Morganni Wrote:As I recall, there's basically court precedence regarding photography and copyright that effectively says you have to specifically ask - or be provided - direct transfer of the copyright or it remains with the photographer. It's probably related to contract law, and few people think to ask about it when they hire the photographer, which would ensure it's basically the common setting.JFerio Wrote:Hired to shoot a wedding? The copyright should be provided to the couple.Isn't it usually not, or has that changed? I remember when my store had a photo lab, and we pretty regularly had to tell people that we couldn't make copies of their professionally-taken photos (including wedding ones). Always struck me as a bit of a scam.
-Morgan. And what if the photographer goes out of business, eh?
When I was involved in a wedding about 12 years ago, there was an effort to actually find a photographer that did the "work for hire" copyright transfer as a matter of course. He explained his position as "I don't have to keep negatives for years, few do reprints, and if I retire or go out of business, my clients don't get screwed in the process."
I do think it's a scam, particularly since few photographers pre-digital maintained their own home color labs so you'd have the additional issue of marking up the processing charges.
--
"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor