Wedding photographer copyright?

Why does the wedding photographer own the copyright that he takes and not the bride and groom? I mean, it's very unfair the fact that they are the one who are on the photos and they pay a lot of money to get their photos taken but the photographer is the one who holds the legal right to keep the negatives/digital files and the publication rights

The bottom line is- if your want the rights to your wedding photo's make sure it's in the contract (don't just take the photographer's word-because it won't stand up in court)this way thier's no "missunderstanding" just be prepared to pay more because most wedding photographer's will say that it takes away from their income ie; not being able to sell you future prints.I should know- I am a wedding photographer!

David.

The photographer owns the copyright because they created the image. Just like a painter who paints an image.

However, some photographers will do a WFH (work for hire) agreement where you own all the rights. Be prepared to pay significantly more for this type of arrangement.

It just depends on the contract you sign with the photographer. Not all photographers are that way - however, it is a business - the majority of their advertisements are going to be from previous works.

The photographer owns the copyrights, not publishing rights, unless you have signed a model release.

It is NOT unfair. The photographer spends so much money and time perfecting his craft that he should have the right to sell the product to you and assure that it is done in a quality that reflects his work.

Can you reproduce any authors work at will? People deserve to make a living at what they invest their lives into.

Is it fair that we spend 8 hours at your wedding day, countless hours retouching only to have you take your images to Wal-Mart and we don't see a single profitable cent?

Anyone who creates something on an artistic medium (painting, poetry, drawing, photography, etc.) owns the copyright of the work they created. After all, we created it, why shouldn't we own it? The creation is a collaberation of our ideas and training put to use.

Now, some photographers (myself included) do sell reproduction rights to the photographs. Some photogaphers will go as far as selling the copyright to that photo. This isn't advised because we lose certain rights to your photos such as display, reproduction, use in a sellable product, etc. Usually the fee for this is quite high because mainly, photographers make the majority of their money on the prints you buy, not the hours put into the wedding itself.

You also need to realize that all the money we make off a wedding isn't profit. 90% of it goes into prints, equipment upgrades, future training, albums, frames, etc..

When you hire a photographer, you are only paying for their time. A painter paints, an writer writes, a photographer photographs... it is the photographer's artistic ability that creates the photos.

Like they say, "Everything comes down to money!" It is the way we make a living, so we can't just give those rights away.

There are some photographers out there they will give you a CD of your photographs... if you're that concerned about it then you should look into hiring one of those.

I'm a long time film producer now planning my own wedding, and am quite shocked by the contracts I'm reviewing that give copyright to photographer for what I consider well beyond "work for hire" prices I'm used to in professional world. I'm especially puzzled by the reproduction clauses, since by law (in the USA) you cannot reproduce without consent of people whose appearance has been captured, and I don't expect our photographer will be asking permission as he goes along during our wedding day - nor will I. So ultimately the photographer is asking me to sign something that I can't possibly grant. I truly feel that because it's a wedding, photographers charge more and expect to get more out of it just because brides and grooms don't know better (since hopefully it's their one and only big event planning).

My sister in law paid almost $4000 for her wedding pictures taken and didn't get her negatives at all (the photographer said that they would give them away on their 25th wedding anniversaries). But at the same time, the photographer uses their wedding pictures in his portfolio and website without her consent. I think that is unfair and morally wrong but so many photographers are doing the same. It is totally a scam!

And I don't believe that 90% of the profits goes into printing, equipment upgrades, future training, albums, frames and bla-bla bla..

some of my friends are professional photographers and they make their money return after the do 4-5 weddings.

He owns the copyright because he is legally the creator of the work.
Normally what you pay for is the photographer's time and skill and a initial set of prints. The fee you pay does not give you any claim to copyright (unless this is expressly stated in the contract).

Think of it this way:-If you take a photo of your cat, does your cat now own the copyright on the photo? of course not!