|
Forums >
General Industry >
US rules on copyright of pictures
Hi folks, a friend has asked if I would shoot his wedding in Vermont in October 06 which I am happy to do. The brides mother who is paying my costs has said that she will own the copyright to any to pics I take and wants all the films and digi pics given to her. She says that as she is paying is a commerical shoot and therefore as the client all the pics are hers. Can someone tell me what the rules/law is in the US on this please? May 28 06 05:16 pm Link It really depends on the agreement you make, most wedding photographers have a lot of forms and contracts, well a few contracts at least. If she wants all the rights it needs to be written up in the contract. You are being hired as a service for the wedding, talk to some photographers in your area that do wedding photography as some things can differe in different states on ordinary practices. ted2 wrote: May 28 06 05:18 pm Link This is almost NEVER true. I charge between $300-$2000 to shoot a wedding (IF someone can get me to do one) and I KEEP the negs. Check with some of the pros in your area that specialize, but wedding photos are usually like high school pics. You shoot them, give the customers a proof set to select the images they want, and then send them a print package that you agree on in advance as part of your fee. They have to shell out MAD cash to buy the negs/copyrights, if the photographers will even sell them, otherwise they go back to the photog for more. If they want to OWN the copyrights, negs, etc, they need to pay you WELL. And one other thing, people will screw you with no reach around on weddings more than anything else, even "friends." So make sure you get at LEAST 50% of the $ up front with a CLEAR notice that it's NON REFUNDABLE. Cover yourself, or you'll have thrown away your time (and expense if you do film) for nothing. May 28 06 05:23 pm Link if she WANTS you to do her wedding as a WORK for HIRE...which is what she's calling it...be sure to charge her Commercial rates!!! Low End Commercial Rates start about the same range as HIGH END Wedding Photography.... Frankly, I would rather work the commcercial scale, it's Higher Pay and less work.... May 28 06 05:24 pm Link I have to say that I'd probably find I'd suddenly got a prior engagement that I'd forgotten about, and I couldn't do the wedding after all. May 28 06 05:27 pm Link Unless someone here is an attorney and willing to go on record as giving you legal advice, the words you'll receive here are worth exactly what you're paying for them. That said, what do YOU want? Are you willing to assign her copyright? If so, do it. End of discussion. Are you NOT willing? If so, don't take the job, because that's apparently what she wants. Again, end of discussion. Bottom line, if you don't have a MEETING OF THE MINDS on what each party wants, you don't have a situation in which you should find yourself. This is not legal advice. May 28 06 05:30 pm Link probably the reason she wants the negs is cause she is going to hire you at a cheap rate and then have prints made instead of buying them at a higher cost from the wedding photog as most do. May 28 06 05:31 pm Link With that kind of thinking, then she would view a portrait session or high school pics the same. Don't let her bully you. If you let your copyright go, then make sure she pays for it. Just my line of thinking, which may or may not be right. And definately not legal advice. Patrick May 28 06 05:32 pm Link Chris Ambler wrote: YOU are so wrong till it's just plain sad !!!! May 28 06 05:37 pm Link KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote: Excuse me? Mind speaking English? May 28 06 05:40 pm Link Chris Ambler wrote: I see you hate it when you are wrong ?? Please don't post BS like that again........ end of discussion May 28 06 05:43 pm Link Good luck .... Have to tried to get a Copyright on your Pics ..... LOL ...... See This : http://www.photofocus.com/showarchive.php?aid=281&cid=7 Manny D. May 28 06 05:43 pm Link KARLOS MATTHEWS wrote: Yeah, you're right. Advising someone to do what they want to do is always bad advice. May 28 06 05:45 pm Link May 28 06 05:47 pm Link Chris Ambler wrote: OK Chris Ambler you win I surrender !!! Let's all diregard all copyrights and work job to job this goes for photographer, illustrators, writers ect........ Hell we enjoy doing photography so much maybe we shouldn't be compensated for our hard work !! May 28 06 06:01 pm Link Wow. President? Let me think about that and get back to you. I once shot a wedding as a favor to a good friend. I didn't charge him a cent, and I gave him all of the negatives and a copyright assignment. It was my wedding gift. Man, I'm an idiot. What was I thinking?! I can't believe that I did what I wanted, rather than go by the hard-and-fast rule you so clearly made me understand. You've really opened my eyes, my friend! May 28 06 06:03 pm Link Chris and Karlos, stop it both of you or I'll send you both to bed with no supper. You guys are so funny! Lets help the OP by just letting him know this: Copyright Law states that he who presses the shutter without any other written arrangements, is the copyright holder. Now if you'd like to discuss Ad useage with me, that would be important. BUT THIS IS A FRIGGIN WEDDING!! Copyright does not apply here. Negetive Right applies here: He who posseses the negs owns the right to make as many prints as they want! May 28 06 06:15 pm Link ted2 wrote: The copyright remains with the original artist May 28 06 06:18 pm Link ted2 wrote: The US rule is this: In all cases without anything else in writing, you, the photographer, own the copyright. I would recommend that you give your client 2 prices: one for shooting the wedding and the other for the buyout of the negs. Selling her the negs is my recommendation. Shooting weddings is nothing compared to the stress of selling prints to a client as misinformed as this one. May 28 06 06:20 pm Link Daguerre wrote: Unfortunately, and with all due respect, that's not correct. May 28 06 06:23 pm Link Chris Ambler wrote: Don't need to. This is Professional advice. Sell her the negs, get your money, move on to another job tomarrow. The time (and money) you spend trying to prove that you still own copyright after you've sold your client the negs is wasted time. May 28 06 06:33 pm Link Prints are the hardest things in the world to get the rights to make. I've worked for a (mind you poor excuse) of a retail photography studio and those people hold onto their rights until they bleed from it. The request form to make prints of a photo that no longer has negatives is so specific and detailed down to the number of copies and the size that you can make them. The only time I saw them relent was if the negatives were purchased. At that point I couldn't honestly tell you who owned the copyright, but it's a lot harder to keep them from making copies when they have the negative. I'm all for the tag at the end of this being "this is not legal advice." May 28 06 06:35 pm Link Chris Ambler is right on all counts, although he should refrain from calling people idiots.  This is not legal advice. May 28 06 06:38 pm Link Daguerre wrote: While this is the way it works in practice, it is not a legal truth. You can posess the negative, but you still legally need the permission of the copyright holder to make prints. May 28 06 06:40 pm Link Hmzz no mather what the lady says the international copyright law will always apply and that states clearly that the copyrights of any picture taken do always belong to the photographer unless agreed upon differently. This means that the copyrights will only change to someone else if a full release was given by the photographer. Possession of the negatives is not the same as possession of the copyrights in that respect!! My advice therefore would be to make two different prices: One with and one without a full release. The one with the release being at least double the price of the one without it. Greetz Olof Lol, Chris found the correct articles already May 28 06 06:41 pm Link I see Chris has been responding in his usual gracious way, so I hesitate to come in her and be rude by comparison . . . ted2 wrote: That depends. Your profile says you are from London, but does not list a country. If you mean London, UK, the copyright laws on this issue are the same as they are in your country. If you mean London, Ontario, they aren't. May 28 06 06:41 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: You're right. I should have called him an ice cream sandwich. Mainly because I've not yet had lunch. May 28 06 06:43 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I've learned to enjoy it. Please, do. TXPhotog wrote: Holy crap on a pixie stick, you're absolutely correct and I'd not considered that. Indeed, if the original poster is in the (enlightened?) Great White North, things are different. My apologies for not checking locale. On the other hand, he did ask for US laws... TXPhotog wrote: My original advice as well. May 28 06 06:46 pm Link The wedding's in Vermont. My non-legal advice is that US laws would apply. May 28 06 06:49 pm Link Chris Ambler wrote: TXPhotog wrote: I've learned to enjoy it. Please, do. TXPhotog wrote: Holy crap on a pixie stick, you're absolutely correct and I'd not considered that. Indeed, if the original poster is in the (enlightened?) Great White North, things are different. My apologies for not checking locale. On the other hand, he did ask for US laws... Hahahaha remind me to never work in Canada May 28 06 06:50 pm Link Wow I learned some stuff. Thanks for the info. I would really like to thank those that actually had links and Facts to back up what they are saying. May 28 06 06:54 pm Link Photographer owns all rights unless a contract exists to state otherwise. If she's paying your expenses, don't forget the $2500 you need to charge to cover for your time as you we're unable to accept other jobs on that date. (that to me is simply an expense) I'm personally shooting back to back weddings next friday and saturday (both as a favor for the same friend that knows two couples that are getting married next week) Shoot one is a sob story, getting married before it's too late (litteraly and on medical grounds and so young too) they don't have a lot of money and it's a small ceremony and they only want my services for two hours. Their budget was $200, I told them I wouldn't do it for less than $400 and thats just for shooting, quick PS touch up's and delivering the images on disk. The reason I charged them less than half of my half day rate for commercial work is they have both signed contracts, and had all other significant guests do the same giving me all rights, I will use the images as stock and make some cash back on the other end of it. Shoot two is a big bash and i'm just the number two photogrpaher to help out this friend, I have the smae stock contrack with the bride and full pre wedding access to shoot her whilst shes getting ready, makeup, preperations, etc and on top of it I get my day rate of $1800 that I charge for commercial shoots. And all I need to do is shoot for the day and deliver 400 RAW files to my friend (the primary photographer) for prints and other stuff from the day (no post production for me) Regardless of how good a friend someone is you should never shoot something for free for them as it's basically saying your service has no value. If they're that good a friend bill the mother at whatever rates you want (do consider a discount for a friend of course) and when the mother gives you shit explain to your friend that she obviously places no value on the memories of possibly the biggest day of their lives. Find weding photographers in your area, at least five that shoot as well as you, get their rates, work out the average cost and knock of 30% That's my $0.02 worth at no charge! May 28 06 08:01 pm Link Many thanks folks for all your replies which I have found very helpful indeed. I will now retire gracefully to my corner to consider next move with "mum". ted May 29 06 03:11 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Hmmmm, the wedding is in Vermont and he's not from the U.S. Maybe that is why he wanted to know how it worked in the U.S.? May 29 06 03:20 pm Link It's true that he wanted to know about US laws - but I prefaced my comments by assuming that he had some knowledge of his home country's laws, so I could alert him to the fact that US laws were the same (as the UK) or different (from Canada), so he could understand better. Sorry if you were put off by that. May 29 06 03:26 pm Link Daguerre wrote: PIA, no kidding. Just be glad she's somebody ELSE'S mother-in-law. The "sell-and-move-on" advice is perfect. Price the job accordingly. May 29 06 03:27 pm Link eric freimanis wrote: WalMart must have a special going on wedding prints... LOL May 29 06 04:08 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I am confused, where did this come from? I didn't know that anybody had directed a comment towards you. I'm sorry if you felt that way. May 29 06 04:10 pm Link The mother in law is crazy, and the advice given you by those saying you own the copyright regardless of payment is correct. The only way you would cease to own copyright over the images you take on their wedding day is if you sign a document stating you have given them the copyright. -James May 29 06 04:22 pm Link It appeared that Brian's comment, quoted by you, was directed at me. Perhaps not. Doesn't much matter. May 29 06 04:24 pm Link |
