Copyright image use

[mjcneat]

Looking for some advice.

My wife and I got married back in 2014. When we selected our venue, they recommended a local photographer to us. His work was on prints throughout the venue, we met with him and used his services for our wedding photos.

I asked about buying the copyright for the images. He said that we would purchase this 12 months after our wedding and all full Res images would be provided. I understand this was in place as it generated extra income for him as all prints had to be ordered via him. We got our photo book etc as part of the package but didn't have the digital files.

Fast forward 12 months. I emailed the photographer asking to buy the copyright. He said yes, advised me of the fee which was paid and full resolution files provided. I have an email exchange explicitly discussing purchasing the copyright.

Now moving on to 2021. A friend of ours said one of our wedding pictures is being used on the venue's website. It is 1 of 2 main images on the weddings page advertising the venue. We did not consent to the use of this image.

I can only imagine that the photographer has an ongoing relationship with them and has supplied it to them.

Whilst I am not fussed about the photo being in the public domain, I do object to the image being supplied for commercial use, no doubt with the photographer getting a fee.

Can anybody offer any guidance on how to approach this with the venue? I'm not looking to make a fortune or anything like this, but if the photographer has been paid for its use, feel this fee should be paid to my and my wife as copyright owners of the image.

[InitialDave]

Have you contacted them, told them you own the copyright, and asked they take the image down?

[Starfighter]

Do you have exclusive use of the images?

The photographer owns the copyright as they took the images (unless these is a clause to the contrary in you contract). Buying the copyright allows you to use the images as you see fit by printing etc. but may not give you exclusive use or revoke any previous agreements to use an image.

[sociopath]

Starfighter said:

Do you have exclusive use of the images?

The photographer owns the copyright as they took the images (unless these is a clause to the contrary in you contract). Buying the copyright allows you to use the images as you see fit by printing etc. but may not give you exclusive use or revoke any previous agreements to use an image.

As Starfighter says, it's unlikely he sold you the copyright, he's most likely given you a perpetual licence to use on a non commercial basis. That's what I used to do. It gives the couple freedom to do what they want but preserves the photographer's commercial rights

[mjcneat]

InitialDave said:

Have you contacted them, told them you own the copyright, and asked they take the image down?

As I said in my post, I'm not bothered about it being in the public domain but do object if the photographer has been paid a few for it's use. So I haven't contacted them yet, apart from calling to obtain an email address.

[mjcneat]

sociopath said:

As Starfighter says, it's u likely he sold you the copyright, hes most likely given you a perpetual licence to use on a non commercial basis.thats what I used to do. It gives the couple freedom to do what they want but preserves the photographer's commercial rights

I honestly am not sure. The email exchange is very informal. I essentially ask to buy the copyright 12 months after the wedding. He replied saying ok, specified the fee which. I paid and he supplied me with the images.

[InitialDave]

mjcneat said:

As I said in my post, I'm not bothered about it being in the public domain but do object if the photographer has been paid a few for it's use. So I haven't contacted them yet, apart from calling to obtain an email address.

I think this is an extremely silly position to take, but, as other have said, find out what you actually bought from the photographer first.

[StevieBee]

Honestly... if this is all you have to worry about then count yourself fortunate.

It is highly unlikely that that the photographer would have gotten any fee from the venue for them using the image. He relies upon them for business and will most likely have been in a batch of shots he gave them as part of the relationship he has with them and they've simply thought "mmm, that one would look nice on the website".

You had a nice wedding. You've some great photos. All the photographer is trying to do is drum up a bit more business. He's not ripping you off - nor are the venue.

If the photo was used as part of a new global ad-campaign for some blue-chip, then fair dos, but really.... just be proud of the fact that you and yours are on the venue's as an example of what other's can expect.

[Ken Figenus]

Hmm - using that image in a commercial way would suggest a model release form should be in place. Maybe the photographer had a contract with you that stated he could use his shots for promotion of his business, but using them then to promote another's business is a bit off.

I suggest you ask for a fee to use your image in this context or ask them to take it down as you never consented and would rather not be 'out there'.

Stevie Bee is right to keep a cool head as it was prob just a favour for a venue that may recommend him - however this is an image of you and your wife and you should have control over that.

Edited by Ken Figenus on Friday 5th November 18:06

[Simpo Two]

The interesting part of this for me is the idea that two people might be able to own copyright at the same time. Can they? I don't know.

If the tog has copyright too then he can do what he likes with them - just as you can.

I doubt whether any money changed hands for the venue website. There will be many togs with good photos of the place; if one demands money they'll find another who doesn't. If it was me I'd supply it free but ask for a credit and link.

[Ken Figenus]

This is not the strongest instance of this but I don't think that the photographer can do 'anything he wants with them'. This is not a landscape shot or one taken with incidental people in it. If he is commercially monetizing an image where the subjects paid him for his time and skills for personal photographs of themselves at a private event and this ends up as an Athena poster or on any Stock Shots.com and WITHOUT his clients' permission or a model release form (that most libraries demand) how would you take it if the tables were turned? It would be extremely unprofessional of him for starters and the rest might go legal.

[sociopath]

I assume the OP has a contract for the original wedding shoot. ..that's the place to start.

But as said above, my contract explicitly stated that the clients received a copy of photos that they were free to use for any non commercial use, but I retained all copyright.

As for the comment about the b&g having rights to photos of themselves, then if they are in a public place they have no rights to prevent use. If they did then we'd have no photos of celebrities in the gossip mags.

[Ken Figenus]

I draw a big distinction between a paparazzo and a paid supplier at a private event on private land.

[Simpo Two]

Ken Figenus said:

This is not the strongest instance of this but I don't think that the photographer can do 'anything he wants with them'. This is not a landscape shot or one taken with incidental people in it. If he is commercially monetizing an image where the subjects paid him for his time and skills for personal photographs of themselves at a private event and this ends up as an Athena poster or on any Stock Shots.com and WITHOUT his clients' permission or a model release form (that most libraries demand) how would you take it if the tables were turned? It would be extremely unprofessional of him for starters and the rest might go legal.

I'd ask for a percentage

Is the legal fact of 'copyright' different if there are people in the photo? Is there 'Copyright (People)' and 'Copyright (No People)'?

I've never heard of a wedding tog asking the bride, groom and guests for model release forms. Maybe find some stock photos of weddings and ask the tog how he arranged it?

[Ken Figenus]

I'm not a lawyer mate but professional ethics and decency come in to play before that surely?

I'd never commercialise an identifiable people shot without the client's permission and agreement - and I shoot most my stuff knowing I 100% own it as 'civilians' don't know any of this...

If the guy I paid to shoot my wedding pics sold those on I'd haul him over the coals - especially if he lied about model releases for big global stock shots sites. The stuff I have on paid stock sites have NO featured people, only incidental. Ethics and standards and fair play...

[Jakg]

Ken Figenus said:

Hmm - using that image in a commercial way would suggest a model release form should be in place. Maybe the photographer had a contract with you that stated he could use his shots for promotion of his business, but using them then to promote another's business is a bit off.

The pictures don't have to be of the bride & groom - they could be of the venue, the ambience etc.

Both the registrar and venue took their own pictures of my wedding that they both used for PR purposes - only one asked permission first, but there were no people in either.

[Ken Figenus]

So they took a shot of the venue?

How would you feel if you ended up on the front cover of a brochure for the venue - smiling wth your new partner? Would that be perfectly OK without your consent?

[Simpo Two]

Ken Figenus said:

I'm not a lawyer mate but professional ethics and decency come in to play before that surely?

Well indeed, ethics and decency and fair play are fine things, and I agree with you. I'm just going up a level to wonder what the law says - because it's the law that determines if you can win a case. Maybe 'Human Rights' beats 'Copyright', I don't know.

[sociopath]

Ken Figenus said:

I draw a big distinction between a paparazzo and a paid supplier at a private event on private land.

As I said, it depends what the original contract says. But if it's on private land the. The copyright could perhaps lie with the landowner, but it still wouldn't reside with the client unless the contract explicitly said so.

Personally I think the OP is getting upset over nothing but that's PH for you

[Ken Figenus]

Photographer always has default copyright.

People should have control over private images of themselves - especially if they paid for them to be taken!

Ethics.