Wedding photo copyright & bridal shop

[zekai]

That's funny. Copyright normally goes to the creator of the IP, right?

However, even if copyright still resides with the shop, model release is required for use not envisaged in the original agreement, ie the shop must seek your agreement for it to be used for commercial purpose.

But if there was no commercial use in public, if it's just used as a portfolio for potential customers to view when they come into the shop, I suspect model release won't be needed.

CORRECT

 

[SFS]

go Gas station .. Buy gas ..

Burn his shop /./

that's too extreme lor

 

[Andy Ang]

Try Silicone? Glue his roller shutter.

 

[slooow]

Try Silicone? Glue his roller shutter.

silicon will not fdry in time

add super glue to silicon

 

[longkangman]

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

How much can you pay. :dunno: :bigeyes:

 

[photoartist]

Hi,

May be just let me add some points here if I am not wrong.

Base on any project that involve model and photographer, there are 2 'Rights', the photographer right and the model right.

In this case, the wedding shop own the copy right to the photo only,and the wedding photos is for your own usage only, and should not use for any commercial value, which mean couple have no right to sell the image for profit. At the same time although the photo's right belong to the photographer, the photographer can't use it as and where they like, because the model (your face) right belong to you. You should have the right to said no. They can use the photo provided they don't show your face.

Hope this help.

 

[nottipiglet]

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.

Yes... I'm actually not interested in getting the 'original' negatives. I just want a copy of all digital negatives in their raw form before processing because I'm quite ok with photoshop. I don't want to pay for the extra prints because I don't need them, and I don't very much care if the bridal shops fail. If they fail top price correctly from the start, and hope to gain by their usual practice of extorting their clients, then they deserve to fail.

I'm sure the bridal studio can only use my photos with my approval because I sure won't sign any of my rights away. I'm very careful with fine prints.

I worked with Kim from Studio D'fia for my wedding shots. It was a tie up with the bridal studio I signed with. He gave me all the digital photos back. He did not push me to buy any more prints or anything like that. He just quoted the prices for any additional work or prints. When I told him I didn't want any, he did not try to sell at all. His profits were priced into his fees... so there was no need for extortion. That's what I expect of a professional. Plus, his digital negatives were all of very high quality and very easy to work with.

 

[vince123123]

Can I ask where you got this information from?

Hi,

May be just let me add some points here if I am not wrong.

Base on any project that involve model and photographer, there are 2 'Rights', the photographer right and the model right.

In this case, the wedding shop own the copy right to the photo only,and the wedding photos is for your own usage only, and should not use for any commercial value, which mean couple have no right to sell the image for profit. At the same time although the photo's right belong to the photographer, the photographer can't use it as and where they like, because the model (your face) right belong to you. You should have the right to said no. They can use the photo provided they don't show your face.

Hope this help.

 

[catchlights]

Yes... I'm actually not interested in getting the 'original' negatives. I just want a copy of all digital negatives in their raw form before processing because I'm quite ok with photoshop. I don't want to pay for the extra prints because I don't need them, and I don't very much care if the bridal shops fail. If they fail top price correctly from the start, and hope to gain by their usual practice of extorting their clients, then they deserve to fail.

I'm sure the bridal studio can only use my photos with my approval because I sure won't sign any of my rights away. I'm very careful with fine prints.

I worked with Kim from Studio D'fia for my wedding shots. It was a tie up with the bridal studio I signed with. He gave me all the digital photos back. He did not push me to buy any more prints or anything like that. He just quoted the prices for any additional work or prints. When I told him I didn't want any, he did not try to sell at all. His profits were priced into his fees... so there was no need for extortion. That's what I expect of a professional. Plus, his digital negatives were all of very high quality and very easy to work with.

I am sure he has price he package for don't depending any additional sales. unlike most one stop bridal shops keep asking customers to upgrade package and buy additional prints, cos of the initial package price are so low that just barely brake even, in order to attract customers.

If you pay enough, you can get all you want. It works everywhere.

 

[theRBK]

it very much depends on the contract...let me give an example from another scenario:

in commercial photography, it is the photographer, not the art director or the client or the producer, that has the rights to the images created...payment from the client then decides how much rights the client has to the image, whether it is time based, where the client can use the image, for how long, etc...and after which the ownership of the image reverts to the photog...for a full transfer of rights to perpetuity, the client would have to pay more for the image for a full buyout of the rights...but even then, unless otherwise stated in the contract, the photog, and indeed the art director, still has the right to use the image for their portfolio purposes, but not for other commercial purpose...thus it is essential to be careful with the contract signed...

 

[iMbEst]

wow, that's quite scary. Think very soon when I choose the bridal shop for wedding shoots, must ask them to state clearly that I own the copyright of all photographs. But hey...that's why they press you to burn more and more money in your pocket right?

If i'm not wrong, by default, copyrights belongs to the photographer, not the person present in the photo. Otherwise, if I anyhow took a street photo, whoever appear inside also claim to own it, like that how?

 

[Bleuwhale]

Can I ask where you got this information from?

Adding to Vince:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Hi,

May be just let me add some points here if I am not wrong.

Base on any project that involve model and photographer, there are 2 'Rights', the photographer right and the model right.

In this case, the wedding shop own the copy right to the photo only,and the wedding photos is for your own usage only, and should not use for any commercial value, which mean couple have no right to sell the image for profit. At the same time although the photo's right belong to the photographer, the photographer can't use it as and where they like, because the model (your face) right belong to you. You should have the right to said no. They can use the photo provided they don't show your face.

Hope this help.
_____________________________________________________________________________

An american lawyer MAY argue your above with some ease. But for a local lawyer ??
I believe you obtained the information from an american source, did you not?

-Cheers

 

[iMbEst]

i think they may really cover your face and show your portfolio still.....it wont' look ugly though. haha.

 

[nottipiglet]

I am sure he has price he package for don't depending any additional sales. unlike most one stop bridal shops keep asking customers to upgrade package and buy additional prints, cos of the initial package price are so low that just barely brake even, in order to attract customers.

If you pay enough, you can get all you want. It works everywhere.

By the way, I went to a 1 stop bridal shop with a tie up with Kim. So, I did not pay hell of a lot.

My cousin and brother went to one of those one-stop bridal shops at Marina, who price low at the outset, but extort you in the process. They ended up paying quite a few thousands more.

What I am saying is... know what you want, and then negotiate for it up front. Deal with people who are professional in their dealings, and transparent with their pricing. A bit of reseach goes a long way...

Everytime I walk around Marina, I am accosted by these uncle and aunties who try to sign me up for packages. It's pretty obvious that they are trying to scam me (even though I'm married). Don't know why people fall for it. :dunno:

 

[Static]

Hi,

May be just let me add some points here if I am not wrong.

Base on any project that involve model and photographer, there are 2 'Rights', the photographer right and the model right.

In this case, the wedding shop own the copy right to the photo only,and the wedding photos is for your own usage only, and should not use for any commercial value, which mean couple have no right to sell the image for profit. At the same time although the photo's right belong to the photographer, the photographer can't use it as and where they like, because the model (your face) right belong to you. You should have the right to said no. They can use the photo provided they don't show your face.

Hope this help.

ppl pay good $$$$$$ to have their happiest moments capture on a photo album. Logically speaking, the couple should have the rights to all the photos taken. This is a simple consumer/seller deal. One pay $ for service, the other party produce the goods and gives it to the customer.
Thus, it will seemed commerically legal for the customer to get back all the photos unless prior agreement doesnt say so and customer agree to it.

But, the prob lies in the method bridal shops use to increase their profit margin
Bridal shops makes $$$ from printing the photo chosen from the lot taken, they retain possession of the remaining so that you cant go other places and print them yourself. However, this does not give them the exercise the right to control who possesses the copyrights.

But over time , an illusion is slowly formed that the copyrights to the photos rightfully belong to them. Which they start abusing the use of the photos in their possession w/o seeking permission from the couple.

For those who advocate photographer rights to the photo.
If u ask me, I would say this is a simple buy/service deal. We are not toking about professional models on catwalks but ordinally ppl paying $$ to get their photo taken and printed on an album. Models can sue photographers who uses their photos for advertising w/o paying copyrights.
Why is it in Singapore, we pay $$$ to bridal shops and have no rights to prevent misuse by bridal shops ? :angry:

 

[jOhO]

ppl pay good $$$$$$ to have their happiest moments capture on a photo album. Logically speaking, the couple should have the rights to all the photos taken. This is a simple consumer/seller deal. One pay $ for service, the other party produce the goods and gives it to the customer.
Thus, it will seemed commerically legal for the customer to get back all the photos unless prior agreement doesnt say so and customer agree to it.

But, the prob lies in the method bridal shops use to increase their profit margin
Bridal shops makes $$$ from printing the photo chosen from the lot taken, they retain possession of the remaining so that you cant go other places and print them yourself. However, this does not give them the exercise the right to control who possesses the copyrights.

But over time , an illusion is slowly formed that the copyrights to the photos rightfully belong to them. Which they start abusing the use of the photos in their possession w/o seeking permission from the couple.

For those who advocate photographer rights to the photo.
If u ask me, I would say this is a simple buy/service deal. We are not toking about professional models on catwalks but ordinally ppl paying $$ to get their photo taken and printed on an album. Models can sue photographers who uses their photos for advertising w/o paying copyrights.
Why is it in Singapore, we pay $$$ to bridal shops and have no rights to prevent misuse by bridal shops ? :angry:

i don't think we can use "logically" and "i would say" and terms like this for this case. there's no point speculating, or reasoning. it's about the law.

if it's about ethics, then we can say anything, but to seek redress, we need the law, so it's better that we know wat the law says about this, if it does at all.

anyone? vince?

if not then it will take one (or a few) couple(s) to sue a(some) bridal shop(s), and form a precedence.

i'm not trying to sound incompassionate here. but if we're gonna discuss and not get a result, then there's no point. it's just typical of singaporeans to just talk but not take action. if you (or the TS) feels very strongly about this, he/she would take the necessary action LAWFULLY to seek redress. maybe he/she is already doing so, hopefully.

ethically, this is my stand: i feel it's reasonable for a bridal shop (or any creator of intellectual property) to state "i created this" within his place of business, but of course not print a huge poster of it and put on a building without proper permission. if in the case where the customer is STILL not happy that the creator is showing it off within his place of business, then out of goodwill, or good customer relations or WHATEVER, he could ascede to the customers' requests and just not show lar...

but my (and your) statement above based on ethics will not seek much redress, that's what i'm saying. the bridal shop in this case may not feel the way you and i do. then how?

 

[vince123123]

I agree with Joho - it is no sense to talk about logic and feel when the law clearly says otherwise. If you think you need to get copyright to the photograph, then negotiate that with the wedding studio - if the wedding studio refuses, you have the option of going to another one.

i don't think we can use "logically" and "i would say" and terms like this for this case. there's no point speculating, or reasoning. it's about the law.

if it's about ethics, then we can say anything, but to seek redress, we need the law, so it's better that we know wat the law says about this, if it does at all.

 

[Clown]

taken from the link our dear darren stickied:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=123462

and referring to
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html
under ownership,

it says: "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."

it's quite straighforward dont u think?

 

[Static]

taken from the link our dear darren stickied:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=123462

and referring to
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html
under ownership,

it says: "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."

it's quite straighforward dont u think?

Sori, dun intend to start a flaming war, but I am just expressing my thoughts from my point of view. There is no way we can change the law but forum permits the free expression of ideas and thoughts rite ?

Under ur link, it shows.

((((((((((((((((OWNERSHIP

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

1) :think: Employment: If the work is created by an employee in the course of his work as an employee, in pursuance of the term of employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work. :think:

2) :think: 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. :think:

The owner of the copyright may assign his rights to another party or entity. He may assign his rights partially or license his rights in a manner of his choice. The separate rights given under copyright (e.g. right of reproduction) can also be assigned separately from other rights.

Special situations for certain professions:

Journalist or writer: In the course of employment as a journalist or writer for a newspaper, magazine or periodical OR under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright for the purpose of publication or reproduction in the newspaper, magazine or periodical.

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.))))))))))))))))))))

Conculsion from Point 1)
The photographer is engaged by the bridal shop, hence bridal shop has copyrights

Conculsion from Point 2)
Customer engaged bridal shop to do the photoshoot and signed written contract. Depending of the terms and conditions signed, is the copyright is transferred to the customer ?

Depending on how u read it, both schools of thoughts can be argued. And it seemed that it can be argued that the customer has the copyrights over the photographs too.
Does the above laws u read gives u a straightforward pic ?

Pardon me cuz i not a lawyer

 

[Static]

taken from the link our dear darren stickied:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=123462

and referring to
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html
under ownership,

it says: "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."

it's quite straighforward dont u think?

Cutting portion that supports your argument doesn't seemed convincing. U left out the "exceptions" in the above law ruling