Do you retain ownership of the images?

jmphotocraft

That is, for those of you who give your customers full-res digital image files, do you give them complete ownership or just an unlimited use license?

The difference being, if you retain ownership, you can then sell any images if they become valuable, like if the subject becomes newsworthy for whatever reason.

Matthew Saville

In my opinion, relinquishing rights to your images is for celebrity weddings. That's the kind of situation where you get paid a quarter-million dollars, or at least five figures. No off-the-street consumer is getting complete copyright to MY images for just a few hundred bucks extra.

So yes, I always retain the rights to my images, however useless those rights may be in this digital age. I allow the client to circulate low-res copies with my watermark on them, and I allow the client to make prints from the disc I give them. Really the only thing I DON'T allow is for them to turn around and resell the images, OR claim that someone else captured them.

I do also retain the right to use images as I please, of course, for promotion and the usual stuff...

However, I DO allow one or two clients per year to request complete privacy, if they think they deserve it. I can afford to do that once or twice a year, and usually only 0-1 clients per year need privacy. So, no problem! (And I still retain the copyright to the images. Because as of yet, I haven't been contacted to shoot any celebrity weddings...)

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

Thanks Matt.

bnlearle

Remember that because you own the copyright doesn't mean you can sell images with someone's identity in them. Your contract must have a model release in order to do that

mmmatt

My contract wrote:

If client is to receive personal use copyright for images from the event, then the client may print and distribute images free of charge to
friends, family, and attendees of the event. Client may give prints, copy DVD image data, email images, or use images on their personal
web pages. Client may also direct friends or family to the image gallery on the photographer’s website to view or purchase prints. At no
time may images or prints of images be sold or made available through mass publication by the client. Photographer maintains the sole
right to sell images through his website or otherwise, for either personal or commercial use. Images may also be used by photographer
for general display, including marketing, contest submission, or educational purposes.

From my contract

Matt

Photog4Christ

mmmatt wrote: »

From my contract:

If client is to receive personal use copyright for images from the event...

You do mean "personal use license", right? The images are yours and you have the copyright because you created the images.

mmmatt

Photog4Christ wrote: »

You do mean "personal use license", right? The images are yours and you have the copyright because you created the images.

symantics I think since I define what it means in the text. I prefer the word copyright over license, but if you have knowledge of how that could be turned against me, let me know.

Matt

Photog4Christ

mmmatt wrote: »

symantics I think since I define what it means in the text. I prefer the word copyright over license, but if you have knowledge of how that could be turned against me, let me know.

Matt

There's a HUGH difference between "Copyright" and "license". You did have an attorney review your contract, correct?


Since you own the copyright, you're able to give a license.

Matthew Saville

Photog4Christ wrote: »

There's a HUGH difference between "Copyright" and "license". You did have an attorney review your contract, correct?


Since you own the copyright, you're able to give a license.

Exactly. You can retain the copyright for your images while granting a license to specific people for limited use.

Relinquishing your copyright would mean that even YOU aren't allowed to keep a copy of the photos unless THEY consent. It would be as if you didn't even capture the pictures; you were just an employee who pressed a button. Which is how it works in the movie industry. A camera operator does NOT get to retain the copyright of footage he captures in a multi-million dollar movie! All he gets is a paycheck and his name in the credits.)

Squeezer

In Australia Wedding Photographs are very different to any other type of Photograph and by Default Copyright belongs to the Couple NOT the Photographer unless explicitly stated. This change to Copyright law was only made a year or so back

Debashis_A_ghosh

If I did engage a photographer and paid him / her for services rendered I would want absolute control over the images. I would agree not to assign credit to some other photographer but would not have him or her tll me what I can or cannot do with images that I paid for. The photographer also needs to exclusively ask for my permission to have probably 10 images of my choice made available for his or her website promotion. The contract stated above would either change for me as a client or I would ake my business elsewhere.

My understanding is simple, the photo charges for his time and equipment and whatever else comes with the pakage. My response is only to offer a customer's perspective.

chrisjohnson

Debashis_A_ghosh wrote: »

If I did engage a photographer and paid him / her for services rendered I would want absolute control over the images. I would agree not to assign credit to some other photographer but would not have him or her tll me what I can or cannot do with images that I paid for. The photographer also needs to exclusively ask for my permission to have probably 10 images of my choice made available for his or her website promotion. The contract stated above would either change for me as a client or I would ake my business elsewhere.

My understanding is simple, the photo charges for his time and equipment and whatever else comes with the pakage. My response is only to offer a customer's perspective.

Face facts. 999 times out of 1000 the only people who care about the pictures are the people directly involved. It is strictly a business decision whether you choose to try and sell prints later or simply "sell" the copyrights (and the hassle) to the client. As a customer I would actually pay a bit more to a photographer who offered to keep copyright and execute deliveries for a fixed period.

Do sane people bet systematically on horses running at 1000 to 1? Maybe, but I don't.

mmmatt

Photog4Christ wrote: »

There's a HUGH difference between "Copyright" and "license". You did have an attorney review your contract, correct?


Since you own the copyright, you're able to give a license.

No but I will. I am actually shooting a lawyer's daughters bat mitzvah soon, so after all is said and done I will hit him up for a low-cost review of the contract. I am not a lawyer but have been writing and modifying contracts for 20 years. The fact that I am giving "personal use copyright" and then defining what that means is fine in my mind but I will get that looked over.

Debashis_A_ghosh wrote: »

If I did engage a photographer and paid him / her for services rendered I would want absolute control over the images. I would agree not to assign credit to some other photographer but would not have him or her tll me what I can or cannot do with images that I paid for. The photographer also needs to exclusively ask for my permission to have probably 10 images of my choice made available for his or her website promotion. The contract stated above would either change for me as a client or I would ake my business elsewhere.

My understanding is simple, the photo charges for his time and equipment and whatever else comes with the pakage. My response is only to offer a customer's perspective.

I have never ever had anyone question that or any other part of my contract. If someone requested complete control over images, or any other part of my work I would run away screaming! That is a bridzilla control freak red flag if I ever saw one! IDK, maybe things are different in your country, but up until recently it was common for people to shoot film, deliver 4x6 proofs, hold hostage the negatives, and then charge through the nose for every print the couple wanted. I don't think that is right but why would I let a bride have the right to be able to allow the use of my images by a venue without me having the right to negotiate terms with the venue such as crediting me, or putting me on their preferred vendor list? Why would I let the bride decide what I use for my own advertising? Is she a professional photographer? Granted if it was something in poor taste, but I wouldn't use something like that anyways! Why would I let a bride do anything other than print and gift the images? It makes no sense to allow any more than that and that is generous IMHO!

Matt

rsquared

mmmatt wrote: »

No but I will. I am actually shooting a lawyer's daughters bat mitzvah soon, so after all is said and done I will hit him up for a low-cost review of the contract. I am not a lawyer but have been writing and modifying contracts for 20 years. The fact that I am giving "personal use copyright" and then defining what that means is fine in my mind but I will get that looked over.

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "personal use copyright", either you are a copyright holder or you aren't. What you want (intend?) to be giving them is a personal use license, but I believe that by using the copyright wording in your contract you may be inadvertently giving them the copyright to the images, whether or not you define it differently. There are certain legal terms that you can't redefine and then use however you wish within a contract, and this would be one of them.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I would highly suggest you talk to one about this.

Blurmore

I do LLR (Limited License to Reprint) I explain the difference between copyright and LLR to the client like this. "If you owned the copyright you could say you took the image, you could make money by reselling the image, you could license the image to third parties. With a limited license to reprint, you can make as many printed photographs as you wish, for personal non-commercial use."

I have heard of families of particular ethnicity requesting full copyright, and or denying permission for the photo to be used by the photographer for commercial purposes. Like Matt said, unless I was shooting someone VERY high profile I'd tell clients with those requests to take a hike. You hire me to shoot your wedding because of my vision, you don't BUY my vision and use it for whatever you like.

esc2476

rsquared wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "personal use copyright", either you are a copyright holder or you aren't. What you want (intend?) to be giving them is a personal use license, but I believe that by using the copyright wording in your contract you may be inadvertently giving them the copyright to the images, whether or not you define it differently. There are certain legal terms that you can't redefine and then use however you wish within a contract, and this would be one of them.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, but I would highly suggest you talk to one about this.

I am and

Debashis_A_ghosh

@Blurmore....There are two ways to look at this. As a photog this is your vision and therefore it seems fair to you that the intellectual (photography) property rights remain with you while you license a specifi type of usage to the customer.

From a customer's point of view, you have been hired to take pictures and deliver them in entirety. If I were discussing this as your customer I would ask you to hand over all rights to images of my wedding/event.

The terms of the contract have to be mutually agreed upon. So in many cases photogs like you dictate terms of usage. In some cases you do not get the business as the customer prefers someone who is more accomodating and perhaps equally capable.

Neither of these points of view can be written off as wrong. I think that asking a potential customer to 'take a hike' is pretty much uncalled for. In all likely hood it is better to politely decline terms of the contract that you do not like.

Matthew Saville

Debashis_A_ghosh wrote: »

If I did engage a photographer and paid him / her for services rendered I would want absolute control over the images. I would agree not to assign credit to some other photographer but would not have him or her tll me what I can or cannot do with images that I paid for. The photographer also needs to exclusively ask for my permission to have probably 10 images of my choice made available for his or her website promotion. The contract stated above would either change for me as a client or I would ake my business elsewhere.

My understanding is simple, the photo charges for his time and equipment and whatever else comes with the pakage. My response is only to offer a customer's perspective.

This is the way commercial photography works, it is a very common practice in certain industries.

However, it's just not a good business model for portrait and wedding photography. If wedding and portrait photographers were going to completely relinquish the rights to their images, they'd be charging thousands more up front. That's the bottom line. MANY business models are built around print sales and other products.

I understand your feelings- if you're paying someone to take pictures, they should be yours. But you miss the point- THE PHOTOGRAPHER TOOK THE PICTURE. Yes, they did it FOR the client. But it's THEIR artwork. Unlike a commercial photographer or a movie cameraman who has directors, editors, producers, etc. ...a wedding photographer is in complete control. They make all the creative decisions, for both candid photojournalism and for posed portraits. So while the work is done for the client, the "handiwork", the STYLE, will forever belong to that photographer.

Now, that photographer can choose or be forced to give up their copyright, (especially if they work in AUS apparently!) ...however it's just NEVER going to be a common practice in my and many other wedding photographers' businesses. So if you're getting married and hiring a photographer, you're going to have a hard time finding a GOOD photographer who will meet your demands...

I am NOT trying to be disrespectful, I REALLY do respect your point of view and desire to own copyright for images you pay for. I'm ONLY trying to explain that the industry is not this way, at least not in my area.

=Matt=

Debashis_A_ghosh

Matthew Saville wrote: »

This is the way commercial photography works, it is a very common practice in certain industries.

However, it's just not a good business model for portrait and wedding photography. If wedding and portrait photographers were going to completely relinquish the rights to their images, they'd be charging thousands more up front. That's the bottom line. MANY business models are built around print sales and other products.

I understand your feelings- if you're paying someone to take pictures, they should be yours. But you miss the point- THE PHOTOGRAPHER TOOK THE PICTURE. Yes, they did it FOR the client. But it's THEIR artwork. Unlike a commercial photographer or a movie cameraman who has directors, editors, producers, etc. ...a wedding photographer is in complete control. They make all the creative decisions, for both candid photojournalism and for posed portraits. So while the work is done for the client, the "handiwork", the STYLE, will forever belong to that photographer.

Now, that photographer can choose or be forced to give up their copyright, (especially if they work in AUS apparently!) ...however it's just NEVER going to be a common practice in my and many other wedding photographers' businesses. So if you're getting married and hiring a photographer, you're going to have a hard time finding a GOOD photographer who will meet your demands...

I am NOT trying to be disrespectful, I REALLY do respect your point of view and desire to own copyright for images you pay for. I'm ONLY trying to explain that the industry is not this way, at least not in my area.

=Matt=

Hey Matt...No offence taken. Your post explains the photogs point of view very well indeed. Besides it also tells the OP what most professional photogs follow and he can base his decision on the input from otehrs in this thread.

Art Scott

I know many Commericial Photogs that never relinquished all rights to their work....in the film days......30 yrs after taking
technical book photos for a computer company i worked for these photogs still have libraries full of 2 1/4 and 4x5 negs
in storage......it all depends on the contract with the client.........These photogs are still in business............

chrisjohnson

Last year a rich friend gave a "society" party, including the pro-photograper. The photographer behaved according to the normal rules and retained copyright, tried to charge lots of money for extra prints, and sold practically nothing in add-on business. My friend was happy because he had somewhere to point to when people wanted prints - no hassle for him. I don't know whether the photographer was happy to eat this extra snack from the crumbs falling off the table, but to me his business model seemed singularly misguided - extra work for little return. His main meal was the big money he earned by shooting the event for the happy couple.

The copyright is this case is worthless. The photos are never going to be sold for international publication or ever hang in an art gallery. The only people vaguely interested are those attending the event, and then you need to be quick and affordable. The work involved in servicing the add-on business is potentially substantial, usually high priority, and the rewards relatively small.

I would turn this around. Dear client, if you want me to service your guests by providing prints then there will be an additional service charge. Otherwise the copyright is entirely yours to do with as you please. I will point anyone wanting a print in your direction! And, by the way, when you want the digital images to be archived beyond 7 days (exaggeration!) please take care of it yourself.

Blurmore

Debashis_A_ghosh wrote: »

@Blurmore....There are two ways to look at this. As a photog this is your vision and therefore it seems fair to you that the intellectual (photography) property rights remain with you while you license a specifi type of usage to the customer.

From a customer's point of view, you have been hired to take pictures and deliver them in entirety. If I were discussing this as your customer I would ask you to hand over all rights to images of my wedding/event.

The terms of the contract have to be mutually agreed upon. So in many cases photogs like you dictate terms of usage. In some cases you do not get the business as the customer prefers someone who is more accomodating and perhaps equally capable.

Neither of these points of view can be written off as wrong. I think that asking a potential customer to 'take a hike' is pretty much uncalled for. In all likely hood it is better to politely decline terms of the contract that you do not like.

I wouldn't literally tell a client to "take a hike", but I wouldn't waste my time even meeting with one who told me that they had THEIR OWN contract, or wanted these terms in my contract. So net affect is for them to hike, but I wouldn't necessarily tell them that. Working as a sub-contractor on inaugural parties, and one high profile entertainment retirement party, I've shot without ever using the images for anything, but the main photographer paid me well enough, and the party was a big enough deal that I understand the need for constraint. I don't understand an average client's desire to have this much control.

Dan7312

I dunno... People are becoming more aware that images of them that they don't control can appear anywhere. I'm not saying that awareness is wide spread yet but the fear of loss of control of an image is the direction things seems to be going.

It's part of a general trend where people are begining to believe distribution of facts about them, however innocuous, are something they have to control. Maybe that's why the copyright law in AU got passed? Look at all the things have popped from perfectly legal images Google street view has published. Look at how many time Facebook has had to do an about face when they choose to widely publish facts about it's members.

Going forward I think you will see a lot more people wanting direct control over the images you take of them. I'm not saying it's rational but just a general trend as more an more "image" and privacy events pop up in the news.

Blurmore wrote: »

I don't understand an average client's desire to have this much control.

Blurmore

Dan7312 wrote: »

I dunno... People are becoming more aware that images of them that they don't control can appear anywhere. I'm not saying that awareness is wide spread yet but the fear of loss of control of an image is the direction things seems to be going.

It's part of a general trend where people are begining to believe distribution of facts about them, however innocuous, are something they have to control. Maybe that's why the copyright law in AU got passed? Look at all the things have popped from perfectly legal images Google street view has published. Look at how many time Facebook has had to do an about face when they choose to widely publish facts about it's members.

Going forward I think you will see a lot more people wanting direct control over the images you take of them. I'm not saying it's rational but just a general trend as more an more "image" and privacy events pop up in the news.

This thought most often crosses my mind on unfortunate chance that I am somewhere "to catch a killer" or similar dramatized crime scare is on the tube and I can't change the channel. The "cutting the cake" photo is a popular one when spousicide is the feature entertainment. I doubt they EVER source that photo from the photographer, and rarely secure his or her permission to use the photo. The "growing concern" about image, and information use is not among millennials. I see it among boomers, and generally paranoid people. I've always hoped that greater "transparency" would hopefully push society to clean up its act and not do things that they wouldn't want their mothers to see. I as a very bohemian spirit do what I want, and don't really give a crap what anyone thinks of it. Bottom line is if I axe murder my wife and family, somewhere, someone will find a picture of me looking like a crazy person. As I said about persons of a certain ethnicity wanting to completely protect their image, I see this as more of a throwback to wherever their roots are and desire to keep relatives from finding out how successful they are in their new lives. I also think their is a bit of "magical thinking" at work, in that a few people worry that they "may become famous" or run for office. My thoughts on this are thus, if you want FAME nothing in your past is sacred, privacy is sacrificed on the altar of fame. If you want to run for office, make sure your behavior always reflects the values represented by your chosen party, and you'll be fine. If you haven't figured this out yet, I think in today's world pursuit of privacy or protection of image is an exercise pursued by Luddites.

mmmatt

esc2476 wrote: »

I am and

Thanks Erick. I guess I am glad I posted that. just did a rewrite on the contract but never questioned that part of it, so thanks guys. I will still have this whole thing gone through.

Here is the rewrite:

If client is to receive limited license to reprint for images from the event, then the client may print and distribute images, without fee, to friends, family, and attendees of the event. Client may give prints, copy DVD image data, email images, or use images on their personal web pages. Client may also direct friends or family to the image gallery on the photographer’s website to view or purchase prints. At no time may images or prints of images be sold, made available through mass publication, or be licensed for commercial use by the client. Photographer maintains copyright of images and the sole right to extend commercial use license or sell images through his website or otherwise, for either personal or commercial use. Images may also be used by photographer for general display, including marketing, contest submission, or educational purposes.

Matt

chrisjohnson

Dan7312 wrote: »

I dunno... People are becoming more aware that images of them that they don't control can appear anywhere. I'm not saying that awareness is wide spread yet but the fear of loss of control of an image is the direction things seems to be going.

It's part of a general trend where people are begining to believe distribution of facts about them, however innocuous, are something they have to control. Maybe that's why the copyright law in AU got passed? Look at all the things have popped from perfectly legal images Google street view has published. Look at how many time Facebook has had to do an about face when they choose to widely publish facts about it's members.

Going forward I think you will see a lot more people wanting direct control over the images you take of them. I'm not saying it's rational but just a general trend as more an more "image" and privacy events pop up in the news.

I like this post because I see things ARE changing. It is very rational. Images have a lot of power to convey undesirable impressions and payers are getting savvy.

My previous anecdote told of a society party where the payer was mostly concerned to avoid hassle and get a traditional photo job done, although several CEOs of top listed companies were present along with media personalities. There was an implicit trust that the photographer would behave with the integrity of a banker (ha-ha) and not shoot anything embarrassing even at 2 in the morning after lots of champers.

I recently went to a private event of a top pharma company who had also hired a pro-photographer to wander around for three days with carte-blanche to shoot anything. This time the pharma company owned the copyright and they had hired a company with sufficient assets to be seriously worried about any breach. People with own cameras were told in clear language to put them away. A sign of things to come, I believe.

esc2476

mmmatt wrote: »

Thanks Erick. I guess I am glad I posted that. just did a rewrite on the contract but never questioned that part of it, so thanks guys. I will still have this whole thing gone through.

Here is the rewrite:

If client is to receive limited license to reprint for images from the event, then the client may print and distribute images, without fee, to friends, family, and attendees of the event. Client may give prints, copy DVD image data, email images, or use images on their personal web pages. Client may also direct friends or family to the image gallery on the photographer’s website to view or purchase prints. At no time may images or prints of images be sold, made available through mass publication, or be licensed for commercial use by the client. Photographer maintains copyright of images and the sole right to extend commercial use license or sell images through his website or otherwise, for either personal or commercial use. Images may also be used by photographer for general display, including marketing, contest submission, or educational purposes.

Matt

Matt-much better. I think that works.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice.

InsuredDisaster

I respect licensing and all, but I think if I was hiring a photographer to shoot me or a wedding or anything, then the photos would be mine to use (within the limits of the license) but I would also have an expectation that I am paying the photographer to take my photo and supply them to me and nothing else. So I would object to finding out that he was using them for advertising or contests, and certainly I would object if I found out that he sold them to someone else. Any use of the photos by the photographer beyond what I paid for would have to be expressly ok'd by me.

I understand that some might not agree, but as the customer, I will just take my money elsewhere and the photographer can wait for the next wallet to walk through the door.

InsuredDisaster

Well, here's the thing, I completely agree that my desire for privacy of the event I paid for is perhaps not what is desirable for a photographer. But as a client, I'd rather not wonder what my images are being used for after I paid for them.

Photog4Christ

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

Well, here's the thing, I completely agree that my desire for privacy of the event I paid for is perhaps not what is desirable for a photographer. But as a client, I'd rather not wonder what my images are being used for after I paid for them.

That's why it's in my contract that the images can be used for my blog, promotional, marketing, or any lawful purpose.

If the client specifically asked me not to use the images then I would grant their request, but I've never had anyone make that request.

mmmatt

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

I understand that some might not agree, but as the customer, I will just take my money elsewhere and the photographer can wait for the next wallet to walk through the door.

I think you are still misunderstanding. This isn't some big moneymaker for anyone. sure there is a chance that an image could get a paid mag cover, but that is a rarity. If I shoot a wedding at the Phister and the Phister wants to use any of my images I wouldn't necessarily charge them for the rights but I would make sure that I was credited and probably try to get listed on their preferred vendor list. I would also be particular about how they cropped the image and any other changes they made. For their use I may feel a different style of processing is better than what I did for the client. I want input because even though it is your face it is my work and I want to make sure it is displayed as such.

It isn't so much that I want to sell images but I simply won't allow a client to do it. I allow friends and guests to purchase prints from my site so that the b&g don't have to make a zillion copies of their disc for friends and families. I need the "i can sell" verbiage in there to be able to sell back to they and their families. If I made a big score like a mag cover and got paid for it I would certainly let them know and probably give them some cash or a nice gift, and a couple of copies of the magazine, but I would never let them have the power to kabosh it. I would accommodate them if I could with a similar photo, or PS a zit out or whatever but I wouldn't want to give up a chance to get published... that is a big honor. To be given that honor as a professional and an artist and then leave the client a way to kabosh it would be a poor business plan. As would allowing a client to authorize it and then not specify that the photographer get credited.

I don't understand the fear... what could happen if there was an image of you printed? Is it just a control thing or a money thing, or witness protection thing... why would anyone object unless it was an tasteless photo? I don't know of any photographers that go arround waving their tasteless wedding photos!!

Matt