Wedding photographers own their pictures of you

If they own your pictures they own your soul. It is high time we put an end to this soul stealing industry. FIGHT THE POWER!! BREAK THE CAMERA!!

peace out my brothers

You can contract with a wedding photographer for the rights to your photos. Generally speaking though, a contracted photographer is not considered a "work-for-hire" situation and you are only allowed "usage" rights.

The rationale behind this actually makes sense (assuming we want artist to make art). As the name implies, copyright protection is to protect the artist's right to control who can make copies of their work. If the bride has the rights to copy the art, then the artist has no control over her work. There is an obvious financial interest for the artist but most will tell you they are more concerned about someone using their art as their own or reproducing it in a way that damages their artistic "brand."

It really isn't different than a buying a book or an 8-Track tape. You have the rights to use it but not the rights to copy it.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Generally speaking though, a contracted photographer is not considered a "work-for-hire" situation and you are only allowed "usage" rights.

Sure, but I'm asking why and if it makes sense

Mundus Vult wrote:

As the name implies, copyright protection is to protect the artist's right to control who can make copies of their work. If the bride has the rights to copy the art, then the artist has no control over her work

This pair of sentences starts from you already assuming that the artist owns the work. This doesn't explain why that assumption is being made. Go back further. Start from the assumption that the person who paid for the photography owns it. Just like I can pay you to whittle me a pointy stick and then I own the pointy stick forever. Start from that premise and you'll see your sentences aren't explanatory.

"As the name implies, copyright protection is to protect the customer's right to their work. If the photographer has the rights to copy the art, the customer has no control of their work." It makes just as much sense.

I guess I'm stuck on the concept of how you can pay for something yet not own it. Especially if it's a photograph of you.

My wife and I actually paid extra to get the rights and all of the pictures on a disc. That way we can get them printed however we want--otherwise we would have had to go through the photographers if we wanted to print any of them. Also, we now have something like 500 high quality pics (without the "COPYRIGHT" watermark all over it) of the wedding rather than just 20 or so of the "best" that came with the basic package.

tell me wrote:

This pair of sentences starts from you already assuming that the artist owns the work. This doesn't explain why that assumption is being made. Go back further. Start from the assumption that the person who paid for the photography owns it. Just like I can pay you to whittle me a pointy stick and then I own the pointy stick forever. Start from that premise and you'll see your sentences aren't explanatory.

I guess I'm stuck on the concept of how you can pay for something yet not own it. Especially if it's a photograph of you.

For the second time: "you are only allowed "usage" rights . . . The rationale behind this actually makes sense (assuming we want artist to make art)."

When you "buy" art, you own the right to use it. You don't own the right to copy it. The artist's retains the copy rights. What part of that don't you understand?

In your example, you can own the pointy stick but if I own the design patent, you can't replicate the pointy stick.

don't get married.

problem solved.

I really appreciate the response, and I'm not trying to troll you, but I'm telling you that you're only explaining the way things are, not why or whether it makes sense.

See, this is a statement explaining how things exist now, it doesn't address the root issue of whether the way things exist now is logical.

I feel like you were on the cusp here, but you stopped short. You say "this actually makes sense", but give no explanation of why. "Assuming we want artists to make art" doesn't explain anything. Artists could create art if different copyright laws and customs existed.

I think my objection is clear by now, but maybe I'll state it another way - conceptually why is it better for the photographer to own the wedding pictures than the couple that paid for it? (Note that my question is not - what do current copyright laws say)

Again, this just describe the current state of affairs. If things were swapped, why would that be worse?

tell me wrote:

If you pay a photographer to take pictures at your wedding, they own the images, not you. They can sell your pictures, use them in their portfolio, display them on their website, whatever. This seems to be established copyright law, but it doesn't make sense to me.

It's one thing for a photographer to take pictures in the public sphere, but a paid job? How does the person commissioning the art not own the art?

Don't like it, get your friend or brother to take the photos. I'm sure they'll turn out just as well...

edward teach wrote:

Don't like it, get your friend or brother to take the photos. I'm sure they'll turn out just as well...

Wouldn't the same issue apply regardless of who you hired?

Okay. I see that you are actually trying to understand something.

I don't have time to go into all the underpinnings of intellectual property rights. Suffice it to say that they are robust and, to be fair, controversial in some areas.

That said, granting artist the copy rights to their work insures them control over the reproduction of their work. From a sheer economic point of view, without the rights to control copies of one's work (or protect one's intellectual property) then there is almost no financial incentive to create art or new ideas. If publishing a photograph (i.e. selling it to a bride) means that the "owner" can now replicate the photo, then there is almost no financial incentive in creating art. As the theory goes, we provide this protection to artist and inventors to encourage them to innovate.

One rational for the photographer to maintain copyright is that he retains full control over the process of creating the final image including not just taking the photograph, but any manipulation of the image, through the final print process.

Some photographers will sell you "print release" rights in which case you will get the electronic files and unlimited rights to print those for non-commercial purposes including posting to electronic media. Typically print release prohibits you from manipulating the image or using it for any commercial purpose.

Like anything else, for the right price you can negotiate other contract terms up to full copyright, but you'll have to find a photographer willing to deal with the hassle.

Mundus Vult wrote:

It really isn't different than a buying a book or an 8-Track tape. You have the rights to use it but not the rights to copy it.

Do I seriously have to explain the many substantial ways it is different?

genuine random a hole wrote:

Do I seriously have to explain the many substantial ways it is different?

Yes, you do.

The book/8 track was already copyrighted when I purchased it.

I did not hire the author to write a story about my wedding. I didn't direct him to include a description of Uncle Henry early on in the evening before he got hammered. If the author suggested I do something stupid for "his" piece I didn't laugh at him and tell it won't happen. I could go on.

From my experience it was quite easy to find a good photographer who will give you full rights to the works. Don't be bullied by some schmuck. He is there at your whim and the work product belongs to you. If there are images he wants to use he should ask you for the rights to do so.

It can be discussed with your photographer. Our guy did weddings, but was primarily an outdoor advertising, etc. photographer. Our package included all of the images on a disc at full quality level with no watermark.

Had a wedding photographer and ended up being disappointed with the results. 200+ pictures, lighting seemed a bit off etc. In the end, the greatest picture was the post ceremony selfie with the Mrs. (with Instagram filter on iPhone).

Yeah I know I can't print that on 20"x30" but we don't want that anyway...

genuine random a hole wrote:

The book/8 track was already copyrighted when I purchased it.

I did not hire the author to write a story about my wedding. I didn't direct him to include a description of Uncle Henry early on in the evening before he got hammered. If the author suggested I do something stupid for "his" piece I didn't laugh at him and tell it won't happen. I could go on.

From my experience it was quite easy to find a good photographer who will give you full rights to the works. Don't be bullied by some schmuck. He is there at your whim and the work product belongs to you. If there are images he wants to use he should ask you for the rights to do so.

A book, a photo or an 8-Track is copyrighted the moment it is complete. For a photo, that is the moment the shutter clicks. The photographer owns it unless it is a work-for-hire or they have contractually sold the copy rights.

The fact that you had no artistic control over the writer's story has absolutely nothing to do with who owns the copy rights.

You can find a photographer who will sell you the copy rights but a decent one will charge you for it.

And, unless you contract to buy the copy rights, you don't own them.

Good name, by the way. You really are a genuine random a hole.

Of course photographers own their images. Matters not if you paid them to make those images. As has been stated, unless photographer agrees in contract to reassign those rights to you (and no pro photographer would ever do that unless they are some local yahoo who knows nothing about photography), the rights always stay with the creator.

On top of that, very few pro photographers will even consider selling you the "raw" image files, and the ones that will consider this will charge a very high fee. Reason is, the images are their work and profession and reputation, and when Joes sixpack and aunt betty think they can do better image editing and hack up the photos, then tell everyone that the photos were taken by pro x, pro x now looks like a hack.

So, don't waste your time hiring some lowball clown from Craigslist -- hire a pro with a strong reputation whose work you like. In the end you will be glad you spent the money.

It's simple. You're not paying to own the rights to the photos. You're paying for the photographer'so time and expertise. If you wish to own reproduction rights to the photos, you pay the fee for that as well.

I've shot corporate events before, and simply contracted to include rights to reproduce the images. It's easier for me that way, rather than dealing with licenses for a bunch of images I have no other use for. But it's more expensive than just asking me to shoot the event.

I think it's much less about artistic control and much more about money. Wedding photographers often make a substantial amount of their income through sellings additional prints after the initial agreement.