Who Has the Rights?

Ed911

I think this belongs here...maybe not...but it definitely has to do with wedding photography.

The wedding venue, where my son had his wedding, is using one of his wedding pictures in magazine ads. They were a good looking couple, if I don't say so myself.

Assuming that the photographer has a model release, does that mean that he can sell their wedding photos to others outside of the wedding party for their (3rd party) profit or gain. Can he sell their wedding photos to the whole world. I can see where the wedding photographer could use them himself, like in a studio office or window, but selling them to a venue for their advertising purposes...hmmm.

Let me know what you think. I know my son wasn't made aware of any modeling release.

And, I've heard it here that one photographer wouldn't sell pictures to the mother of the bride, or was it mother-in-law of the bride, because it was the bride that contracted and paid for the wedding photography. (To parties other than the wedding couple and the guests.)

This could be a great discussion for just how far and wide wedding pictures can be disseminated and profited from by the wedding photographer.

Toshido

Laws in Canada seem pretty simple about this.

- If hired and being paid to take the photos the photos belong to the employer, not the photographer.

- If not hired to take a photo then the photo belongs to the photographer and he can sell it for private use to anyone and everyone. Note, PRIVATE use, not commercial.

- If a photo is to be used for commercial uses then a model release needs to be filled out.


Just my understanding of Canadian laws regarding photography.

Of course read the contract carefully. Could be all sorts of things in there. The photographer might have tried to sneak some sort of model release into the contract. But again my limited understanding of a model release for commercial use like this needs to include fair compensation to the models.

I am sure you will soon have a reply from someone with real experience and from the states to boot soon enough though.

Cantfeelmyfingers

Toshido wrote:

Laws in Canada seem pretty simple about this.

- If hired and being paid to take the photos the photos belong to the employer, not the photographer.

I'm not sure that's correct. Even though someone has paid me to do a session, they still need MY (the photographer's) permission...
Sorry to be off topic..

BPerron

Cantfeelmyfingers wrote:

I'm not sure that's correct. Even though someone has paid me to do a session, they still need MY (the photographer's) permission...
Sorry to be off topic..

I wonder about this as well...

BPerron

Ed911 wrote:

I think this belongs here...maybe not...but it definitely has to do with wedding photography.

The wedding venue, where my son had his wedding, is using one of his wedding pictures in magazine ads. They were a good looking couple, if I don't say so myself.

Assuming that the photographer has a model release, does that mean that he can sell their wedding photos to others outside of the wedding party for their (3rd party) profit or gain. Can he sell their wedding photos to the whole world. I can see where the wedding photographer could use them himself, like in a studio office or window, but selling them to a venue for their advertising purposes...hmmm.

Let me know what you think. I know my son wasn't made aware of any modeling release.

And, I've heard it here that one photographer wouldn't sell pictures to the mother of the bride, or was it mother-in-law of the bride, because it was the bride that contracted and paid for the wedding photography. (To parties other than the wedding couple and the guests.)

This could be a great discussion for just how far and wide wedding pictures can be disseminated and profited from by the wedding photographer.

If a model release was signed, then yes the photographer can do whatever he wants with the photos selling or not...

Also the photographer may have not sold the photo...he may have given the venue some photos for free as a good will (to possibly gain a referral from that venue) and to get more exposure for their work... this is very common practice in the industry...

Toshido

Cantfeelmyfingers wrote:

I'm not sure that's correct. Even though someone has paid me to do a session, they still need MY (the photographer's) permission...
Sorry to be off topic..

http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php

Copyright Act, 13.(3):
(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical.

Copyright Act, 10.(1):
Where the owner referred to in subsection (2) is a corporation, the term for which copyright subsists in a photograph shall be the remainder of the year of the making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph, plus a period of fifty years.

There are the laws. I also provided a link to my source.

As always though. If you want truly reliable information and interpretation of the laws seek legal counsel.

As a slight aside here. I know for a fact that at least one part of this article is inaccurate, but it does not link to a specific act, like the act I quoted above. So take this for what it is worth.

If you are curious about the part that is inaccurate.

No private citizen has the right to search you, your car, or other belongings. However, being searched may be a condition of entrance to private property or an event. If you refuse a search, expect to be refused entrance to the event or property.

Working sa a private investigator arresting shoplifter I was allowed to search the people I arrested if I had reason to think they might be armed. Basically I could search for weapons. nothing else. So the above is close, but not quite there. Again that quote from the article does not link to a specific act either.

Matt S

You will have to read the contract. It is possible that there was a full release granted when the contract was signed. Absent that, or another model release, the photographer is opening up themselves for problems.

As to the Canadian law part. In the US if you shoot as an employee of someone, yes the rights go to them. For instance a fireman shooting during work would not necessarily own copyright to those photos.

However, when working under contract as a separate entity like the case of a wedding photographer this would not be the case. You are not the your clients employee. I suspect that some people are confusing the two issues.

Toshido

employment of some other person under a contract of service

Sounds like a contract to me.

Matt S wrote:

working under contract

This is why you need to make it clear in your contract who owns the photographs.

Scott_Quier

First things first - INAL!

Second - Given that Ed911 lists NC, USA as his home, I would assume the venue is also in the USA. If that's true, I would guess that Canadian law is not applicable.

In the USA, in the instance of work for hire, the employer owns the copyright. Depending the terms of the contact, this is not the case here.

Usually, and unless the contract states differently, a wedding photographer is contracted to provide a service. The deliverable is that service, not the photographs. In this case, the photographyer owns the copyright to the photographs. But, that's not permission to sell the photographs. That requires a model release. Is there a model release in the contract. If not, then the photographer has violated when he/she sold/gave the images to the venue. If there is a model release, the photographer still may not have permission to sell/give the images to an outside third party - depends on the terms. I know the model release in my contract does not give me permission to sell images to a third party. I may, however, use the images for any "first party" (that's me) marketing.

The organization where I work for my 9 - 5 has a contracting department. Above the door as you leave is a sign, "When in doubt, read the contact!"

bob swanson

My wedding contract has the models release included. The reason that contracts are so long is that we keep having to add little lines here and there because we've been burned. It's quite possible that the photographer did not SELL the image but offered it for future considerations.

ian408

A model release isn't always 100% one way. Meaning I may want to allow use only under certain conditions. Like a portfolio or for display, etc. or unlimited use.

It all depends on what the contract says and laws governing contracts in your locale.

Ed911

Thanks everyone...

Yep Scott, USA...Savannah Georgia to be exact. I think the problem was that the photographer...friend of the family on the wife's side, was very handsomely paid to deliver 400 pictures of the wedding and reception...an amount of images that he just barely finished taking by the end of the day...as he admitted to me just before leaving.

Which means by only having taken 400 images that he had to deliver all 400 prints to the bride and groom...husband and wife by this time...and there were the good, the bad, and the ugly. No one takes 400 prefect pictures. My son and his wife were less than impressed. And, now do not want their names associated with this wedding photographer.

As photographers, we know that a certain number of those 400 images should have been culled and never seen by the living.

The wedding took place back in 2005 and the pictures are still showing up...hmmm...oh well. The photographer did take some good pictures...the one that I've seen in the magazine...looks fine...

It was a nice wedding...

Again, thanks...

SFGfx

For those interested, I found this article about when you need a model release and when you don't. It's a long read, but worth it, I think.

Note: The article is not written by a lawyer, it is written by a photographer. But there is some useful information in there.

Enjoy!

Mike

Angelo

SFGfx wrote:

For those interested, I found this article about when you need a model release and when you don't. It's a long read, but worth it, I think.

Note: The article is not written by a lawyer, it is written by a photographer. But there is some useful information in there.

Enjoy!

Mike

already posted in the "Photographer's Resources" sticky in the MYOB forum where I think this entire thread probably belongs.


basic issue here as Scott and others have already said... Was a model release signed? If so then there's probably no recourse and the photographer is within his rights to sell the image(s) for commercial purposes.

And as Ian stated, releases like other contracts can have varying clauses, restrictions and definitions.

.

mmmatt

bob swanson wrote:

My wedding contract has the models release included. The reason that contracts are so long is that we keep having to add little lines here and there because we've been burned. It's quite possible that the photographer did not SELL the image but offered it for future considerations.

This is also what I was thinking. Maybe the photographer is trying to get in good with the venue and just said go for it. I also however put model release language into my contract. I give image files with my wedding packages and make it very clear that they can use them for personal use only, but only I have right to sell them. I also state that I have the right to use them in advertising, portfolio, website, etc. Mostly this is so I can sell them on smugmug, but if Modern Bride called me up one day...



Matt