Wedding Photographer Contract?

I

iMORT3rnAL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
204
Reaction score
1
Hello,

We are getting married soon and found a photographer we like. The problem is a certain clause in the contract:

“The client hereby grants to [unnamed photographer] and its legal representatives, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the client or in which the client may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.”

Is this normal amongst photographers and should we be worried?

Thanks
 
Don't be worried by contracts, really. If you find a clause you don't like, you just sign the contract with that clause scored out, and your signature next to it. The photographer concerned can then either counter-sign and accept the change, or reject it and lose the job. It's a buyer's market, and there are plenty of great photographers.

I feel that you're correct to feel concerned if a photographer wants to assume rights over re-selling photographs of YOUR special day for which you're already paying the photographer! Even where photographers want to put great photos they take at your wedding online, I still feel that this should be done with your explicit permission after the fact ... not in a blanket-clause beforehand.

Many times clauses like that get added just to protect somebody's ass after they've gotten sued previously ... they're not necessarily going to use all the liberties, but they like having them. Too bad, don't do it if you're not comfortable with it, bottom-line.
 
iMORT3rnAL said:
Hello,

We are getting married soon and found a photographer we like. The problem is a certain clause in the contract:

“The client hereby grants to [unnamed photographer] and its legal representatives, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the client or in which the client may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.”

Is this normal amongst photographers and should we be worried?

Thanks
Click to expand...

It's not normal but you don't have to be worried. Tell him/her you don't want this clause, chances are they'll remove it. I often don't publicise any pictures from certain weddings, happens a lot with Muslim clients.
 
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

We asked that the clause be removed before we sign the contract.
 
Even if the clause is removed the photog still retains copyright. It seems to be common nowadays but it's definitely not standard not to get copyright for an event you paid big money for. Before signing any contract I'd also have a clause granting copyright. In fairness the photog can retain the right to use photos for portfolio or publicity reasons.
 
Swa said:
Even if the clause is removed the photog still retains copyright. It seems to be common nowadays but it's definitely not standard not to get copyright for an event you paid big money for. Before signing any contract I'd also have a clause granting copyright. In fairness the photog can retain the right to use photos for portfolio or publicity reasons.
Click to expand...
SA law states that copyright defaults to the commissioner of the shoot, not the photographer.

Where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait, the making of a gravure, the making of a cinematograph film or the making of a sound recording and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money’s worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, such person shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), be the owner of any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of section 3 or 4.

The Copyright Act No 98 of 1978
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
SA law states that copyright defaults to the commissioner of the shoot, not the photographer.

Where a person commissions the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait, the making of a gravure, the making of a cinematograph film or the making of a sound recording and pays or agrees to pay for it in money or money’s worth, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, such person shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), be the owner of any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of section 3 or 4.

The Copyright Act No 98 of 1978
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info.
 
iMORT3rnAL said:
Hello,

We are getting married soon and found a photographer we like. The problem is a certain clause in the contract:

“The client hereby grants to [unnamed photographer] and its legal representatives, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the client or in which the client may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.”

Is this normal amongst photographers and should we be worried?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Why are you worried by it?
 
Hi Swa, I'm just curious as to the thinking behind why the bride and groom would worry about copyright if they have e.g. usage rights to use the images for personal use.
 
ponypony said:
Hi Swa, I'm just curious as to the thinking behind why the bride and groom would worry about copyright if they have e.g. usage rights to use the images for personal use.
Click to expand...
It's not standard practice to keep copyright for something you do under commission. Bwana even quoted the law that seems to agree in that regard. Copyright is quite a tricky business where things are not always as cut and dry as they may seem. We've had someone post here previously that they retain copyright so that clients would need to get permission to use their photos under the guise of protecting his work.

That is not how things work. A person shouldn't have the right to use work they do under commission. Just imagine a scenario where a photographer sells wedding photos to a magazine for an editorial. Instead that right should go to the person who commissions the work and if it turns out good they have the right to sell it. If you sign over that right you are essentially only getting half the deal.
 
ponypony said:
btw it appears to be a standard clause in photography contracts - https://www.google.com/search?q=the...+the+client+may+be+included&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Click to expand...
It's a common clause yes. Doesn't make it a standard or ethical clause. This is contrary to how copyright is assigned for commissioned work in the industry. The only reason they get away with it is because of the public's ignorance at large.

If a photographers insists on keeping copyright I'll tell them sure, but then you pay me for my work because that is what it amounts to if they keep copyright.
 
You are very confused mate -

One as I indicated in my link above it is a standard clause in photography contracts.

Secondly as an editorial photographer for over 20 years I can tell you that I own the copyright on all my images - the only thing that gets sold is usage and licensing rights and that is sold with restrictions on the length of time, the medium, the size of the image used, the format - print, digital, etc and the geographic location. Nobody sells their copyright.

South Africa as discussed above is the only country in the world where this copyright law applies. Hence in the contract the photographers have to have that clause - http://digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/
Having said that, we have taken two cases to court in regards to copyright violation and the law is not on the side of the photographer.
 
Swa said:
It's a common clause yes. Doesn't make it a standard or ethical clause. This is contrary to how copyright is assigned for commissioned work in the industry. The only reason they get away with it is because of the public's ignorance at large.

If a photographers insists on keeping copyright I'll tell them sure, but then you pay me for my work because that is what it amounts to if they keep copyright.
Click to expand...
I'll take that and keep my pictures, and you end up with nothing.
 
ponypony said:
You are very confused mate -

One as I indicated in my link above it is a standard clause in photography contracts.

Secondly as an editorial photographer for over 20 years I can tell you that I own the copyright on all my images - the only thing that gets sold is usage and licensing rights and that is sold with restrictions on the length of time, the medium, the size of the image used, the format - print, digital, etc and the geographic location. Nobody sells their copyright.

South Africa as discussed above is the only country in the world where this copyright law applies. Hence in the contract the photographers have to have that clause - http://digitalphotographycourses.co.za/the-law-as-it-pertains-to-photographers-in-south-africa/
Having said that, we have taken two cases to court in regards to copyright violation and the law is not on the side of the photographer.
Click to expand...
Nope. Your google link doesn't show anything of the kind. Only a real study would show what is standard and as I said this is not industry standard. If you've gotten by with licensing rights alone for over 20 years then that's fine. Licensing is all that some publications require.

Copyright does get sold rather routinely though. In actual reality the contract wouldn't mention transferring copyright but rather that the copyright belongs to the commissioner of the work. If you haven't encountered someone that wants to keep the copyright you are extremely lucky. Also licensing can be exclusive and unrestricted which in effect has the same result as selling the copyright.

BigAl-sa said:
I'll take that and keep my pictures, and you end up with nothing.
Click to expand...
So you'll pay me for my pictures? Sweet. I'll end up with payment which is more than I would have under one of these contracts.
 
Not flaming you (possibly a bad choice of words in my previous comment) - I was just generally interested in why the OP would object to the copyright clause which would be a default in most countries. Is he famous? Is he worried that he might end up promoting soap products? Is he adopted/estranged from his parents and doesn't want them to come across a photo of him getting married. I had two cases in my career, one where the couple had a wedding some months after they claimed they had already gotten married (something to do with their green card) and one where the bride was worried her ex would use them. We just added a clause that we wouldn't publish any images without their written consent.

Two things - sorry if I'm dragging this thread along. Unrestricted exclusive licensing would indeed to some effect be similar, but ceding copyright would allow alterations to your work and remove your moral rights to the work. It is also extremely expensive - the industry is currently following the case of Shaun Earl Harris who is suing for R20million for a unlicensed publication of a photo - a photo which btw was shot on commission. Actual working photographers never sell their copyright, or give up their moral rights to an image.

Secondly when I say it's a standard, I've never personally met a wedding photographer in South Africa who doesn't have the copyright clause in their contract (admittedly a small sample size). I haven't been following it for a while but it's an issue which the PSSA and SAFREA have in petitioned to have change.

I think I get where you're coming from, but I also think that there is a subtle difference between licensing and granting copyright - so e.g. when you upload something to FB you grant them a worldwide license etc etc but you don't give them copyright - and I think that that is the grey area where most of the confusion comes in, an area where in my experience lawyers are the only ones that often make sense and money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X