Friday, January 25, 2008

Who owns "your" photos?

Clients are sometimes surprised to find that, after paying a photographer to capture their event, the images that result may not be “your” property. How can that be? Well, it’s all about copyright law.

This is where anyone who isn’t a lawyer will tune out, and anyone who is a lawyer will scrutinize what comes next looking for flaws in what I say. To the first group – stick around – it ain’t that bad and it’s VERY important. To the others – get a life. It’s my blog and I’ll say it my way.

First and most importantly, different photographers approach this issue in different ways. When contracting with a photographer you should be asked to sign an agreement for her/his services. READ IT! No two are likely to be exactly the same. But each should have a section that discusses copyright law as it will apply to the agreement you are signing. If you aren’t asked to sign an agreement, look for another photographer.

Some photographers are what has often been called “shoot and burn”. This means that the photographer will capture the images, burn them to a CD or DVD and give you that CD/DVD thus fulfilling their obligation. In such cases the images are often yours to do with as you wish. This style of photographer frequently does not claim or retain copyright privileges for the images captured. In such an event, they truly are “your” images. Off you go to the local photo kiosk to print your pictures and paste them in an album or scrapbook. Nothing wrong with that if that is what you want.

The kind of photography that Kathy and I do (as do most other accomplished professionals) is quite different. In addition to capturing the images, we spend a great deal of time enhancing them to raise them to the level of art. We don’t just point cameras, we continually work to perfect our skills. Such photographers normally retain the copyright for their work. They often provide you with a “limited release” of copyright that allows you to use the images in certain ways. The most important of these uses being for your own personal use and enjoyment. But you probably will not have the right to enter the images in contests, sell them to a magazine or make other use of them that infringes on the artistic ownership that remains the right of the photographer. You may or may not have the right to reproduce them. Many reputable photo reproduction companies will not accept professional images for reproduction without a copyright release from the photographer.

Your photographer will probably retain the right to use “your” images for display, marketing, competitions and other similar use that contributes to the success of the photographer’s business. It is the product of the photographer’s creative vision and artistic skill that is being retained.

Separate from the preceding discussion is the issue of whether or not you will receive all the images that were captured, some of them or only those which you purchase after the shoot. Once more – read the agreement before signing. Some professionals charge a “shooting fee” and the delivery of finished product is negotiated after the assignment. Others offer some specific products (such as an album with 20 pages and up to 100 photos. Some might provide you with all or most of the raw images in a low resolution and non-enhanced condition. It is essential that you understand exactly what you are paying for in the fee quoted to you by your photographer. Kathy and I have talked with hundreds of other professional photographers and virtually all strive to avoid any confusion on this issue. Real pros want satisfied customers. The best way to disappoint a customer is to surprise them by delivering less than the customer expected or something different than the customer expected.

Something different? Next time, what did you expect?

2 comments:

villette1 said...

Copyright is a big issue today, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. I would also enter a word of caution on newspapers. Many newspapers also will not reproduce wedding announcement photos without a release from the photographer. Yuma does not require a release, but we do credit photographers when asked. You might think of offering a newspaper release to your brides in case they run into this.

villette1 said...

Something else I just thought of: My best friend got married in 1996 and the photographer at her wedding had the "exclusive right" to shoot the wedding; therefore guest photos were not allowed and any taken would be considered his, or the bride/groom would be considered in breech of contract. Lots of Vegas places do this today and I think that it is a rotten deal for the bride/groom. I can understand a photographer's need to protect his work, but that is taking it a bit too far. I think brides need to be aware of these clauses and contracts and steer clear of them. What guest isn't going to take snapshots? These types of photographers leave a bad taste in my mouth.