Legal Question

[Moe Norman]

Legal Eagles,

I have a query.

If you engage a professional photographer to take photo's of a special event for you (say a wedding or christening for example) and you pay well over $5000 for the privledge, including purchasing photo's etc who owns the copyright?

An aquaintance of mine paid top dollar for a photographer for an event, and suddenly a year later is wandering through a newsagency and sees a picture from the event on the front cover of the magazine.

Nobody requested permission, nobody even informed them.

Any rights?

[Courty]

I think I can help here, as I work for a photography studio. With any wedding etc we shoot, a formal 'instrument of agreement' or contract is presented and signed by both parties which spells out who has ownership over the images, and who can use images for what purposes. These agreements can be changed to suit the circumstances of the client. If no agreement has been put in place (very unprofessional by the photographer) then it all defaults to the standard copyright laws. These laws have all been revamped just recently (to cope with new technology/ intellectual property etc) but have been backdated to cover a certain period in the past. I haven't yet got my hands on a copy of the new laws, so I can't give you a definite answer.
However, the first question would be 'was an agreement put in place?'. If so, read the fine print. If not, check the new laws to see if they have any form of recourse.

Edit: Most photographers in our area retain ownership of their images (like the old days film days when the photogs kept the negatives). We normally do the same, but offer to sell the original images in full resolution at a price. However, the use of private imagery (eg. weddings) in publications is a different matter. The permission of the client should be requested unless it is already covered in a contract. Even so, a courtesy call should be made.

[3oneday]

I would be surprised if in the fine print there wasn't something authorising use for advertising ect. It would be worth asking a simple question of the company but I would expect they would be covered.

Everyone would do it differently, could you imagine having to contact someone from 1 year, or 5 years ago seeking permission ?

[Moe Norman]

its not that the photographer used the image on their website or to advertise their business.

The photo is on the cover of a magazine, this magazine is no affiliated with the photographer. And when I say cover, I mean its the only picture and its fullsize.

[Matt 3 Jab]

So the photographer would/could be making money off the shot.
I would say you would need permission, but i duno, read the fine print.

[Choppa]

It will be in the contract that the photographer can use the photos for whatever they want. Including allowing others to publish them. Until you purchase the copyright back off the photographer....sucks, but what can you do right.

[AndyP]

I just assumed the photographer owned them, can't remember signing anything, but probably did.
It isn't a nude shot of you is it, Moe?

[Courty]

So the photographer would/could be making money off the shot.
I would say you would need permission, but i duno, read the fine print.

Not necessarily. A few shots of ours have been used in mags, and we got nuthin'. However, even though we already had their permission, we did notify the brides etc. that the shots were going to be used.

[goughy]

I'm sure I've heard of clauses allowing the use of the photo's for self promotion. And it used to be near impossible to buy the negatives. We could never get ours, not that the shots were that good.

Too much pressure in wedding photography. Robyn hated doing it. Nothing worse than when something goes wrong. You can't replay the day.

[Moe Norman]

the option was there to buy the negatives, but the price was exhorbitant.

however, the understanding was that the photographer could use them to promote himself etc, but this particular photo is on the cover of a magazine and in no way mentions the photographer.

I work in marketing/advertsing and its a constant struggle fighting people over 'talent fees' and the like, then you see this happen where magazines seem to have no obligation to even notify the person used on the cover, let alone pay them a fee.

[goughy]

It wasn't mentioned somewhere within the first few pages either. Seems odd.

[Courty]

the option was there to buy the negatives, but the price was exhorbitant.

I understand why people get flustered by how much it costs for negatives or, more recently, full resolution images. The reason why it's done is because if the the client gets ownership of the images, the photographers potential to earn any income is greatly reducecd or even lost altogether. By retaining ownership, they can control distribution of the images and cover their expenses. It may seem to some like a glamorous profession, but there isn't a great deal of money in it unless you are ridiculously good.


you see this happen where magazines seem to have no obligation to even notify the person used on the cover, let alone pay them a fee.

I would have thought it was the photographers duty to contact the 'models', not the magazine.

[goughy]

Basically, from what I could see years ago, the money was in weddings. But that's about it. Not a money making career like upholstery ;) (I wish)

[Choppa]

We got all our images and the copyright for $200 12 months after our wedding. Not bad, but I guess he figured he got enough cash out of us for the album anyway.