Wedding photographers own their pictures of you

genuine random a hole wrote:

Is this poster on of these pampered "artists"?

You are the reason why we have copyright laws.

Just another wedding industry scam. The wedding industrial complex is alive and well.

In 2015 an amateur can get great photos with a decent camera, stable hand, and trigger happy finger. And an amateur is not going to be a stickler about copyright b.s.

Why do wedding photographers throw around copyright like they are creating Beethoven-level masterpieces? Like typists, an obsolete industry.

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?

Anyone who who hires a professional photographer to take photos of their wedding likely signs a contract. The details of that contract will describe and dictate who owns the rights to the photos. Don't like it? Don't sign it and negotiate something else. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

To use an analogy.

I pay the pool guy to clean my pool.

Doesn't mean he owns it or can swim in it whenever he wants.

My wedding, my photos. I'll pay you for the JPEGs, and we go our seperate ways. If you use my photos of me and my wife that *I paid for* for your own personal gain, I will sue YOU.

thinkg of it this way wrote:

To use an analogy.

I pay the pool guy to clean my pool.

Doesn't mean he owns it or can swim in it whenever he wants.

My wedding, my photos. I'll pay you for the JPEGs, and we go our seperate ways. If you use my photos of me and my wife that *I paid for* for your own personal gain, I will sue YOU.

That's not analogous.

Again, you own the photos you buy. The photographer can't take a dump on those just like your pool boy can't swim in your pool. You don't own the right to copy those photos unless you buy the rights.

You and the OP have a really, really hard time understanding the difference between real property and intellectual property.

I will add that an earlier poster is correct to some degree--modern digital cameras have in many ways eviscerated the "art" of photography. But, that hasn't changed the rationale behind copyright laws.

If cleaning pools was art they could then charge us to swim in our own pool. This is also like a bridge builder having a right to tolls, even after getting paid for building the bridge.

I get the explanation of copyright and the reasons, I just think the counter arguments make more sense overall, that you pay for the photographer to shoot the pics, you should get the rights to what he did that day. The power went to some lobbying group on this. The law isn't always based on what is right, just who has the most power.

Photographers have a right to a living, but this is about money, nothing wrong with that in itself. They should charge for thier expertise and time and then not make anything more.

My wife and I paid 6k for our wedding photographer. Made me want to puke at the time but it was the best money we spent on a very expensive day.

They gave us all our raw photos included. What you're paying for is not the "day of," it's their expertise in finishing the 200 or so selected photo that will make up your memories of (hopefully) one of the best days of your life.

Our guy pulled out a 1940s Polaroid camera and started shooting with it during the formal photos and during the reception. I rolled my eyes at the time and thought he was a hipster tool. Turns out they are the best photos he took. Little things like that make a good wedding photographer worth the extra cost.

scott 222233 wrote:

Photographers have a right to a living, but this is about money, nothing wrong with that in itself. They should charge for thier expertise and time and then not make anything more.

We are still caught between intellectual and real property.

Let me rephrase your statement: if cleaning pools was an art, they would charge you to use their method of cleaning them. Do you see the difference?

A bridge builder doesn't have the right to the tolls. He does own the rights to the bridge design. Do you see the difference?

When it comes to wedding photographers, some folks select a certain photographer because of their "artistry." I know that seems like BS to some but if you value photography then there is an art to capturing a moment. (This is especially true for retouched photos.) That intellectual property belongs to the artist. They can give it away or sell it but it belongs to them.

By the way, most photographers want to protect their copyrights for reasons other than money. Their biggest fear is piracy (and not by the bride and groom). Wedding photographs--believe or not--are stolen all the times for blogs, advertistements, facebook pages that are not authorized by the photographer. Without the copyrights, they are powerless. (C.f.

).

tell me wrote:

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.

Copyright law doesn't allow them to sell your pictures, because privacy law is more restrictive when it comes to commercial use.

You can photograph people in places where they have no "reasonable expectation of privacy," and publish them for no charge safely enough. But if you're going to sell them, then you're using their likeness for financial gain and it's a whole nuther ball of wax. A wedding is also a private event and selling the photos to other people could be construed as invading privacy. Copyright won't protect you there and it's best to get a signed release from anyone appearing in the photo. It's often expensive or impossible to do this, forcing you to blur people so they're unrecognizable.

There are some exceptions, news media for one can profit from photos because that is outweighed by the "informational" aspect of their use.

Here's the lowdown

I am mostly a sports photographer but I have shot weddings on multiple occasions. I have refused to relinquish the rights to my photos not because I wanted to make more money but because I didn't want my name tarnished by some schmuck who bought the rights to their photos and then did some awful editing to them and uploaded them to facebook and said "taken by xxx photographer" (me). That is the worst fear of any photographer. When I take a photo I usually know at the time of the shutter press how I am going to process that photo and what part of the story that photo is going to tell. However if I give somebody else the full rights of that photo to do whatever they want and yet still give me credit for physically taking the photo, my name could be unintentionally slandered by the editing offender who did a terrible job at the editing. I always keep the rights to my intellectual property to protect me and my livelihood so I can continue doing what I do.

As Mundus Vult has mentioned many times in this thread, "The rationale behind this actually makes sense (assuming we want artist to make art)." Personally, I could probably not continue to do what I do if everybody out there had the right to edit my photos however they wanted. Some perspective client out there would see a photo that I took (and the credit was given to me) but it was edited by some random guy and did a terrible job, the perspective client might look elsewhere to a different photographer. Granted, if I did everything myself and I still did a terrible job myself, well, that's on me and that is how the herd is thinned -so to speak. But I just don't want to me "thinned" by somebody outside of my control, if that makes sense.

Mundus Vult has done a very good job here explaining the reasoning behind the copyright laws we have today regarding photography. It all stems down to protecting the artist (producer) to ensure the artist will continue to create art. If all the artist's work could be freely manipulated by other people, what would be the artist's motivation to create additional works?

Copyright law pertaining to intellectual property is similar to patent law. (Putting aside some of the patent abuse some companies have figured out how to do), patents were originally created in America in order to PROMOTE invention and advancement in society. If some random guy could "rip-off" the original inventor of something, the inventor probably would not have had the motivation to create it in the first place knowing it could be "stolen".

The amount of b.s. being lathered onto this thread by the photogs is hilarious. So you're worried about a customer who just paid you $6,000 posting a photo you took on facebook? This is "your worst fear" and "slander"? Lighten up, Francis.

re: Intellectual property vs. real property. There is nothing "intellectual" about operating a Nikon. Stop deluding yourself. You are a producing a "real" product (JPEGs), and being handed "real" cash for that product? Is that not enough for you?

Let's stay I stand right next to you with my Nikon and take the same photo as you. Am I violating your precious copyright because our image contains the same content? Again, b.s.

Wedding photographers: not saying you aren't useful, but cut the pompous arrogance and adopt to the realities of the digital era. Do you job, do it well, make the client happy, and you'll be paid. All these drummed up conspiracy theories about clients profiting from your photos and slandering your reputation by sharing their moment with friends are beyond hilarious. Just makes you look super douchey.

Sports Photographer wrote:

Copyright law pertaining to intellectual property is similar to patent law. (Putting aside some of the patent abuse some companies have figured out how to do), patents were originally created in America in order to PROMOTE invention and advancement in society. If some random guy could "rip-off" the original inventor of something, the inventor probably would not have had the motivation to create it in the first place knowing it could be "stolen".

Again, taking a picture is nothing like INVENTING something innovative that can be patented and advances society. Patent law protects things that are far more important than joeshoe lardbutt's wedding photos.

Again, the arrogance!

canspo wrote:

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.

This.

It's a freaking wedding. If your photographer doesn't grant you this, they are a weirdo.

The issue is that they will alter the photo I take but still give me the photographer credit. If the alterations are not representable, that is misleading to other potential clients which could mean (using your example) that my $6,000 jobs would soon come to an end because people would see what they think is my work, but in fact was done by someone else who did a crappy job.

No need for a straw man argument here, sir. Delivering a finished photograph to a client is much more involved than just snapping the shutter.

Who has mentioned the "clients profiting from your photos". My fear is not that somebody will make money off my photos, my fear is that someone will make an alteration to MY photo and do a crappy job but still think they are doing the right thing by giving credit to me as the photographer. However this could be very detrimental to my business.

Photography business live and die based on their past work. If you can show a potential client great work, they may hire you. If that client sees bad work they assume you did (but was actually altered by some other random guy) you could lose business. Why is that so hard to understand?

patent lawyer self taught wrote:

Again, taking a picture is nothing like INVENTING something innovative that can be patented and advances society. Patent law protects things that are far more important than joeshoe lardbutt's wedding photos.

Again, the arrogance!

What?!?!? I as the photographer CREATED that unique image. Importance has no bearing on patents or copyright.

sports photographer wrote:

my fear is that someone will make an alteration to MY photo and do a crappy job

sounds like transformative fair use to me. If they want to change the color curves and contrast, airbrush here or there, give it an aesthetic other than you intended, your copyright might not stop them.

You are like a sculptor worrying that someone will paint your sculpture a freaky color and chop off its arms to make you look bad.

Have guests bring an iPhone and DSLR, to shoot your wedding.

Find a Wedding photog. Stipulate that you will make payment once you receive, 1) all files, 2) statement of transfer of all rights to wedding subjects. If the guy refuses then look for another photog.

Bad Wigins wrote:

sports photographer wrote:

my fear is that someone will make an alteration to MY photo and do a crappy job

sounds like transformative fair use to me. If they want to change the color curves and contrast, airbrush here or there, give it an aesthetic other than you intended, your copyright might not stop them.

You are like a sculptor worrying that someone will paint your sculpture a freaky color and chop off its arms to make you look bad.

I'm not so sure. Didn't the estate of that guy who took the famous Che photo sue for images using the likeness from his photo? Even images that had undergone a pretty heavy graphic manipulation, the likeness was taken from his photo. There's a lawsuit now by a guy who claims Nike's air Jordan image was stolen from one of his photos.

There are some other comments in the thread that I'll try to touch on tomorrow.

That's hilarious -- to anyone who thinks they can shoot a wedding as well as an experienced pro because they recently bought a new Nikon camera, are you going to run a marathon as fast as Wilson Kpisang because you are wearing the same shoes???

Pro wedding photography is very demanding, difficult work, as anyone who knows anything about photography will tell you. Has very little to do with equipment, although pro wedding photogs certainly use top quality gear ,including redundant kits (equipment failure during the actual shoot can happen), lighting (you could spend the next 5 years of your life trying to learn all you should know about lighting but you're still just a beginner), and on and on.