Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Good point Brian, you beat me to it.

Not necessarily true... copyright can subsist in the country which is is ordinary place of residence of the creator/author.

If I go to Ireland from England to shoot the copyright law that prevails is British law NOT that of the Republic of Ireland.

If I shoot in the US the copyright is still UK.

The US has work for hire - the UK doesn't... and I don't know about Canada.

However, contracts can specify a choice of law that can provide advantages between Canada's practice, or the UK's, and the US on certain work.

Studio36

CUnique wrote:
I think she is right *verbal contract* if you take her up on the deal and she pays then she should have the photos rights sence thats what was agreed. I have shoots that I have no photos of because I sold total rights over. Plus, your work will still get around...just mark the photos with your name on the back or in the picture small so that you can show that its your work but its owned by her. I have no problem with people buying total rights to my photos...its the ones who don't pay and don't give me photos that sometimes irk me out.

If you don't like the arrangement it sounds like she should not have to pay at all..maybe she could do a tfcd/tfp with you...but she might not want to pay in addition to you keeping the photos. :-)

wow...ok...

Firstly, yes if he agreed to do the photography for the wedding and that was the last verbal contract the woman would have a case for saying she owned copyright...however...if you take an image to be reproduced to 90% of print shops and film processors, they will ask to see proof of copyright ownership unless you are the photographer.  That will need to be a written document. Further, a verbal contract is worth about as much as the paper it is written on.

Secondly, as a model it would be you who is being sold copyright or given copyright to images as a form of compensation for your modeling.  You can not give away nor sell copyright, you can only give or sell your likeness rights.

Finally, if I *ever* see the letters tfp/tfcd in conjunction with wedding again it will be too soon.  TFP is Time For Print; the Time part of the equation being the model's and the Print part of the equation being the photographer's payment for the model's time.... You can not TFP a wedding...well you can, but then you're paying to photograph someone's wedding and no photographer should ever do that.

studio36uk wrote:
Not necessarily true... copyright can subsist in the country which is is ordinary place of residence of the creator/author.

If I go to Ireland from England to shoot the copyright law that prevails is British law NOT that of the Republic of Ireland.

If I shoot in the US the copyright is still UK.

The US has work for hire - the UK doesn't... and I don't know about Canada.

However, contracts can specify a choice of law that can provide advantages between Canada's practice, or the UK's, and the US on certain work.

Studio36

US Law is at issue because if there is to be an infringement, the US is where it would take place.  Consider, for instance, if you were a UK photographer shooting in Taiwan and trying to enforce your copyright . . . or China.  Good luck with that.

The US does have work for hire, but that only applies if there is a written agreement which assigns copyright to the client, which seems not to be the case here.  So as a practical matter, what counts is that, like in the UK, the photographer has copyright and can enforce it in the US.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Good point Brian, you beat me to it.

studio36uk wrote:
Not necessarily true... copyright can subsist in the country which is is ordinary place of residence of the creator/author.

If I go to Ireland from England to shoot the copyright law that prevails is British law NOT that of the Republic of Ireland.

If I shoot in the US the copyright is still UK.

The US has work for hire - the UK doesn't... and I don't know about Canada.

However, contracts can specify a choice of law that can provide advantages between Canada's practice, or the UK's, and the US on certain work.

Studio36

I am not a lawyer so a lawyer is going to have to respond to you.   I have a problem with this.  If an image is shot in the U.S. presumably you are going to litigate in the U.S.   I have a friend who produces video and he used a song on a video he believed was in public domain, but it turns out it belonged to a Swedish songwriter.  It had also been registered in Sweden.

He was sued in the U.S. under U.S. copyright law (however they recognized the Swedish registration).  International copyright law is governed by treaty.  I have a problem though understanding how International treaties would apply if the image was shot in the U.S. and it was litigated in a U.S. court.

I am also not sure how a British court would gain jurisdiction over an American in that situation.  Clearly if they litigated in England, for example, they would have to transfer the judgement to an American court to enforce it.  If that were the case,the issue of venue would be subject to challenge.

In the U.S., venue would normally be the residence of the defendant, the place where the infringement took place or the location where the contract was executed (or was to be performed).  Perhaps there is something in British law that would give them jurisdiction, but I am at a loss how they would have jurisdiction under U.S. law.

It could see your position if a British subject took a picture in the U.S. but the copyright was violated by a fellow British subject.  As an example, if a Brit took the image back home to London and then published it.  In that case I could clearly see how you could litigate there since you are a British subject and the infringement took place in England (or perhaps another EU country).

In any event, I don't know enough about International Treaties to even speculate. Your interpretation does not seem plausible under U.S. law.  What we need is an American attorney to ring in here.

Thanks for your comments.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
He was sued in the U.S. under U.S. copyright law (however they recognized the Swedish registration).  International copyright law is governed by treaty.  I have a problem though understanding how International treaties would apply if the image was shot in the U.S. and it was litigated in a U.S. court.

No problem Alan, it is fairly straight forward... in broad terms the Berne Convention provides that an infringement is litigated in the country where it took place under that country's law EXCEPT where there is a manifest disadvantage to the claimant because of particular and different provisions of law... e.g a registration requirement; or, the amount and kind of damages or other relief. The court can then take that into account.

An example is in damages available in the US that depend on registration. As the UK has no registration system, and for that matter no break down on damages of different kinds, the Berne provides that if the UK work is infringed in another country [US in this case] with a formal registration system but the home country doesn't have such a registration system - PROVIDED - that home country formalities [IF ANY] have been complied with - that the work should be treated, in law, as "registered" in the country where the enforcement action is commenced.

The Berne also provides, in broad terms, that the country where copyright is claimed and subsists as a matter of law shall be the country where the author is ordinarily resident. Thus a UK resident shooting in the US will establish a UK copyright in the work not a US copyright... but that UK copyright is enforcable in the US courts under US law to the extent that it might be as if actually "registered" in the US as a work of US origin.

Studio36

James Jackson wrote:

wow...ok...

Firstly, yes if he agreed to do the photography for the wedding and that was the last verbal contract the woman would have a case for saying she owned copyright...however...if you take an image to be reproduced to 90% of print shops and film processors, they will ask to see proof of copyright ownership unless you are the photographer.  That will need to be a written document. Further, a verbal contract is worth about as much as the paper it is written on.

Secondly, as a model it would be you who is being sold copyright or given copyright to images as a form of compensation for your modeling.  You can not give away nor sell copyright, you can only give or sell your likeness rights.

Finally, if I *ever* see the letters tfp/tfcd in conjunction with wedding again it will be too soon.  TFP is Time For Print; the Time part of the equation being the model's and the Print part of the equation being the photographer's payment for the model's time.... You can not TFP a wedding...well you can, but then you're paying to photograph someone's wedding and no photographer should ever do that.

Wow, id love to have awesome wedding photos in my photog port...I sure wouldn't mind doing a tfp wedding..hahaha...maybe im on to something... :-)

ted2 wrote:
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?

I see as usual there is a lot of heat and very little light here.

Copyright law says you own the copyright, unless you engage in a work for hire contract, or otherwise assign the copyright to someone else. Which is what this bride's mom wants, right? You just execute a simple agreement, and the copyright is hers.

So you're getting a lot of advice to keep the copyright to these wedding photos. Hmmmm. Putting my Mr. Businessman hat on. What exactly will YOU do with a copyright to some lame-ass wedding pictures? Sell them to a stock agency? Really? Without a model release for everybody in the pix? Sell them to somebody to use for advertising wedding-related products or services? Really? Without a model release? Sell them to somebody who will take the heads and put them on porno images?

See my point? What do YOU need the copyright for? Nothing. So negotiate a fair price with the couple to shoot their wedding. A price you can both live with. Cover your expenses, and give yourself a handsome profit. Then give them the copyright, the files, and anything else they want. KEEP IT SIMPLE! Make them feel like you're a good guy, instead of the prototypical wedding photographer who squeezes their clients till they bleed, and then squeezes some more.

For the life of me, I can't see how you're letting down the photograper's club by doing this. As long of course, as you don't show them the secret photographer's handshake. For THAT, we'd have to lynch your ass.

Paul
http://www.gruppfoto.com

studio36uk wrote:
No problem Alan, it is fairly straight forward... in broad terms the Berne Convention provides that an infringement is litigated in the country where it took place under that country's law EXCEPT where there is a manifest disadvantage to the claimant because of particular and different provisions of law... e.g a registration requirement; or, the amount and kind of damages or other relief. The court can then take that into account.

All of that is good, but as I have said, you are not a lawyer.  I read the treaty after reading your post, it is still not clear to me.  We need to hear what an attorney familiar with U.S. law has to say.

When I read the treaty, it appears to me that the UK resident would still have to litigate in the U.S. but would simply be relieved of the requirement to comply with U.S. registration.

Let's hear from a lawyer rather than you and I debating it.

bang bang photo wrote:

ted2 wrote:
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?

I see as usual there is a lot of heat and very little light here.

Copyright law says you own the copyright, unless you engage in a work for hire contract, or otherwise assign the copyright to someone else. Which is what this bride's mom wants, right? You just execute a simple agreement, and the copyright is hers.

So you're getting a lot of advice to keep the copyright to these wedding photos. Hmmmm. Putting my Mr. Businessman hat on. What exactly will YOU do with a copyright to some lame-ass wedding pictures? Sell them to a stock agency? Really? Without a model release for everybody in the pix? Sell them to somebody to use for advertising wedding-related products or services? Really? Without a model release? Sell them to somebody who will take the heads and put them on porno images?

See my point? What do YOU need the copyright for? Nothing. So negotiate a fair price with the couple to shoot their wedding. A price you can both live with. Cover your expenses, and give yourself a handsome profit. Then give them the copyright, the files, and anything else they want. KEEP IT SIMPLE! Make them feel like you're a good guy, instead of the prototypical wedding photographer who squeezes their clients till they bleed, and then squeezes some more.

For the life of me, I can't see how you're letting down the photograper's club by doing this. As long of course, as you don't show them the secret photographer's handshake. For THAT, we'd have to lynch your ass.

Paul
http://www.gruppfoto.com

Sell them to somebody who will take the heads and put them on porno images? [/End Quote]

Oh, he gave my secret plot away...
:-(

CUnique wrote:
Now this is a thought...people take their wedding photos very seriously because *at least idealistically* its a once in a lifetime event. :-P

If a photog really wants some diversity it wouldn't hurt to have wedding photos...and a photographer who hasn't much experience or proven themselves in the field or to their commericial competitors can't just say ( pay me because I might be good). So it would benefit the photog as well as the couple if the rare event were to occur that they did tfp/tfcd. lol

Marriage is just like any other event that can be documented via camera/photo...just like the discovery channel when they produce awesome images of a rain dance ceremony or the birth of a whale or a new star...

However, like I said it might be rare because who would gamble with their wedding photos? If I were getting married and on a tight budget I probably would...it sure beats a family member with a rusty old camera anyday :-)

K, well I think one of the other photographers said it best.  If you're not good enough to charge, then you shouldn't be doing a wedding...for free or otherwise.  I forget who said it, and I can't find the thread to reference them, so I apologize to whomever I'm stealing the sentiment from, but it is very accurate.

A wedding *is* supposed to be a once in a life time event.  A photographer without the basic experience in wedding should seek to assist another wedding photographer (lord knows there's enough of them out there looking for second shooters and assistants) and build their book by shooting second camera at weddings.

TFP/TFCD SHOULD NOT BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORD WEDDING!

TFP is a made up internet term and should not be used for real world work.

And beside all that is the fact that the mother-in-law wants all the negs/digital files so our photographer friend here wouldn't be able to put any work in his portfolio from this wedding.

bang bang photo wrote:
For the life of me, I can't see how you're letting down the photograper's club by doing this

That may be because you've never had any exposure to the wedding photography business???

From what I've gathered; wedding photographers like to maintain the copyright for two reasons:

1) They're more likely to protect the image if it is stolen and they know the copyright law
2) Most wedding photographers have low day rates and make most of their money off prints and re-prints of the wedding photos

Number 1 isn't so important as number 2.

If you're doing the job for a low day rate you need to make back your money somehow, and it's not fair to ask a photographer to do both a low day rate and give up the rights to the images.

James Jackson wrote:

That may be because you've never had any exposure to the wedding photography business???

From what I've gathered; wedding photographers like to maintain the copyright for two reasons:

1) They're more likely to protect the image if it is stolen and they know the copyright law
2) Most wedding photographers have low day rates and make most of their money off prints and re-prints of the wedding photos

Number 1 isn't so important as number 2.

If you're doing the job for a low day rate you need to make back your money somehow, and it's not fair to ask a photographer to do both a low day rate and give up the rights to the images.

Actually, I have a fair amount of exposure to the wedding business, thank you for asking. IMHO, the business model represented in point #2 is archaic, outdated, and very difficult to be profitable at these days. I don't doubt there are some guys still making it work, but in an increasingly savvy world, I think the better-paying clients just aren't buying that model any more.

I know a lot of successful wedding photographers who have completely removed that ancient upsell dance from their sales pitch, and they're doing rather well at it.

As for protecting the image if it's stolen -- again -- why should you care as a wedding photographer if granny puts her sweet grand-daughter's wedding pictures up on the web somewhere? Wedding pictures, once paid for, have very little intrinsic value to the photographer. If you're building a business plan based on lots of future profits from reorders of wedding images, I think you need a new business plan.

Book the wedding. Get paid for it. Shoot it. Deliver the images, leaving the client deliriously happy so they'll recommend you to all their friends. Move on to the next client. Now THERE is an effective business plan!

TXPhotog wrote:
I see Chris has been responding in his usual gracious way, so I hesitate to come in her and be rude by comparison . . .


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.

Under Canadian law the client gets copyright on commissioned, paid work.  Under US and UK law, the photographer does.  Unless, in either case, there is a written agreement to the contrary.

Now, do what you want to do.

TX, how do commercial photographers maintain credit for the images then?  That would suck if you created this amazing image and could never actually get any credit for it.  I take this is something that get's written into the contract that the photog at least gets credit for creation?

Also, you would know this as well....what if you are a US photographer, hired by a foreign client to do an assignment?  Do you follow their local contract law or yours?  Or again, can you draw up a US contract for them to sign?  Wow, think of all the variables.....US photog, Canadian client with the shoot in India....etc.

Just curious.... never dealt with this, so even thought about it till now.

Manny Desalamanca wrote:
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.

in the link above has a webaddress  ( http://www.photoattorney.com) why don't you see if there is an e-mail embedded somewhere within that you can send a request to?