Wedding photo copyright & bridal shop

[Friday13]

My bridal shop wants to use my photos. So I negotiated with them on a win-win. Instead of a Mercs E200, I get a BMW 735 on actual day. So with this I allow them to use my photos. :thumbsup: No win-win, no deal for me as I am firm. Nothing is free in this world (excluding air and sunlight and of course life as they are priceless). Want to use my photo, make your offer...

 

[longkangman]

2) Do I the copyright for my wedding photo since I paid for the service?

Company hire you to disign a chip that copyright belong to the company and not you.

3) Do the Bridal shop owner got the right to use my image as I did not sign any terms and condition with them?

Better check on the sales receipt. If it is a pay job you own the rights.

4) Can he use my image as a display to help him draw sale for his wedding exhibition at Suntec City or ...ect?

Not without your permission without the present of black and white.

YMMV

 

[SniperD]

hi,
I'm sorry to hear that this has happened, if you've signed a contract/agreement with the fella, check if it states on copyright issues.
you might have paid for the service but i think you do not get the copyrights to the photo. example: you pay for the service of a plane or taxi ride, do we get to keep the plane?

this is only a photography forum and you could get more feedback and suggestions on the bridal forums like singaporebrides.com.


You paid $65 per photo!!!!!! and you bought 50pieces!. That's like $3250
my goodness....I think actual day wedding photographers have to charge more cos I think it takes more effort to capture stuff on that one any only biggest day of a couple's life.

hahaha.. Ead.. do I see a subliminal message hidden in your words.. hehe.. :bsmilie:

jiakandang - do check with CASE and most importantly, your contract with the bridal shop for that little clause that gives the shop exclusivity and copyrights to your shots.

 

[2100]

Very easy lar, just get them to upgrade stuff for you if they wanna use your photos. Win-win. Like the car, or something like lots of embrodiery by the designer.

$65 per additional pic like 15R is considered very ok nowdays. Ask them to cut half price for extra pics lor.

 

[jiakandang]

Selet** Boardway

 

[2100]

Selet** Boardway

Think shouldn't be too hard to nego for freebies, they have a reputation to upkeep. Chin chai lar.

Anyway do think about it, it takes a lot of effort to "hate", "go against". Professionalism aside, humans are like that, when there are clashes both sides get defensive and leave a bitter taste. Tell him firmly that you are a private person, but you may relent if you get a good offer. Services won't cost him a lot! For eg me, i prefer not to offer discounts but rather give them freebies like Express Morning Highlights photo montage (which costs $100 in the market but it is only a 30 min effort on my part).

 

[rokieto]

Take it that it is the couple's pride if the pics are use for showing to the world.
Com'on, it is a happy occasion, if captured beautifully, why not show off.

Can bargain for better deal, so long as there is no bitter aftertaste. (don't be kiasu, or afraid to loose out, becos at the end of the day, you just want everything swee swee & smooth, then get on with life with good memories, not arguement or legal hustle)

anyway, they can reproduce the idea, but can't produce the same probs you brought.
(or the same beautiful moments of the happy couple. Even if can copy the same pose or idea, the couple is different & no meaning to you).

(be happy)

 

[futura2k]

just trying to help clear all the confusion.

The photographer holds all the rights to whatever photos thats taken by him and has the right to showcase in his portfolio (maybe suntec booth?)with or without the couple's consent. Unless its for editorial then he needs a model release.

 

[emcee]

Company hire you to disign a chip that copyright belong to the company and not you.

Does that mean, I pay them to take my photo and the copyright should be mine instead:bsmilie:

 

[yqt]

just trying to help clear all the confusion.

The photographer holds all the rights to whatever photos thats taken by him and has the right to showcase in his portfolio (maybe suntec booth?)with or without the couple's consent. Unless its for editorial then he needs a model release.

In most cases this is correct, but this case is diff.
After the shot is done, the TS did some "special effect" to it. The idea for the concept with the props is also not the photographer's/studio's concept. So, the photographer/studio can claim copyrights to the photographs but the TS can also claim joint copyrights for the concept ( where he even supplies the props ) and full copyrights to the "special effects" done to the images after the shoot is done.

The photographer/studio cannot claim copyrights to a concept not though up by them nor can they claim copyrights to the "special effects" which is not done by them. This is joint copyrights and both parties have to agreed on how it can or cannot be used. If the idea and finish photo is purely created by the photographer/studio, than they can claim to be the creator of the image and can use it as part of their portfolio. Weather they can claim full copyrights to it depends on the T&C signed.

Though I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be correct legally, this have been my experience working as a photographer.

 

[yanyewkay]

From my understanding, I think the special effects is with the props that the TS brought along for the shoot. It is back the the case where who should own the copyright, the art director or the cameraman who pressed the shutter.

I think the TS did some fair part in the creative direction by using his own props and the photographer took the pic. In this issue, the photos turned out special because of the props and not because of the photographer's creative direction. So who should own the copyright?

Displaying it in public will mislead the public thinking that it was the studio that came up with the idea of using such 'special' props. :dunno:

 

[jdredd]

i think there is a little confusions here. and lets not bring in other areas of copyright law relatin gto software etc..

so ill keep it simple.

for photographs, paintings & portraits, the law is that if you commission the work for valuable consideration (i.e. if you pay someone to take your photo), then you hold the copyright to the photo. UNLESS there is an express agreement to the contrary.

 

[yqt]

From my understanding, I think the special effects is with the props that the TS brought along for the shoot. It is back the the case where who should own the copyright, the art director or the cameraman who pressed the shutter.

I think the TS did some fair part in the creative direction by using his own props and the photographer took the pic. In this issue, the photos turned out special because of the props and not because of the photographer's creative direction. So who should own the copyright?

Displaying it in public will mislead the public thinking that it was the studio that came up with the idea of using such 'special' props. :dunno:

In post 1 of this thread the TS mention:

So I did my own research and did some special effect and bring my own probs for the shoot.

I've ask to what extent is the "special effect" that was done, since I did not get an answer, I assume that it is digital work that was done to the image after the shoot. If that is the case, than the TS can claim copyrights to the creative concept of the digital work done as the photographer/studio were not the one who did it.

I agreed with you on your last statement.

In wedding photography, it is common for the viewing public to assume that any image presented is the concept, style, quility/work of the photographer/studio. To display an image which is captured by the studio but the concept and post production (which include some "special effect") were not done by the photographer/studio is misrepresentation.

 

[yqt]

i think there is a little confusions here. and lets not bring in other areas of copyright law relatin gto software etc..

so ill keep it simple.

for photographs, paintings & portraits, the law is that if you commission the work for valuable consideration (i.e. if you pay someone to take your photo), then you hold the copyright to the photo. UNLESS there is an express agreement to the contrary.

I agreed with you on this and there is no confusion, at least not on my part.

Agreed that if you commission/pay someone to shoot anything, the copyright belongs to the one paying UNLESS there is an express agreement to the contrary. That's why I keep saying it all depends on what is stated and signed.

Point to note here is that regardless of who owns the copyrights and how many times this copyrights is transfered, the photographer/studio is still the org creator of the image and as the org. creator, they have every right to tell the world at large that " this is my creation, I did this", IF the final image presented is solely their work/concept. What is diff. here in this case is that, the photographer/studio is NOT the org. creator of the concept and the "special effect", this is according to the TS in post #1. The photographer/studio is only the org. creator of the lighting mood and exposure of the image shot. As such I"m of the opinion that the photographer/studio can't claim to be the org. creator to the final image.

Please bear in mind that there is a diff. between a copyrights owner and the org. creator. There is also a diff. between sole copyrights and joint copyrights.

 

[shinken]

The issue is not a simple one, despite good-intentions to help through sharing of knowledge. Copyrights is a hazy one to begin with, although it should be straightforward. To make things more confusing, if the issue is brought up for legal solution, copyrights will not be the sole issue. The couple will be debating on the infringement of privacy. Whether or not the the copyrights belong to the photographer is one thing. Whether or not by showing the rest of the world infringes upon the privacy of others is another issue.

My advice to anyone who has an issue remains - speak to lawyers if possible, or peacefully resolve and compromise with parties involved.

 

[vince123123]

Well I think you can most likely remove one factor from your consideration - there are almost non-existence privacy rights here in Singapore.

The issue is not a simple one, despite good-intentions to help through sharing of knowledge. Copyrights is a hazy one to begin with, although it should be straightforward. To make things more confusing, if the issue is brought up for legal solution, copyrights will not be the sole issue. The couple will be debating on the infringement of privacy. Whether or not the the copyrights belong to the photographer is one thing. Whether or not by showing the rest of the world infringes upon the privacy of others is another issue.

My advice to anyone who has an issue remains - speak to lawyers if possible, or peacefully resolve and compromise with parties involved.

 

[shinken]

Well I think you can most likely remove one factor from your consideration - there are almost non-existence privacy rights here in Singapore.

Depends on "whose" privacy we're talking about. I'm not in a position to rule out options for affected parties as a desk bound expert. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge. I'm not speaking as a client or photographer, but as a fellow forumer and citizen. If you are clearer about this and has more accurate information, I am sorry about that.

 

[nottipiglet]

I would suggest that when you sign up for any photography packages, ask for full 100% digital negatives back. If they say no, just walk away.

Then they can't blackmail you with $50-70 for each additional image. That's their usual tactic. Don't fall for it.

 

[catchlights]

I would suggest that when you sign up for any photography packages, ask for full 100% digital negatives back. If they say no, just walk away.

Then they can't blackmail you with $50-70 for each additional image. That's their usual tactic. Don't fall for it.

In most bridal shops practice now, as long the customers buy above certain amount of additional prints, will return them the "original". but this also won't stop them from using the customers' images for their own promotion use or portfolios.

Customers can ask for [exclusive rights], but will have to pay a cost.
Any bridal shop will be very happy to able to sell the [exclusive rights] to customers if they can afford it.

The only way that any bridal shops won't use the customers images for portfolio is ths customer's photos are really "CMI".

 

[catchlights]

Anyway, most bridal shops are very good in persuading customers to upgrade their packages, buying additional prints, etc.

That how they make $, if just depending for packages along, no top up, no additional prints, for sure this bridal shop won't last long.