
| USER876 | 1 |
| couawilou | 1 |
| ladybugs | 1 |
| onyx81 | 1 |
| monique1218 | 1 |
Hi Bees, My photographer's contract states that he has full coyrights to use our images for his personal use. Is it asking too much that he give us the copyrights for my fiance and I to be the sole owner of the photos? I just don't like the idea of our photos being online and wanted to know if we can get the photographer to remove it from his contract. Is this a reasonable request? I'd like to hear from photographers as well. Thanks to all.