buying exclusive rights for wedding and events shots?

[canturn]

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


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

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

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:

This is precisely why wedding photographers should have these 2 points in their contract:

1. Title/ Ownership belongs solely to the photographer. w/o this clause, copyright is by default the client's.

2. Define what are your rights /power over the images. Make it clear that you use it for your own advertising (website, blog), monetise some of the images (in the case of images with the client's face, you'll need to get a model release from them). This is to safeguard yourself and not having any baggage when you post or publish any of your work.

Having spoken to many photographers, the general feel is that most photographers are just giving away way way too much to the clients just to land themselves into the the job.

 

[vince123123]

If you already have 1, there is no need to define anything in (2). The only reason you need (2) is when you give copyright to the client.

To have BOTH (1) and (2) in a single contract is very very strange from a legal perspective.

This is precisely why wedding photographers should have these 2 points in their contract:

1. Title/ Ownership belongs solely to the photographer. w/o this clause, copyright is by default the client's.

2. Define what are your rights /power over the images. Make it clear that you use it for your own advertising (website, blog), monetise some of the images (in the case of images with the client's face, you'll need to get a model release from them). This is to safeguard yourself and not having any baggage when you post or publish any of your work.

Having spoken to many photographers, the general feel is that most photographers are just giving away way way too much to the clients just to land themselves into the the job.

 

[canturn]

If you already have 1, there is no need to define anything in (2). The only reason you need (2) is when you give copyright to the client.

To have BOTH (1) and (2) in a single contract is very very strange from a legal perspective.

I did consult my lawyer who drafted my contract about this too. But for benefit of doubt, and seems like most clients are not aware that I have this right to do so, it's best to put it upfront.

 

[vince123123]

From a business point of view, including (2) gives the client reason to raise eyebrows and ask you what you intend to use his images for.

Once you retain copyright, you do not need to tell your client what you intend to use his images for because as copyright holder, you are entitled to do as you wish.

Your lawyer may be taking the "conservative" approach even though it does not make legal sense as he may think that the "safe" approach is best, since the client already said "I agree to you using this and that".

What he may not have considered is the PR and business aspect of raising an issue for the client to ask more questions about.

If your lawyer told you that whether you have (2) or don't have (2), when you already have (1), then it is your own business decision whether to include (2) - he shouldn't be telling you to include (2) in order to improve your legal position.

Including (2) does not make your legal position any stronger than if you had not included (2), assuming of course (1) is already included.

And if your lawyer is indeed the one who told you to include that whole lot about "model releases", then if I were you, I'll ask him for more details on the legal position regarding model releases under Singapore law. As far as I'm aware, there are no legal obligations for model releases in Singapore. IF he can indeed come up with something, I'll be very interested to know what it is. If he cannot and just say "just trust me, put in better, play safe", then I'll suspect the depth of his knowledge.

I did consult my lawyer who drafted my contract about this too. But for benefit of doubt, and seems like most clients are not aware that I have this right to do so, it's best to put it upfront.

 

[luigi545]

After going through this thread, am i right to say that if i engage a bridal shop photographer to shoot wedding photos, and selected the desired photos to be printed out.
Do i have the ownership of the other unselected print photos?
unless bridal shop draft an agreement as mentioned

This is precisely why wedding photographers should have these 2 points in their contract:

1. Title/ Ownership belongs solely to the photographer. w/o this clause, copyright is by default the client's.

2. Define what are your rights /power over the images. Make it clear that you use it for your own advertising (website, blog), monetise some of the images (in the case of images with the client's face, you'll need to get a model release from them). This is to safeguard yourself and not having any baggage when you post or publish any of your work.

 

[ckuang]

After going through this thread, am i right to say that if i engage a bridal shop photographer to shoot wedding photos, and selected the desired photos to be printed out.
Do i have the ownership of the other unselected print photos?
unless bridal shop draft an agreement as mentioned

I'm not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that if it does go to court, the judge will also want to refer to the terms of sale, ie the package that you booked. So if in the package says that you will receive 10 photos back and each additional image will cost you $50 (which is the way many many bridal shops do it) then I think this will constitute an agreement between 2 parties and you will not have rights to the photos you did not select as you did not "purchase" them.

In this situation, I think it actually would be a case that has to do more with the terms of agreement between a business to consumer than it does have to do with copyright issue, although there is an element of the copyright issue involved.

 

[vince123123]

This is indeed a very interesting question and I would thank you for raising this (although I think it may have been raised before but I didn't really put my mind to thinking things through).

This would be in a rather gray area and without substantive legal research, may be one of those areas with no clear answer. I'm not even sure whether with substantive legal research, one can find an answer.

Assuming that indeed there is no case law on this issue, and assuming that there is no agreement to the contrary, my humble and personal opinion and reasoning is as follows:

1. The default position is that the customer owns copyright to photographs that he commissioned.

2. This position needs now to be examined against the new situation where a customer pays for package A which comes with 10 photos to be selected.

3. My view is that the total situation is a commissioned work, ie but for the customer's paying you the package price, the photographer would not have undertaken the work. The fact of selection or otherwise merely goes towards the deliverables to the client, not whether the photograph is a commissioned or uncommissioned work.

My view is therefore that copyright of all photographs taken during the shoot are commissioned works. The customer then enters into a contractual arrangment with the photographer to deliver only the selected works to the customer, whether in the form of JPG, Photo Album etc.

The question is, are the unselected works uncommissioned? My view is that it is not. When the photographer charges, he will take into account the time/effort/cost of the unselected works. The customer therefore also pays for unselected works, although at his price package, he chooses to forego delivery of the unselected works. This is different from saying that the unselected works are not commissioned works.

Hence the end result is a curious situation where the customer owns copyright to the unselected works, yet has no means of getting his hands on them since he has agreed contractually with the photographer that delivery of these works are not required and are in fact, excluded. The plus side is that he can stop the photographer from misusing these photographs since they still belong, technically, to the customer.

Of course, I can be completely wrong and the court eventually decides that only the selected works are commissioned, with the rest in "limbo". Such can only be truly known in a court case in Singapore, or perhaps with substantial legal research in foreign jurisdictions, both of which would require significant resources and expenses which are probably not suited for a free platform for exchange of ideas such as this forum

After going through this thread, am i right to say that if i engage a bridal shop photographer to shoot wedding photos, and selected the desired photos to be printed out.
Do i have the ownership of the other unselected print photos?
unless bridal shop draft an agreement as mentioned

 

[emerald]

This is indeed a very interesting question and I would thank you for raising this (although I think it may have been raised before but I didn't really put my mind to thinking things through).

This would be in a rather gray area and without substantive legal research, may be one of those areas with no clear answer. I'm not even sure whether with substantive legal research, one can find an answer.

Assuming that indeed there is no case law on this issue, and assuming that there is no agreement to the contrary, my humble and personal opinion and reasoning is as follows:

1. The default position is that the customer owns copyright to photographs that he commissioned.

2. This position needs now to be examined against the new situation where a customer pays for package A which comes with 10 photos to be selected.

3. My view is that the total situation is a commissioned work, ie but for the customer's paying you the package price, the photographer would not have undertaken the work. The fact of selection or otherwise merely goes towards the deliverables to the client, not whether the photograph is a commissioned or uncommissioned work.

My view is therefore that copyright of all photographs taken during the shoot are commissioned works. The customer then enters into a contractual arrangment with the photographer to deliver only the selected works to the customer, whether in the form of JPG, Photo Album etc.

The question is, are the unselected works uncommissioned? My view is that it is not. When the photographer charges, he will take into account the time/effort/cost of the unselected works. The customer therefore also pays for unselected works, although at his price package, he chooses to forego delivery of the unselected works. This is different from saying that the unselected works are not commissioned works.

Hence the end result is a curious situation where the customer owns copyright to the unselected works, yet has no means of getting his hands on them since he has agreed contractually with the photographer that delivery of these works are not required and are in fact, excluded. The plus side is that he can stop the photographer from misusing these photographs since they still belong, technically, to the customer.

Of course, I can be completely wrong and the court eventually decides that only the selected works are commissioned, with the rest in "limbo". Such can only be truly known in a court case in Singapore, or perhaps with substantial legal research in foreign jurisdictions, both of which would require significant resources and expenses which are probably not suited for a free platform for exchange of ideas such as this forum

Agree!

As different country has different laws, such situation only applicable in the countries have similar law system as singapore. Like in China Mainland, there's individual's portraiture right, besides the copyright. But I couldn't seem to find any mentioning about portraiture right in singapore's IPA...Anyway...

If really goes to court, I believe the "signed" contract will be of key influence. The default right goes to customer, but the contract can transfer the right to photographer. The 2 parties just need to understand and be more considerate to each other, and sign a win-win agreement before the shooting begins...

Let's all enjoy!

 

[peteloud]

Hi Guys,

I'd just like to say how impressed that I am with some of the views expressed here. Commercial photography is not my scene so I know little about contractual complications but I am aware of the difficulties. Some of you guys have given some very well thought out answers, you could almost be barristers not photographers.

I wish all of the forums here were full of such well considered views.

Pete

 

[vince123123]

Hehe, because there isn't any portraiture rights or its equilvalent under Singapore laws.

Agree!

As different country has different laws, such situation only applicable in the countries have similar law system as singapore. Like in China Mainland, there's individual's portraiture right, besides the copyright. But I couldn't seem to find any mentioning about portraiture right in singapore's IPA...Anyway...

If really goes to court, I believe the "signed" contract will be of key influence. The default right goes to customer, but the contract can transfer the right to photographer. The 2 parties just need to understand and be more considerate to each other, and sign a win-win agreement before the shooting begins...

Let's all enjoy!

 

[taekimon]

what about photo studios? do they have rights if they did a wedding photo shoot for a couple? By right the couple should have the rights right?

from my understanding, alot of studios don't even provide the soft copies to their customers.

 

[spindoctor]

what about photo studios? do they have rights if they did a wedding photo shoot for a couple? By right the couple should have the rights right?

from my understanding, alot of studios don't even provide the soft copies to their customers.

The answer can be found at the beginning of this thread.