Wedding Photography and Moral Implications of 'Licences'

Phil V said:
David, there is only you insisting that all customers require raw files and copyright, all other non pro photographers gave up the argument when they realised we were actually giving customers reasonable rights to their images, transfer of copyright is not an issue in the normal relationship between wedding photographer and customer. Transfer of copyright is normal behaviour for commercial customers who understand processing licensing and archiving. The general public don't and therefore it's a mistake to treat them as if they do. If my next wedding customer is a photographer who wants to look after all of the above and wants me to hand over files I'd be happy to oblige, but let's not pretend that it's normal.
Click to expand...

actually I've not insisted at all that customers should have the raws at all. I said that for my wedding I bought the copyright and after the wedding I got one dvd with the processed jpegs and one with raws, the latter DVD actually surprised me, I wasn't expecting them but I was pleased to have them as it meant i could play myself if I wanted, which I did.

I did later say that when buying copyright I would be happy with jpegs (and have since been with another bit of pro work I've commissioned) but that I'd like raw's if the tog doesn't mind letting me have them. that's not the same thing as insisting that all customers have them. as you correctly said, most people wouldn't know what to do with them, but they would know what to do with jpegs.

much of the rest of my arguments were trying to give the other side of the coin. I do think that "normal" people think of these things more often that you might think. one of my friends at work just got engaged recently and I was telling her about my experiences getting married. when talking to her about wedding photographs I said that I had bought the copyright for our pictures and she told me that she'd already discussed that with her fiancee. this is my bosses 23yo civil servant secretary, not some nerdy computer geek. Now it may well be that an enlightened tog here would be able to take care of her photography needs without copyright transfer, but it shows that a supposedly "normal" person thinks about these things.

but again, circles here...

david
 
joescrivens said:
I work in the education industry...

In the education publishing world it's about DRM - digital rights management. A publisher creates an image of a carbon dioxide molecule and the customer buys it (usually a teacher) the publisher wants this image protected and locked down so the teacher can't edit, adapt and change it for similar reasons to the above, but also other reasons.

The teacher wants to break that molecule up into two individual carbon molecules and an oxygen molecule so that it is more useful to them to teach with. The publisher can't handle this and doesn't allow it - result is that the teacher does it anyway and breaks their copyright agreement.
Click to expand...


Has he created dicarbon-oxide...... Would love to see the molecular bonds there..... covalent etc etc..

I know it's off topic Joe, but knowing your sense of humour I cannot resist..... something similar may have been posted from your post unti lnow, but I haven't read them yet.
 
fyonn said:
actually I've not insisted at all that customers should have the raws at all. I said that for my wedding I bought the copyright and after the wedding I got one dvd with the processed jpegs and one with raws, the latter DVD actually surprised me, I wasn't expecting them but I was pleased to have them as it meant i could play myself if I wanted, which I did.

I did later say that when buying copyright I would be happy with jpegs (and have since been with another bit of pro work I've commissioned) but that I'd like raw's if the tog doesn't mind letting me have them. that's not the same thing as insisting that all customers have them. as you correctly said, most people wouldn't know what to do with them, but they would know what to do with jpegs.

much of the rest of my arguments were trying to give the other side of the coin. I do think that "normal" people think of these things more often that you might think. one of my friends at work just got engaged recently and I was telling her about my experiences getting married. when talking to her about wedding photographs I said that I had bought the copyright for our pictures and she told me that she'd already discussed that with her fiancee. this is my bosses 23yo civil servant secretary, not some nerdy computer geek. Now it may well be that an enlightened tog here would be able to take care of her photography needs without copyright transfer, but it shows that a supposedly "normal" person thinks about these things.

but again, circles here...

david
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting if you asked your colleague exactly what they thought they would be getting as 'copyright' and whether their actual needs would be met by what every wedding photographer that's contributed to this thread offers without giving up copyright.

Because that surely is the acid test, we're regularly asked for 'copyright free images' by people who are then happy with images and a usage licence.;)

However, your 'research' with your colleague could prove us all wrong:thinking:
 
phil and co - any idea how it operates in australia as per James' comment above?

How can they work the situation but it's not possible here? Surely they have all the same issues as identified above. How do they get round it then?
 
I cant be asked to multi quote

This is what I do:

Every 5 years I re-duplicate both my local and off site archives onto the latest stable media. This means I recently converted my old CD archives onto DVD's. This is something I visit once a year

I also keep backups of the software and I retire old PC's into the loft (I shrink wrap them) This means not only do I have a on-site and off-site backup, I have a hardware backup to, and additionally 90% of the files will also be on the PC's and that will be 100% of the important ones

This also includes the "album creation software" and additionally the album files
So I am confident I can re-generate the image files for any album I have ever made, and also go back and use the software that created them

The point about archival paper is a good one. I looked at my parents wedding album, which is now nearly 45 years old. It looks perfect. I looked at my mum's snaps and scrapbook from the period - that is faded. My mum was a keen and competent photographer, I looked at the negatives my mum kept, they are fine

However we are now approaching the point where getting those negatives re-printed is getting harder and harder, and is pretty much soon going to be a specialist job. This has happened in a time frame of 20 years

I looked at a hard backed book I was given as a child. It is in good nick, yet has badly faded, despite being wedged in a bookcase for the last 30 years. I see this hard backed book as the equivalent of a cheap album that you get at "Bobs books" and the like

However this is a diversion, and not relevant

The big issue with copyright is control, and what Fyonn said about messing about with the RAW files is exactly why photographers don't want to release copyright. By holding the copyright, I am in control in al the right areas, I can maintain my reputation and I can carry on providing a great service in the years to come

This morning I had a reprint order from a wedding I shot 9 years ago. Sadly, the groom has died, and the father of the groom did not want to worry the bride with the fact that they had lost their copies of the photo's in the flood. I will send him half a dozen re-prints gratis, along with a disk (with a licence to print). Sometimes it is not about the money, it is about having all the pieces in hand to just be able to do the right thing
 
joescrivens said:
phil and co - any idea how it operates in australia as per James' comment above?

How can they work the situation but it's not possible here? Surely they have all the same issues as identified above. How do they get round it then?
Click to expand...

South Africa - and I think some of the other Commonwealth countries too - have the same law. The client owned the copyright to commissioned work by default in the UK until 1988 (1989?) too. I think the main reason why photographers pressured the government to amend the law was to protect their print sales.

Having said that, some photographers in SA do insist on the client transferring copyright to them as part of the contract, which is a reversal of what is being discussed here. My son got married there a few years ago, and a couple of photographers wanted him to agree to this. He refused, and found a wonderful couple who were quite happy with the legal status quo.There was none of this bickering, and attempted justification for the UK position, and everyone was content. Several of his friends have used the same people.
 
MartynK said:
South Africa - and I think some of the other Commonwealth countries too - have the same law. The client owned the copyright to commissioned work by default in the UK until 1988 (1989?) too. I think the main reason why photographers pressured the government to amend the law was to protect their print sales.

Having said that, some photographers in SA do insist on the client transferring copyright to them as part of the contract, which is a reversal of what is being discussed here. My son got married there a few years ago, and a couple of photographers wanted him to agree to this. He refused, and found a wonderful couple who were quite happy with the legal status quo.There was none of this bickering, and attempted justification for the UK position, and everyone was content. Several of his friends have used the same people.
Click to expand...

so what's different here then?

why do our UK photographers demand it? when seemingly the problems written above exist no matter what country you are in.
 
joescrivens said:
so what's different here then?

why do our UK photographers demand it? when seemingly the problems written above exist no matter what country you are in.
Click to expand...

An Australian website on copyright writes:

The Australian Copyright law specifically excludes wedding and portrait photography from the above copyright protection. The majority of wedding portrait photographers request their clients enter a Contract or agreement prior to commencing any work assigning photographers copyright of the images taken.
Click to expand...

So the problems don't arise because the majority work to UK practices.
 
joescrivens said:
how do you know that the majority work to uk practices?
Click to expand...

A quick google (so not scientific) found a few Q&A sites saying that, a couple of forum posts saying that and some photographers explaining that. The photographer's contract assigns copyright to the tog and they licence back to the client.

(Note: just for Australia and just for weddings, didn't look any further than that).
 
gingerjon said:
An Australian website on copyright writes:

So the problems don't arise because the majority work to UK practices.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. Australian - and South African - photographers can ask the client to assign the copyright to them as part of the contract, but they don't own it by default. This changes the whole situation.
 
gingerjon said:
A quick google (so not scientific) found a few Q&A sites saying that, a couple of forum posts saying that and some photographers explaining that. The photographer's contract assigns copyright to the tog and they licence back to the client.

(Note: just for Australia and just for weddings, didn't look any further than that).
Click to expand...

in other words you don't know that it is the majority.
 
MartynK said:
I think you're missing the point. Australian - and South African - photographers can ask the client to assign the copyright to them as part of the contract, but they don't own it by default. This changes the whole situation.
Click to expand...

joescrivens said:
in other words you don't know that it is the majority.
Click to expand...

Which is rather like Jack Dee's response to people who say, "Oh you must go to suchandsuchplace, the people are so lovely ... what? you've met them all ...?" Just basing it on what the advice pages say, the forum posts say and what the togs say it seems that it's common practice (i.e. a majority position) for the togs to get copyright and licence back. The starting point is different but the end point is the same.
 
gingerjon said:
Which is rather like Jack Dee's response to people who say, "Oh you must go to suchandsuchplace, the people are so lovely ... what? you've met them all ...?" Just basing it on what the advice pages say, the forum posts say and what the togs say it seems that it's common practice (i.e. a majority position) for the togs to get copyright and licence back. The starting point is different but the end point is the same.
Click to expand...

but if i went to the same place and met people who weren't nice then i might say the people are rude. Similarly I could go and find 4 or 5 sources where the photographer didn't get copyright and tell you the majority don't

the point is you can't say the majority do when you have no facts to back it up, just like i can't say the majority don't.
 
joescrivens said:
I could go and find 4 or 5 sources where the photographer didn't get copyright and tell you the majority don't
Click to expand...

You could do. I really don't mind if you do prove me wrong as I've never claimed to be an expert on the standard practice of Australian wedding photographers. All I am saying is that if you look at the first few pages of a google search about it then every one of the pages that details how copyright is applied in practice - be that general advice, forums or photographers themselves - says that it is the norm for copyright to be assigned to the photographer and then licenced back so the apparent reality is that the working position is the same as in the UK.

Like I say, I will not be offended if this turns out not to be the case but from the outside looking in it appears to be.
 
it's an interesting twist on the way to do the agreement.

I imagine here in the UK because copyright is automatically given to the photographer the bride and groom don't really pay much attention to what tht means or doesn't mean. It's just a given.

But if you own something and then when you pay for a service you have to give that up, that must feel very different. All of a sudden you think - why should I? If I ever fill something in and there is a box to tick that says i don't want stuff used etc, i always tick it as i'm given the choice.

I wonder if photographers in places like this have to do a lot more explaining as to why it might make more sense for them to own the copyright
 
gingerjon said:
Which is rather like Jack Dee's response to people who say, "Oh you must go to suchandsuchplace, the people are so lovely ... what? you've met them all ...?" Just basing it on what the advice pages say, the forum posts say and what the togs say it seems that it's common practice (i.e. a majority position) for the togs to get copyright and licence back. The starting point is different but the end point is the same.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing at all. Asking the client to transfer copyright, and licensing rights back to them, is a very long way from owning the copyright by default. They're completely different, both in law and practice.
 
joescrivens said:
it's an interesting twist on the way to do the agreement.

I imagine here in the UK because copyright is automatically given to the photographer the bride and groom don't really pay much attention to what tht means or doesn't mean. It's just a given.

But if you own something and then when you pay for a service you have to give that up, that must feel very different. All of a sudden you think - why should I? If I ever fill something in and there is a box to tick that says i don't want stuff used etc, i always tick it as i'm given the choice.

I wonder if photographers in places like this have to do a lot more explaining as to why it might make more sense for them to own the copyright
Click to expand...

I agree. As far as the tick box situation is concerned, it's tantamount to companies that ask you to check the box if you don't want to receive promo material (or whatever) from them, rather than checking it if you do. They do that for a reason, and it's not to protect your interests. In practice, I suspect that more people fail to check the box - because they didn't bother to read that far - than would actually check it if the default position was reversed.
 
MartynK said:
It's not the same thing at all. Asking the client to transfer copyright, and licensing rights back to them, is a very long way from owning the copyright by default. They're completely different, both in law and practice.
Click to expand...

depending on what rights are licensed back of course. If what is licensed back is full copyright then it is the same
 
MartynK said:
It's not the same thing at all. Asking the client to transfer copyright, and licensing rights back to them, is a very long way from owning the copyright by default. They're completely different, both in law and practice.
Click to expand...

But the end result, it appears, in most real-world situations is the same: photographer has copyright, client has licenced use.
 
gingerjon said:
But the end result, it appears, in most real-world situations is the same: photographer has copyright, client has licenced use.
Click to expand...

Then we could, equally, argue that giving the client the copyright by default, which will let him license rights back to the photographer if he wants to, is much the same situation?
 
Jayst84 said:
Probably should've put this in my previous post. I, and every photographer I know over here, work with contracts that either grant us sole copyright, or retain it in cases where we have it initially.
Click to expand...

Certainly not the case in SA, and what you say confirms that you don't have it by default. Is this correct?
 
joescrivens said:
so what's different here then?

why do our UK photographers demand it? when seemingly the problems written above exist no matter what country you are in.
Click to expand...

It's not a case of UK photographers 'demanding it', it's what is currently the law and we not only work within it but ensure it fits the needs of us and our customers.

In Canada, NZ and Aus many wedding / portrait photographers have contracts which leave them with copyright which fits more towards UK law, I know this from spending time on forums with photoographers from these countries.;)

As has been explained (at length and repeatedly:bang:) holding copyright is not something that would benefit customers to any extent that would compensate the negatives.:shrug:

So to answer the question 'Could we hand over copyright automatically'; then Yes we could.

However, 'Would this benefit the customer in a meaningful way'; the answer is 'probably not!'.

However, this isn't going to change the minds of the people who believe that we hold copyright as some kind of security blanket or cash cow.:cuckoo:
 
Phil V said:
snip

In Canada, NZ and Aus many wedding / portrait photographers have contracts which leave them with copyright which fits more towards UK law, I know this from spending time on forums with photoographers from these countries.;)
snip
Click to expand...

Jayst84 said:
Probably should've put this in my previous post. I, and every photographer I know over here, work with contracts that either grant us sole copyright, or retain it in cases where we have it initially.
Click to expand...
Like I said.;)

So if wedding photographers in countries where the law automatically assigns copyright to the customer, automatically take it back within their contracts - is there a clue here?.:thinking:
 
Phil V said:
It's not a case of UK photographers 'demanding it', it's what is currently the law and we not only work within it but ensure it fits the needs of us and our customers.
Click to expand...

i thought i read on here that the uk photographers did demand the law changed and thats why they now have the copyright law that allocates it to them
 
Phil V said:
Like I said.;)

So if wedding photographers in countries where the law automatically assigns copyright to the customer, automatically take it back within their contracts - is there a clue here?.:thinking:
Click to expand...

Well, they don't take it back automatically. They need the client's agreement, which is a very different thing. There is a clue here, it suggests - to my mind anyway - that they are determined to own the copyright, even if the law assigns it, by default, to the other party. I also find it difficult to believe that they are all motivated by altruism and the clients' best interests.
 
MartynK said:
Well, they don't take it back automatically. They need the client's agreement, which is a very different thing. There is a clue here, it suggests - to my mind anyway - that they are determined to own the copyright, even if the law assigns it, by default, to the other party. I also find it difficult to believe that they are all motivated by altruism and the clients' best interests.
Click to expand...

so there's not really that much difference - in both countries the client and the tog have to agree the disposition of the copyright and licencing terms

and in the uk theres no obligation on the client to hire a tog who wont assign them the copyright (that many do indicates that most arent that bothered), just as theres no obligation on an australian tog to take a job where the client wont assign it

the wherefores of why the tog needs to have the copyright and why most clients dont care, have been explained to a fairthewell allready in this thread

and the outcome if the client insists on having/keeping the copyright will be the same in both countries - that either the tog wont do the job or it will be reflected in the price (and if the client doesnt like that they are free to look elsewhere)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
and the outcome if the client insists on having/keeping the copyright will be the same in both countries - that either the tog wont do the job or it will be reflected in the price (and if the client doesnt like that they are free to look elsewhere)
Click to expand...

And they all lived happily ever after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top