buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

[Jenova]

Let's say... A famous couple (say, celebrities), commissioned a photographer for their wedding. Then they own the exclusive rights? Then they can like sell their pictures for more money they use to pay the photographer!!!

And.... the photographer got not rights to use the photos as his/her portfolio!!!

 

[spindoctor]

Let's say... A famous couple (say, celebrities), commissioned a photographer for their wedding. Then they own the exclusive rights? Then they can like sell their pictures for more money they use to pay the photographer!!!

And.... the photographer got not rights to use the photos as his/her portfolio!!!

It does not matter if the commissioner is rich and famous or a regular Joe. The law is the same.

 

[vince123123]

Yup, exactly.

It does not matter if the commissioner is rich and famous or a regular Joe. The law is the same.

 

[reanimator]

Sometimes there are loopholes in the system/law

 

[vince123123]

There are always loopholes in anything.

 

[lennyl]

There are always loopholes in anything.

Is there any loophole in your statement? :bsmilie:

*ahem* sorry, back to my medication.

 

[vince123123]

Perhaps there is .

Is there any loophole in your statement? :bsmilie:

*ahem* sorry, back to my medication.

 

[marky]

This is sure an interesting read.. better know the laws first b4 agreeing to any jobs..

 

[juliet]

Hopefully, both the client and photog can be flexible with certain terms. Honestly speaking I wouldn't want my wedding photos to be posted on forums at all. It'd really shock me if I saw my photos posted on forums... guess coz fiancee and I are very private people. But if photog printed the photos to show to potential customers, it'd be okay.

 

[shinken]

Hopefully, both the client and photog can be flexible with certain terms. Honestly speaking I wouldn't want my wedding photos to be posted on forums at all. It'd really shock me if I saw my photos posted on forums... guess coz fiancee and I are very private people. But if photog printed the photos to show to potential customers, it'd be okay.

When deciding on who to engage as a photographer, it is always best to be open in communication on any concern that might cross your mind. During interviews, I've noticed how couples are usually more concerned about hidden costs and items to pay for. Concern for privacy, for example, where the usage is portfolio is concerned, is one of the things to bring up as well. Bottom line is, best to clarify, and perhaps even amend terms or add terms if both parties are agreeable.


Maybe I should write a guide on my blog on what other possible stuff to raise. Hmm...

 

[newtoforums]

Let's say... A famous couple (say, celebrities), commissioned a photographer for their wedding. Then they own the exclusive rights? Then they can like sell their pictures for more money they use to pay the photographer!!!

And.... the photographer got not rights to use the photos as his/her portfolio!!!

Moral of the story, Charge more and Stop doing it for FREE...

 

[shinken]

Let's say... A famous couple (say, celebrities), commissioned a photographer for their wedding. Then they own the exclusive rights? Then they can like sell their pictures for more money they use to pay the photographer!!!

And.... the photographer got not rights to use the photos as his/her portfolio!!!

I know of a celebrity photographer in the states who shoots lots of Hollywood celeb weddings. He owns the copyrights and celeb couples actually have to make arrangements prior to the weddings if they want the photos to be used for press release, which is usually charged over and on top of the wedding fee.

While I can imagine how local celebs can have tons of 'free photographers' throwing themselves at them, I'm confident that with the steady increase in the quality of local wedding photography and the fact that more photographers are taking pride in their work, such practice (in US) will be common place here in a matter of time.

 

[emerald]

After reading all the replies, still feel confused. Did a google search and here's my 2 cents:

What we are discussing here is actually the 2 sides of a coin: copyright and portraiture right, and applicable to the photos that contain human faces (or even bodies only??).

Portraiture right is born with anyone, no one can take it away and no one should violate it against the law. Copyright is created when the author created the artwork, i.e. the photographer took the photo. By law, the photo's COPYRIGHT belongs to the photographer.

For the first place, no one should take the grant of taking photo of anyone without the prior permission from the person being photographed! Thus all the street snapshots, if the photographed ppl wanted to sue you, they will sure win! The trick is that most of them, maybe 99.99%, will not bother to do that, or they don't even know they are being photographed.

In the cases of wedding photography or other portraiture photography, the customers come to the photographer, asking them to take the photos, and even pay for it! This satisfies the first condition - the photographer has the permission to take the customers portraits, not violatiing their portraiture rights!

However, after the photo taking, there will be the tricky situation: the photo, film or digital, belongs to the phtographer, he/she owns the COPYRIGHT. but there is face of the customer in the photo. Because of the face captured, the customers still own the PORTRAITURE RIGHT!

In such case, the customer has no right to use the photo for COMMERCIAL USE without permission from the photographer, because photographer owns COPYRIGHT!
In such case, the photographer has no right to use the photo for COMMERCIAL USE without permission from the customer, because customer owns PORTRAITURE RIGHT!

Therefore, if no offical agreement signed, by default, the photographer owns the COPYRIGHT, the customer owns the PORTRAITURE RIGHT. If they don't agree with each other, neither of them can use the photos. Photographer publish the photos will violate the customers' PORTRAITURE RIGHT, he/she will be sued. Customers sell their nice photos to the press will violate the photographers' COPYRIGHT.

Therefore, if got faces in the photo, the photo is not belong to any one single party, it's kind of 'shared' between the two parties. To peacefully use the photos, please sign agreement in advance!


Therefore, for the couples go to studio negotiate a wedding shoot package, don't think that u r in the photos, the photos is urs. Only the faces (PORTRAITURE RIGHT) belong to you, the photo itself (COPYRIGHT) is still with the studio, u must pay to buy it if you wanted them! For the studios, if customers didn't buy the copyright, you are not free to use the photos in any way. If u want to put it as ur 'portfolio' or print a big advertisement poster out of it, please go to seek agreement from the customer first!

The best situation? Take a photo of yourself, by your own camera!

 

[vince123123]

Emerald, sad to say, much of the things you Googled are simply not applicable and have no basis in law in Singapore. Much of it is, sadly wrong; in fact too many points that I won't really go into detail unless you really really want to.

And this is the first time I even heard of the concept "portraiture right".....

 

[changster]

neither have i heard of 'portraiture right'. as for street photography, i believe that the people being photographed will not have much success suing the photographer as the photos are taken in public.

exception is when those said pictures are applied commercially by the photographer without proper model releases. correct me if i am wrong.

 

[vince123123]

In Singapore, even where pictures are applied commercially, it is doubtful whether there is any legal basis for civil action.

 

[toasty]

This thread is interesting, so would like to ask people's advise on a situation I am in. My company had an event. I am not an official photographer for my company, but do photography in my spare time. Someone asked me to help them shoot the event which I did as a favour. I shared the photos from my computer. Corporate Services (CS) division wants to now take some of these photos and put on the web page. In the past, they have done this and put Copyright XXX where XXX is the name of the company. Although I am an employee of the company, I am not employed as the photographer. Therefore, according to my understanding the copyright belongs to me and I can ask them not to put Copyright XXX on their web-page correct? I have nothing against them using my pictures, I just don't want them claiming that the photos are copyrighted to them, when (I think) they are not.

 

[vince123123]

Yupz, so long as the photographs were not made in pursuance of the terms of your employment, they do not belong to the Company.

This thread is interesting, so would like to ask people's advise on a situation I am in. My company had an event. I am not an official photographer for my company, but do photography in my spare time. Someone asked me to help them shoot the event which I did as a favour. I shared the photos from my computer. Corporate Services (CS) division wants to now take some of these photos and put on the web page. In the past, they have done this and put Copyright XXX where XXX is the name of the company. Although I am an employee of the company, I am not employed as the photographer. Therefore, according to my understanding the copyright belongs to me and I can ask them not to put Copyright XXX on their web-page correct? I have nothing against them using my pictures, I just don't want them claiming that the photos are copyrighted to them, when (I think) they are not.

 

[canturn]

End of the day, it's about how much you value your own work. In cases of confidentiality clauses, that involves hi profile clients, yes, you can agree to refrain from posting/publishing the photos while retaining the copyright. Copyright is not just about client not being able to abuse/profit out of the images...think about it, holding titles to your own work w/o the ability to publish or sell them, you'll never know what you lose out, esp if you've created a killer shot that could have generated a lot of revenue for you.

Of course, it also depends on your position. If you're already turning down more jobs than taking them up, and if you're confident that someone else will book the date, then by all means tell the client they need to pay more because what they want deviates from your standard terms. I spoke to my lawyer, who has been a great business consultant, used this analogy - someone walk into a burger joint and ask for burger with a slice of abalone in it, you can either tell them straight no and tell them good luck finding another burger joint that will pender to the request, or you can tell the customer, YES, it CAN be done, but it'll cost you

I must have lost at least 4 clients over the past 8 months because I imposed a fee if they wanted exclusivity, but all dates were eventually booked by other couples who embrace my terms wholeheartedly, and if I had given in to the initial 4 with regards to confidentiality clause, I wouldn't have gotten 5 of the awards I received in June this year. On the other hand, I have had clients who won't mind paying extra because they want your services enough to pay for it and most of these people who have geniune reasons for privacy clauses (because they don't want their images ending up in tabloid magazines) are usually folks that can afford it.

To some photographers, being able to send their images for competition is important because of the accreditation and recognition they get. Ask any of such photographers how much they would charge if clients wants exclusive rights and you'll know why.

 

[unseen]

I'm still amazed people will google, read and believing rubbish.
Why don't people look up some credible sources?


But then again, some credible sources are pretty rubbish as well.
For example, The Professional Photographers Association (Singapore)
http://ppas.sg/site/index.php?Itemid=9&id=7&option=com_content&task=view

As far as copyright laws are concerned, the customer does not own the copyright but has merely contracted or paid for a copy of that photograph. He gets that single copy which he paid for but he has no right to make copies of the same unless of course, the photographer allows him to do so. Similarly, a person who buys computer software merely has a right to use that copy and in limited circumstances provided for by the law, he may have the right to make back up as well as transient copies. He has no right to make copies of that software which he owns and sell it to another.

Why is this rubbish: The analogy is totally wrong. Not to mention, it's contradicts the real law.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...t&TYPE=simple&mode=and&version=currentVersion

(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and

(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement,

the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, except that if the work is required for any particular purpose, that purpose shall be communicated to that other person and that other person shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.

Basically translated into english at
http://www1.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html

Commissioning: If the painting/portrait/photograph/engraving of a person is commissioned by another party, the commissioning party owns the copyright in the work. For other commissioned works, ownership rests in the commissioned party who created the work although the copyright may be transferred or assigned as established by the contract between the commissioner and commissioned party.
...
Photographer or artist: If a photographer is engaged to take a photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright.

Of course, this is not valid if any prior agreement has been reached, like the photographer charging less money if copyright remains with them... But of course, most photographers I know do not make it clear upfront..

If the photog don't make it clear right at the start, then the copyright lies with the person who paid $$ for your services..

----------

Why don't we play nice and just continue the conversation as per Singapore law?
:sweatsm: