Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92

Thread: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

  1. #1

    Default buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    hello all,

    i had been stumbling upon this issue recently.

    had a client asking to shoot her ROM but she wants all rights to it. meaning to say, not even putting up on personal portfolio.

    i'm pretty sure this is not the industrial practice, else there would not be a weddings forum here in CS.

    and so, i was wondering if anyone does such jobs to begin with? would charging higher then your usual rates be the case?

    let me know. thanks!

  2. #2
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Its all a matter of negotiation and contract. Industry practice won't govern the specific terms you agreed.

    In the absence of agreement, the copyright of the photos belong to the customer anyway - hence if you want to keep them, you need to expressly provide for it in your agreement. A lot of wedding photographers think they have copyright but they actually don't (since they didn't even reserve rights to begin with).

  3. #3

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    I sure you can put a clause in your contact that states that the images will not be use in any form of portfolio or shown to 3rd party but you still retain the rights.

    To sell your pictures with rights will be expensive think a few hundreds to each picture. 100 pictures x say $500 per picture = $50K for their ROM.

    If you give your rights way, that means the couple could use the photos for commercial purposes, resell to the hotel, florist and they could profit from your coverage!

    Cheers!

  4. #4

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    That's interesting respective that i've never thought of.

    Thanks!

  5. #5

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    I find it interesting that this subject has come up a few times, including a problem that I have run into recently along the same lines. I have discovered many a time when I have done a job for somone, that they automatically assume that the photos I take for them, belong to them outright. Meaning that they own them and expect that you won't use them for anything else, whether it's for commercial gain or just for your own portfolio. I don't know why it is but here in Singapore it seems to be so. Anytime a photographer picks up his/her camera and snaps a picture of someone or something, he/she automatically owns the copyright to the photo, regardless of any agreement that is produced. It should be standard industry practice that this is the case but sadly it isn't practiced, or even made known that the copyright belongs to the photographer. Sure the photographer can give all rights to the client but certainly a substantialy higher fee should be negotiated. Think about this for a minute. You snap a photo of someone and you freely give up your copyright to that person. They could easily take that photo and sell it for commercial gain and earn an untold amount whereas you are the one losing out. I believe though that in order to be crystal clear with everyone, that an agreement should be produced upfront and agreed upon even before a picture is taken. That way you can then decide whether you want to take or not. If you easily give up your copyrights to the person without agreeing upon a higher fee, then you will set the stage for it happening over and over again and you will expect that this is common...which in fact it should not be at all.

    I recently had this issue with a magazine that hired me for a shoot. I took the pictures, handed over the images on a disk and then put up some select images on my portfolio. The magazine came back and said I wasn't allowed stating they owned the copyright. I laughed at them and said no you don't. I then received a contract after the shoot was over and done stating the same thing. That any images I take belong outright to them and can be used for worldwide coverage. I told them that I'm not signing the agreement, nor will they own the copyright to my work unless they pay me more. In the end, I won. I can use my work for my portfolio but it also means that they probably won't be using my services again. It's all about standing up for your rights and sticking to them. Don't let others walk over you and demand that they own the rights to your hard effort and work. Good luck...

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by shadouphotography View Post
    I find it interesting that this subject has come up a few times, including a problem that I have run into recently along the same lines. I have discovered many a time when I have done a job for somone, that they automatically assume that the photos I take for them, belong to them outright. Meaning that they own them and expect that you won't use them for anything else, whether it's for commercial gain or just for your own portfolio. I don't know why it is but here in Singapore it seems to be so.
    This is because in Singapore, as well as in other countries, this is the law.

    As a hired worker on an assembly line, you assemble products for the company. You don't own the products you made.
    As a hired construction worker, you build someone else's house. The house won't belong to you.
    As a hired photographer, you take someone else's photos. They don't belong to you.

    If you want to own the rights for wedding photos, you should pay for the set (the wedding), hire the models (the couple and the guest), get model releases, etc.

    Even if you owned the rights, it would be unethical to use the photos for your own purposes. You would betray the privacy of your customers that you were entrusted with.

    For some strange reason, some professional photographers seem to think the world owes them everything, and they don't owe anyone anything.

    Anytime a photographer picks up his/her camera and snaps a picture of someone or something, he/she automatically owns the copyright to the photo, regardless of any agreement that is produced.
    This is most definitely not true.

  7. #7

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf View Post
    This is because in Singapore, as well as in other countries, this is the law.

    As a hired worker on an assembly line, you assemble products for the company. You don't own the products you made.
    As a hired construction worker, you build someone else's house. The house won't belong to you.
    As a hired photographer, you take someone else's photos. They don't belong to you.

    If you want to own the rights for wedding photos, you should pay for the set (the wedding), hire the models (the couple and the guest), get model releases, etc.

    Even if you owned the rights, it would be unethical to use the photos for your own purposes. You would betray the privacy of your customers that you were entrusted with.

    For some strange reason, some professional photographers seem to think the world owes them everything, and they don't owe anyone anything.



    This is most definitely not true.
    does the worker in the assembly line use his/her own tools and materials? I own the tools to the creation. If I take a picture of you in public, does the right of the image belong to you?

  8. #8

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleWolf View Post
    This is because in Singapore, as well as in other countries, this is the law.

    As a hired worker on an assembly line, you assemble products for the company. You don't own the products you made.
    As a hired construction worker, you build someone else's house. The house won't belong to you.
    As a hired photographer, you take someone else's photos. They don't belong to you.

    If you want to own the rights for wedding photos, you should pay for the set (the wedding), hire the models (the couple and the guest), get model releases, etc.

    Even if you owned the rights, it would be unethical to use the photos for your own purposes. You would betray the privacy of your customers that you were entrusted with.

    For some strange reason, some professional photographers seem to think the world owes them everything, and they don't owe anyone anything.



    This is most definitely not true.

    I'm not sure where you get this kind of information but I totally disagree with you. What you are saying right there is like a slap in the face of all the pro photographers out there who do this as a living or otherwise. Can you show me where in the law does it state that any photograph a photographer takes does not belong to him or her? If that were the case, then any publication can freely go on your portfolio and say well I want to use this photo and not pay you for the usage. If I get hired by someone to do a job, I make sure that they are aware of my terms and conditions which state that unless agreed upon beforehand in writing, I own the copyright to my work and I'm authorized to use it for my portfolio. If a client disagrees, then I offer them a higher rate for them to own it outright. If they don't agree then to bad. I don't do the shoot.

    I also don't agree that if you are hired to take someone else's photos, they don't belong to you. Yes they do. You own the photos you took. Sure they pay you for your services and time and a copy of the images but unless they pay for the copyright, they don't belong to anyone but you.

    It's not unethical to use the photos for your own portfolio or otherwise if the client is fully aware of what you plan on doing with the photos. That is why giving a contract with your terms and conditions on it is very important. Without it, anything goes really.

    And why do you say that pro photographers think the world owes them everything? I take it you're not a pro with a statement like that. The issue here is simply about protecting your own work with a copyright which is belongs to the photographer unless otherwise agreed upon in a contract. Go and ask any pro photographer out there who derives their income from photography alone and I'm sure they wouldn't agree with you.

    It would be interesting to see where in the context of the Singapore law does it state that any photo taken does not belong to the photographer.

  9. #9

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Check out this link for info about the copyright laws here in Singapore. It's good information and will back up my point about any artist owning the copyright to his/her work. The only exception to this law is if you are an employee for a publication, newspaper, or magazine whereby they ask you to shoot some photos then they will own the copyright, not you. But if you are hired by an individual, sorry, the photographer owns the work.

    http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/About+Copyright.htm

    Enjoy the read...

  10. #10
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Under the law, copyright goes to the person who took the photograph.

    But if you were commissioned to take the photograph for valuable consideration, then it belongs to them.

    Hence they are right and you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by shadouphotography View Post
    I find it interesting that this subject has come up a few times, including a problem that I have run into recently along the same lines. I have discovered many a time when I have done a job for somone, that they automatically assume that the photos I take for them, belong to them outright. Meaning that they own them and expect that you won't use them for anything else, whether it's for commercial gain or just for your own portfolio. I don't know why it is but here in Singapore it seems to be so. Anytime a photographer picks up his/her camera and snaps a picture of someone or something, he/she automatically owns the copyright to the photo, regardless of any agreement that is produced. It should be standard industry practice that this is the case but sadly it isn't practiced, or even made known that the copyright belongs to the photographer. Sure the photographer can give all rights to the client but certainly a substantialy higher fee should be negotiated. Think about this for a minute. You snap a photo of someone and you freely give up your copyright to that person. They could easily take that photo and sell it for commercial gain and earn an untold amount whereas you are the one losing out. I believe though that in order to be crystal clear with everyone, that an agreement should be produced upfront and agreed upon even before a picture is taken. That way you can then decide whether you want to take or not. If you easily give up your copyrights to the person without agreeing upon a higher fee, then you will set the stage for it happening over and over again and you will expect that this is common...which in fact it should not be at all.

    I recently had this issue with a magazine that hired me for a shoot. I took the pictures, handed over the images on a disk and then put up some select images on my portfolio. The magazine came back and said I wasn't allowed stating they owned the copyright. I laughed at them and said no you don't. I then received a contract after the shoot was over and done stating the same thing. That any images I take belong outright to them and can be used for worldwide coverage. I told them that I'm not signing the agreement, nor will they own the copyright to my work unless they pay me more. In the end, I won. I can use my work for my portfolio but it also means that they probably won't be using my services again. It's all about standing up for your rights and sticking to them. Don't let others walk over you and demand that they own the rights to your hard effort and work. Good luck...

  11. #11
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Take a look at your link again, and read a little more carefully:


    Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work.


    Quote Originally Posted by shadouphotography View Post
    Check out this link for info about the copyright laws here in Singapore. It's good information and will back up my point about any artist owning the copyright to his/her work. The only exception to this law is if you are an employee for a publication, newspaper, or magazine whereby they ask you to shoot some photos then they will own the copyright, not you. But if you are hired by an individual, sorry, the photographer owns the work.

    http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/About+Copyright.htm

    Enjoy the read...

  12. #12
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    If you take a picture of him in public, copyright goes to you, the photographer, because he didn't commission you to take his photo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain View Post
    does the worker in the assembly line use his/her own tools and materials? I own the tools to the creation. If I take a picture of you in public, does the right of the image belong to you?

  13. #13
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Unless otherwise stated in writing, copyright goes to the commissioner...not the photographer as you said.

    See Section 30(5) of the Copyright Act.

    Quote Originally Posted by shadouphotography View Post
    I'm not sure where you get this kind of information but I totally disagree with you. What you are saying right there is like a slap in the face of all the pro photographers out there who do this as a living or otherwise. Can you show me where in the law does it state that any photograph a photographer takes does not belong to him or her? If that were the case, then any publication can freely go on your portfolio and say well I want to use this photo and not pay you for the usage. If I get hired by someone to do a job, I make sure that they are aware of my terms and conditions which state that unless agreed upon beforehand in writing, I own the copyright to my work and I'm authorized to use it for my portfolio. If a client disagrees, then I offer them a higher rate for them to own it outright. If they don't agree then to bad. I don't do the shoot.

    I also don't agree that if you are hired to take someone else's photos, they don't belong to you. Yes they do. You own the photos you took. Sure they pay you for your services and time and a copy of the images but unless they pay for the copyright, they don't belong to anyone but you.

    It's not unethical to use the photos for your own portfolio or otherwise if the client is fully aware of what you plan on doing with the photos. That is why giving a contract with your terms and conditions on it is very important. Without it, anything goes really.

    And why do you say that pro photographers think the world owes them everything? I take it you're not a pro with a statement like that. The issue here is simply about protecting your own work with a copyright which is belongs to the photographer unless otherwise agreed upon in a contract. Go and ask any pro photographer out there who derives their income from photography alone and I'm sure they wouldn't agree with you.

    It would be interesting to see where in the context of the Singapore law does it state that any photo taken does not belong to the photographer.

  14. #14

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Under the law, copyright goes to the person who took the photograph.

    But if you were commissioned to take the photograph for valuable consideration, then it belongs to them.

    Hence they are right and you are wrong.
    It's interesting though how this magazine for example was so upset that I used some of the photos that I took for them in my portfolio as they went on and on that they own the copyright to them. When I disagreed they compromised and said please don't use them until we publish the magazine. When I checked with other photographers I learned that this is standard industry practice here. They were more concerned that I would use the photos that I took for commercial gain. Had no intention of doing so as it was just event photos and nothing fancy...thanks for the post.

  15. #15
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Well, they had the right to because they owned copyright in the work, just as how you were upset when you thought you owned copyright in the work and they didn't allow you to use it. They merely compromised because it is not worth the money to sue you even though they are within their rights to.

    There are many photographers like yourself that are not aware of laws relating to photography. That is how lawyers still stay in business

    You're welcome

    Quote Originally Posted by shadouphotography View Post
    It's interesting though how this magazine for example was so upset that I used some of the photos that I took for them in my portfolio as they went on and on that they own the copyright to them. When I disagreed they compromised and said please don't use them until we publish the magazine. When I checked with other photographers I learned that this is standard industry practice here. They were more concerned that I would use the photos that I took for commercial gain. Had no intention of doing so as it was just event photos and nothing fancy...thanks for the post.

  16. #16

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Very true..for a couple hundred dollars and a few photos, it is certainly not worth it. Everything would have been clear had I seen the contract before I even did the job. It's just as much as my fault though since I accepted the last minute job without even agreeing to their terms and conditions first. Would have been a lot clearer. And the frustrating part about all of this, is that I have to wait for two months before I get paid for it...such is the life in the editorial world..

  17. #17
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Uhm, as I was trying to tell you earlier, you do not need to see the contract, Section 30(5) operates by law and unless their contract says "Photographer keeps copyright", which is highly unlikely since they wont cut off their own nose, you still will not own the copyright. Things about payment, yea well, that is faced by most professional photographers, and indeed, this is not even limited to photography, other areas of industry also have late payment issues.

  18. #18

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Uhm, as I was trying to tell you earlier, you do not need to see the contract, Section 30(5) operates by law and unless their contract says "Photographer keeps copyright", which is highly unlikely since they wont cut off their own nose, you still will not own the copyright. Things about payment, yea well, that is faced by most professional photographers, and indeed, this is not even limited to photography, other areas of industry also have late payment issues.
    I have a good read...very interesting and certainly I learned something. Valuable...thanks again for your knowledge and help...

  19. #19
    Member lennyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,520

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain View Post
    If I take a picture of you in public, does the right of the image belong to you?
    I've always wondered how this works in Singapore and elsewhere. If someone took a candid photo of a private person (i.e. not a celebrity) where the subject is easily identified, and intends to use it for commercial purpose (e.g. advertisement), wouldn't a model release be necessary?

    What if the image is just being displayed for public viewing FOC? What if the commercial gain is something a little more subtle, such as advertising on the site?

  20. #20
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

    Under Singapore laws, a model release is not necessary. There aren't any statute law or case law which recognise this concept or places this obligation in Singapore.

    Quote Originally Posted by lennyl View Post
    I've always wondered how this works in Singapore and elsewhere. If someone took a candid photo of a private person (i.e. not a celebrity) where the subject is easily identified, and intends to use it for commercial purpose (e.g. advertisement), wouldn't a model release be necessary?

    What if the image is just being displayed for public viewing FOC? What if the commercial gain is something a little more subtle, such as advertising on the site?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •