What is the legal stance on copyright with wedding photographers?

I have asked my niece to get me a few copies of her wedding photographs.She told me that the photographer had refused to let her have a copy(ie negatives or cd) of the photographs and should she require extra, they have to be ordered through him as he retains copyright. I could not belive this as my brother had paid the photograher nearly 拢700 for the original assignment. I have since discovered that my niece was told that the photos would be ready when she returned from honeymoon. When she returned she expected to look at the photographs and choose which she wanted in the albumn. In fact he had already decided on the photos and had the albumns made up. Surely, this can not be right. Could anybody please explain to me what standing we have in law to obtain a copy of the original photos.
Thanks

He took the photo's. With his camera. He owns them, he can do whatever he likes and charge as much as he likes..

I know this because im a photographer, I know all to well the copyright laws surrounding the pictures you've taken.

You have to play his game unfortunatly.

A lesson = Always read the contract that you sign!

I have a friend who does the same kind of work. He offers two types of contract, one of which is the same as yours.

The other is where you just pay him a daily rate and he gives you all rights to copyrights. This is the more expensive option as it means he won't get any further income as you are free to get your prints and framing done wherever you wish.

I afraid you don't have much choice other than to try and negotiate a better deal.

When it comes to the rights, yes, he does indeed hold them and the contract she signed will have stated that.

However, when it comes to choosing the pictures for the album, she should have had some say in that because she commissioned the pictures, unless of course she waived that right in the contract. If not, I reckon she has a right to take him to the small claims court for not fulfilling his contract i.e reviewing the photos when she returned from honeymoon. If this isn't covered in the contract she could still have a case about a verbal contract being negated although this will be much more difficult to prove. Either way, she could make life less pleasant for him.

Hi. Unfortuantly (for your niece) the photographer is legally allowed to do this! I recently got married and had the option to buy a copy of all the photos on a cd AND the rights to them. Like someone on here has already said, it was the photographers equipment and he took all the pics so they belong to him.

As for the album, I would expect to (and was able to) pick the ones I wanted in my album. Unfortuantly I think your niece will have to put this down to experience and treat it as a "lesson learned". On the positive side....her album is ready after her honeymoon! My husband and I are still waiting for ours and we got married in September last year!

Before the advent of digital photography, when we hired a wedding photographer - often for considerably more than GBP 700 - it was with the understanding that the photographer would not only take the pictures but also provide a specific number prints. We also accepted that he or she would be our source for any reprints.

After the pictures were taken, these old-school photographers often went to great lengths to transform an ordinarily pretty woman into a ravishing beauty and a nice-looking fellow into a dashing matin茅e idol. After all, referrals were - and still are - the life blood of a professional photographer.

What we were actually paying for was the photographer's skill, his or her talent at manipulating these raw images - not the ability to push a button. Otherwise, we would have simply been satisfied with the output of Aunt Agnes's pocket Kodak - warts, spots, double chins and all.

And we never questioned this. We considered it our God-given right to have beautiful pictures of our wedding, never really thinking about the sheer amount of time, effort and expense that went into making them such.

We also never questioned the photographer's ownership of the negatives, or his or her right to be the only one to print from them. It was simply "understood".

So what's changed, really?

Nothing. Chemically or electronically, that photographer still created the images and, unless the entire wedding party was physically spectacular, probably worked very hard to make daddy's frumpy little girl look like a princess and mum's upper plate less obvious.

Regardless of the agreement in place, I can't imagine any court, anywhere, deciding that the photographer's time, effort and expertise were of no value.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I also can't imagine a photographer taking the liberty to select the photos to be included in the final album! So unless the contract specifies that this is, indeed, the case, your niece should be entitled to select the ones she likes. In any event, most photographers would prefer to accommodate a client than suffer the consequences of making one unhappy.

Unless the agreement specifies that the fee INCLUDES copyright ownership of the original images - which I find highly unlikely - they belong to the person who created them.

You can, however, offer to buy ownership...an offer the photographer is free to accept or reject.

I'm hoping this is a simple misunderstanding, and that the photographer, in light of your niece's disappointment, will reprint the album to her satisfaction.

Best wishes for a resolution.

He owns them....would you cook your uncles friend for nothing....yezzz...some people

If you want the original photos....pay for them..

Who owns the the copyright to the photographs is determined by the contract. Most wedding photographers make themselves the copyright owners. Many advertising companies hire photographers under a contract that has the company the copyright owner.

Although I do not know the UK laws, I suspect that if the photographer told her she could review the photos to select which photos she wanted for her album, and the photographer instead put HIS selection in the album, then that is breach of contract. Written contracts CAN be superseded by oral agreements, unless the contract specifically prohibits that.

I recommend reading the contract very carefully. If it does not mention that HE gets to choose the photos in the album, and he did say she would select the photos, I think you would have good standing in law to force him to let her select the photos for the album.

It is often difficult to enforce an oral agreement in court, but his decision for HIM to choose the photos instead of the bride is so at odds with the usual practice that you ought to win, even if it is her word against his.