Photographer and copyrights

Copyright belongs to the person who took the photo- that’s not industry standard, that’s copyright law.

Our photographer just says we can't remove her logo when sharing, which I understand. Are you not allowed to share yours online? Or what?

It’s how they get business, sharing their work. I see what you mean but I can’t think of an instance where I would really care. It’s just going to be on their website and social media.

I would ask for a little more clarification about what he will be using the pictures for and what kinds of changes he may make.

And what do you mean you don’t get to use the pictures how you want?

Our photographer has a clause about being able to use our photos, but she also allows us to take it out.

I really like our photographer, and I want her to be able to secure more business, so I’m really happy for her to use our photo to do so.

I’m not sure what your worried about? But I think you should talk to your photographer about your specific concerns, for example if you don’t want her to use your images on a Facebook, or you only want her to use them if she doesn’t identify you.

Contracts are meant to be understood & negotiated. If there is a part you don’t ever stand, such as what publishing your photographer wants to do then you should clarify and make sure the you do completely understand, and if you don’t agree to it you should negotiate that with the photographer. The contract should protect both of you.

Think about why it is you decided to book your photographer. Good reviews? Probably. Word of mouth? Maybe. But almost definitely was that you looked at their photos to get an idea of their photography style or quality. If not for these photos of other people, you would have no idea of their quality of style.

You are not entitled to privacy when it comes to a product that was created by someone else, using equipment they own, on property that someone else probably owns (unless you took photos in your backyard).

I think they should be willing to be flexible with you if you aren't comfortable having your picture on websites or social media. One of my friends hates being photographed and asked about my contract, I didn't care if he shared but she does. He said all I had to let him know was which picture(s) and he wouldn't share them or he'd take them down. He said he had to do it before for a guest in the FBI or something lol. He never posted any of my engagement pictures and his Facebook mostly has his corporate stuff, pictures of food and cars, and a few weddings from a while back, even though I know he's done more recent since he sent me full galleries when I asked (via dropbox links in an email) or showed me specific examples on his phone of sparklers, etc.

View Quoted Comment I’m not entitled to privacy even though I PAID them to take pictures of a PRIVATE event???

View Quoted Comment

Yep. Copywright law states that whoever took the photo owns the photo. You have zero inherent rights to photos of yourself. Your photographer holds all rights related to reproducing the photo, posting the photo, sharing the photo, and displaying the photo. Usually, when an individual pays for a portrait session or event photography, they are also paying for the rights to reproduce and share the photo. But the extent to which you are allowed to do so if up to the individual who owns the copyright.

ETA: So, it's not about industry standard, it's about the law. While I agree it's a little weird that you can't use photographs in the way you want (I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this), if you decide to do it anyway, you will be breaking the law. With this information in mind, I suggest that the next time you hire a photographer, you go over their contract and select a photographer who gives you more rights to your photographs, and who might be willing to restrict their rights in distributing/sharing specific photos you don't like. But in this day and age, you likely will not find a photographer willing to take photos of an event or do a portrait session and not post it on their social media or business page, and rightfully so. If everyone wanted privacy of their photos, the photographer wouldn't have a portfolio or a business.

This was specifically covered in our contract. Our photographer can use any photos of us for advertising purposes except the ones that include my daughter, and we get full rights to all our photos. They weren't required to put that clause in there but were happy to when we talked about it. Without it stated in the contract I'm afraid you won't have much of a case.

If you have a legitimate need for privacy, like a PP shared about a guest being in the FBI, then all of this should have been thought of well in advance. If it's just a personal preference, then I'm sorry to say you don't have much of an argument.

How are you restricted from using them? That would bother me more than the photographer posting them, because they need to update their portfolio with your pictures. Especially for a wedding photographer, they need a great portfolio so I haven't seen any photographer okay with not posting them except for unique situations (secret elopement, boudoir shoot, etc.)

I had this discussion in another thread and folks tried to drag me down the block, because I didn't think that personal photos of me and my family should be automatic copyright. I believe in the contract you may have signed a release to give this person the rights to use your photos in that way. As a graphic artist I know about copyright and that's why I'm using a casual photographer (co-worker) that is not interested in lining his portfolio with my images, his focus is more on commercial work and not weddings. I reworked the contract and remove the licensing, ownershp and copyright verbage and he was okay with it, I also paid him extra for that. I don't want my photos used for anybody portfolio so I was careful about who I chose.

Also, just to inform you. A photographer can not take a picture of anybody or anything and have automatic copyright, you have to get written permission to take someone's photo and exercise any kind of control over it or risk litigation. There are buildings you can not go in and just start taking pictures or filming without managements permission. You can not just take random pictures of people without their consent and use it anyway you want, that's why there are contracts and release forms.

Legally speaking, you cannot copyright someone else's images. In order for your image or likeness to be used in any way, you must sign a release. Signing a contract containing that clause would constitute that release. If you do not wish to have your images used at his/her will, do not sign a contract or release containing such language.

On this flip side, the artist can copyright his/her work. This means that you can use the work product casually, but you cannot profit or advertise using it. It is best practice to obtain a release from the photographer/videographer for your own purposes just to CYA.

View Quoted Comment

Yes; you absolutely are. This is an incorrect understanding of copyright and work product. Legally, you have every right to expect privacy. Do not sign any contract that removes those rights from you, as this constitutes consent.

If the photographer takes pictures on private property they are advised to get a release form from the subject. Public property is different, but private buildings, homes, they need to have a release form. This is why I chose a casual photographer because I wanted rights to my pictures and my image. I don't want my family and friends published on anybody website, brochure, flyers, youtube channel, tradeshow banners, facebook business page, etc.

Folks fall in love with the pictures and don't read the fine print. The devil is in the details. I would rather have nice pictures of memories of my special day then amazing, magazine quality pictures the photographer has full control over and can publish in any media he/she wants without my okay first. Robbing me and my family of our privacy so they can make a buck. No thank you.

Ok, there are two separate issues here that are very confusing without a professional understanding of both copyright and model releases.

The person who created the image is the automatic copyright holder per US law. That’s just how it works. You can disagree with it all you want, but that is the law. And for a photographer to release their copyright is usually quite expensive. If people are advertising their wedding packages as giving away the copyright, that is clue number one that they are probably not an actual professional. While most people want printing rights from their wedding photos, an actual ownership of copyright is truly unnecessary in most cases. Unless you are a celebrity selling your images to people magazine, this should not be an issue.

The thing that you are having an issue with is the model release. And yes, regardless of who owns copyright, your photographer does need a model release to be able to publicly display your images on their social media or website. It is typically an industry standard that people include this in their contracts, however, if it is not something you’re comfortable with, you can certainly speak to your photographer about taking it out. A model release does not go hand-in-hand with copyrights. If for target for owning a copy right to an image just give that person the exclusive right to sell the photograph, it is not grant them an exclusive right to publish said photograph publicly.

There are photographers who want to be jerks about this. Again, a true professional should have no issue simply removing it for the sake of your privacy. While I typically share my clients photos on social media, it is more of a service of them than me. I shoot enough portraits and weddings that if somebody doesn’t want their pictures displayed, as an actual professional, I have no monetary loss from this. In all the photography for him as I’m in, it is usually the new were, less experienced photographers that freak out over the possibility of not being able to use images on their social media or website, and the more experience once tell them to get over it and respect their clients privacy wishes. This does not prevent them from printing photos from your wedding to use in a private portfolio to show potential customers in person, so it’s not as if they have nothing to display, but if they need images for their web presence that badly, they can do a styled shoot to get them. If you are uncomfortable with your images being displayed publicly, just tell them you would like to change the model release portion of the contract and do not wish to have your images published. Keep in mind that this means you will have no sneak peaks on social media, no online gallery, and will probably have to pick your photos up in person. But again, as a photographer, I would have absolutely no issue doing this if it was important to my client!

Folks who are very sensitive about their privacy, just need to start drawing up counter-agreements prohibiting the person they hire to use their photos in areas they would not be comfortable. If you are fine with displaying the images on the website but not social media, that need to be in your own legal agreement, if you don't want them using your images in their storefront, trade show or selling them commercially as stockphotos you need to list all that in your own counter-agreement. Look at the model release ask them to change what you are not comfortable with. If they don't want to sign your agreement or revised the model release, find someone else.

I get it but it's ridiculous. I see this as a consulting "work for hire" situation--I'm paying them for a job and I own the end product. Anyhoo, I asked my photographer to remove that line from the contract and he did. He was awesome and I wrote in e-mail he's free to use our photos to promote his biz.

FYI--if anyone wants to submit their photos to wedding sites or magazines, often they want "first use" or "exclusive" rights. If you, your photographer, or your guests start blasting your pics all over social media magazines don't want them. I get it, they want to be the first to publish. I only let my DH post 1-2 non-pro pics on his FB for that reason. Our wedding was featured on Bridal Guide.