Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have thousands of wedding and portrait images of which i understand copyright belongs to myself (not signed over) am i allowed to upload these ?

 

If you could, who do you think might license them? Only worth considering if they contained well known people in the public eye. I would examine the contracts that you made between yourself and who commissioned you. Most contracts I've seen only allow the use of wedding images on the photographers portfolio and website to publicise their work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put people's wedding pictures with e.g. the bride and groom in online unless you want angry customers. If you've got generic type wedding shots without people identifiable in, that's probably ok, subject to the above from sb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"unless you want angry customers"

Or to be sued for breach of copyright.

Assuming these were taken after 1989, before which you don't own the copyright unless assigned, take a look at the CDPA s.85. Unless (as sb says) waived by contract, you may not publish photographs commissioned for "private and domestic purposes".

I have exactly six wedding photographs on Alamy without the permission of the bride and groom. The last was taken in 1940.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

"unless you want angry customers"

Or to be sued for breach of copyright.

Assuming these were taken after 1989, before which you don't own the copyright unless assigned, take a look at the CDPA s.85. Unless (as sb says) waived by contract, you may not publish photographs commissioned for "private and domestic purposes".

I have exactly six wedding photographs on Alamy without the permission of the bride and groom. The last was taken in 1940.

I am not a wedding photographer:  but I had no idea about this restriction.  Thank you for highlighting this.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanDavidson said:

I am not a wedding photographer:  but I had no idea about this restriction.  Thank you for highlighting this.

I had it assigned in my contracts from day one in 1982 (when we didn't even own the copyright under the 1956 Act) but I don't think I would publish them anyway- for a start I don't have copies of 40-year-old contracts- but that's not the reason. It just doesn't feel quite right. I didn't usually have written contracts for portraiture.

There are half-a-dozen searches on "1980s wedding" for last year though. Hmm.

Edited by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not really a copyright issue - it is about image rights (i.e. the right to license or publish images of other people for commercial gain). Wedding photography is not editorial photography.

 

I always include a clause in my wedding photography contracts that allows me to use images for promotional purposes only (in any medium). I put the onus on the couple to notify all guests that their images can be used for promotional purposes and to notify me in advance if anyone objects. Most couples don't bother but occasionally I have had requests not to include specific children. I have had a few annoying instances where I have got some great pics of children dancing and then been asked retrospectively not to use them. If I use pics of children for promotion,  I usually offer the parents a print in return and that is fine.  

 

I also include a clause that specifically gives me copyright and forbids anyone from selling (licensing) images without my permission. I find it is always best to be explicit so there can be no doubt.

 

I never use wedding pics for stock. There probably is a market for generic pictures. I have been given permission to do so in a few cases but haven't done so to date.

Edited by MDM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, MDM said:

I also include a clause that specifically gives me copyright

Of course you already own it. That was one of the big changes for commissioned work in the CDPA. Section 11 et al.

IIRC I changed my contracts in 1989 to remove the term assigning copyright because it was then otiose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Of course you already own it. That was one of the big changes for commissioned work in the CDPA. Section 11 et al.

IIRC I changed my contracts in 1989 to remove the term assigning copyright because it was then otiose.

 

Yes sure but most people (including many photographers) don't even know what copyright means so I find it best to state everything clearly to avoid misunderstandings later on. Getting on well with clients is important. 

 

As for image rights / privacy etc: look no further than the very recent beach bodies debacle in Spain. Or a certain Conservative leadership candidate and the use of images without permission for political campaigning.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few that I have acquired through copyright transfer. They are clearly amateur family snaps - not really sure what buyer interest there would be - though the clothes and 1970s vibe is probably of most interest. 

 

I can't see that there would be much point uploading thousands of them - most are quite formulaic aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

I can't see that there would be much point uploading thousands of them - most are quite formulaic aren't they?

What you are selecting is pretty interesting though.

Just noticed- 2JJBX1F is a trolleybus (no tracks) and there's a typo in the caption. I'd leave "tram" in (in the tags only) myself though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

What you are selecting is pretty interesting though.

Just noticed- 2JJBX1F is a trolleybus (no tracks) and there's a typo in the caption. I'd leave "tram" in (in the tags only) myself though.

 

Thanks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MDM said:

This is not really a copyright issue - it is about image rights (i.e. the right to license or publish images of other people for commercial gain). Wedding photography is not editorial photography.

 

Thank You! Without model releases, no rights. Copyright isn't the question. And then ethics and contracts and right to personal likeness. No way the photographer can use these images, even if the photographer owns all rights to the image reproduction and the copyright, the question is about use.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Klinger said:

 

Thank You! Without model releases, no rights. Copyright isn't the question. And then ethics and contracts and right to personal likeness. No way the photographer can use these images, even if the photographer owns all rights to the image reproduction and the copyright, the question is about use.

 

 

 

Doesn't this suggest that street photography, or any photography of people without permission, is unethical? 

 

Or does this only apply to pictures of weddings ( in Western society)?

 

I understood the OP's post as relating to him being commissioned and under contract.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Klinger said:

 

Thank You! Without model releases, no rights. Copyright isn't the question. And then ethics and contracts and right to personal likeness. No way the photographer can use these images, even if the photographer owns all rights to the image reproduction and the copyright, the question is about use.

 

OP is in the UK, where litigation isn't quite such a participant sport, and where image rights aren't so well defined. As geog says these are images taken with the permission of the subjects; not, as MDM says, editorial; and, as I said, unless waived by contract, what prevents their use in the UK is, in fact, the law of copyright- the "private and domestic" clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/08/2022 at 23:28, Stargazer said:

I have thousands of wedding and portrait images of which i understand copyright belongs to myself (not signed over) am i allowed to upload these ?


I’ve posted a few wedding shots and had sales from them. In fact my highest ever selling shot on Alamy was from a wedding. With any I’ve wanted to use I’ve contacted the couple direct and asked for their permission to use them. None have had a problem with it, although the images I’ve used are pretty generic wedding shots..

 

two-smartly-dressedhomosexual-gay-men-ho

 

a-bride-and-groom-sign-a-church-marriage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/08/2022 at 12:43, Steve Hyde said:


I’ve posted a few wedding shots and had sales from them. In fact my highest ever selling shot on Alamy was from a wedding. With any I’ve wanted to use I’ve contacted the couple direct and asked for their permission to use them. None have had a problem with it, although the images I’ve used are pretty generic wedding shots..

 

 

It's not a problem if you get permission (I would ask for written permission) as long as everyone in the picture gives it the ok. However, I would not publish pictures of a couple signing a real register as above. In fact I would not even take such pictures in the first place. Most registrars tend to be very fussy about register pictures for data privacy reasons -  frequently there are details of previous weddings on the same page with names and addresses. Typically they will forbid photography during the signing and provide a blank register afterwards for photography. Vicars and priests tend to be more relaxed about it but it's not worth the hassle in my opinion. 

 

 

6 hours ago, vpics said:

Just imagine what would happen, if you put up an image for sale and the couple is now divorced. I wouldn't do it.

 

I did a wedding a few years ago where I got some fantastic shots for my portfolio. The couple split up within a year or so of the wedding but I have continued to use the shots for my portfolio, as I spent a lot of time and energy working on them and I have it in the contract that I can use them for promotional purposes. I would not attempt to make the shots available for sale though. If they asked me to stop using the pics then of course I would do so.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MDM said:

 

It's not a problem if you get permission (I would ask for written permission) as long as everyone in the picture gives it the ok. However, I would not publish pictures of a couple signing a real register as above. In fact I would not even take such pictures in the first place. Most registrars tend to be very fussy about register pictures for data privacy reasons -  frequently there are details of previous weddings on the same page with names and addresses. Typically they will forbid photography during the signing and provide a blank register afterwards for photography. Vicars and priests tend to be more relaxed about it but it's not worth the hassle in my opinion. 

 

 

 

I did a wedding a few years ago where I got some fantastic shots for my portfolio. The couple split up within a year or so of the wedding but I have continued to use the shots for my portfolio, as I spent a lot of time and energy working on them and I have it in the contract that I can use them for promotional purposes. I would not attempt to make the shots available for sale though. If they asked me to stop using the pics then of course I would do so.

 

Edited by Steve Hyde
Thought better of it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.