I was arguing with someone about a copyright question. . .

[episodic]

You hire a wedding photographer. He takes pics of your wedding. You buy a package from him, pay him, and he is on his way.

Later you want more, scan the orignals and print some more for your personal use.

Are you breaking the law?

 

[iamtrout]

yes

 

[her209]

The photographer "technically" own those pictures.

 

[sniperruff]

you'd have to ask for the photographer's permission.

 

[KLin]

He can probably sue you.

 

[iamtrout]

I would definitely sue because it's a good second source of income.

 

[Jon855]

Originally posted by: iamtrout
yes

Since it is the photographer's own work. It's his work and not yours. Hence you are breaking the law if you are going to be copying the photographs without the photographer's written permission.

 

[scottish144]

Its illegal, but unless ur photographer is desperate or an ass (or both), he won't sue. Its like abandonware. Technically the company still owns the software, but if their not making any money off of it, they don't care.

 

[simms]

Whoever takes the photos has the legal copyright to them. Not you.

 

[BlueWeasel]

This leads to the obvious question: Who here would call and request permission from the photographer if it was your wedding?

 

[mugs]

Yes. We chose a photographer who gave us all of the originals on a DVD and the rights to make as many prints as we want. It's usually a bit more expensive though, since the photographer doesn't make the big bucks on prints.

(He does still offer retouching/printing services though, and I imagine there are people who pay him to do it)

 

[DaveSimmons]

Google "work made for hire"

You would own the pictures unless you signed something saying otherwise. In other words, read your contract before you sign it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Google "work made for hire"

You would own the pictures unless you signed something saying otherwise. In other words, read your contract before you sign it.

I think it's the other way around... it's not considered a work for hire by default, even if you're paying him for it. He'd have to agree to that. But regardless, most photographers would make you sign a contract agreeing to their terms, and that's non-negotiable. So if making your own prints is important to you, pick a photographer who'll give you the rights.

 

[Pepsei]

the photographer owns everything. in fact, the guy would usually sign his name on the back of the pictures to prevent you from making copies without permission. some shop will print them anyway.

 

[Linflas]

We have the negatives so there is no question about who owns them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: mugs
I think it's the other way around... it's not considered a work for hire by default, even if you're paying him for it. He'd have to agree to that. But regardless, most photographers would make you sign a contract agreeing to their terms, and that's non-negotiable. So if making your own prints is important to you, pick a photographer who'll give you the rights.

Could be, I've never hired a photog before, and it's true he's a contractor rather than an employee.

It's safer to assume you're right, and make sure you to get your rights spelled out in your agreement with them.

 

[drinkmorejava]

hmmm, good thing I have a Pulitzer prize winning photographer in my family. I suppose he'll be nice enough to give me copy permission for free.

 

[myusername]

The copyright belongs to the photographer. You may negotiate the rights to the negatives/files for reprinting purposes.

 

[pkypkypky]

I never thought of this, so I'll be careful in the future to make sure I have the rights. Why he would care about you make duplicates and how he would ever find out you did is another story I suppose.

 

[myusername]

Originally posted by: pkypkypky
I never thought of this, so I'll be careful in the future to make sure I have the rights. Why he would care about you make duplicates

Because that's how he eats.

and how he would ever find out you did is another story I suppose.

Indeed

 

[Anubis]

yes thats seriously against the law, if you wnat more you shoudl order more

 

[Kenazo]

Walmart even has signs up saying they won't reprint copywritten wedding pics.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

yes, unless he has given you the rights to the work

 

[Rebasxer]

That's silly, it seems to me that if you pay for something, you should have the rights to it, ie if you buy a painting, you have control over how its reproduced, not the artist.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
That's silly, it seems to me that if you pay for something, you should have the rights to it, ie if you buy a painting, you have control over how its reproduced, not the artist.

NO, you don't.