Wedding photos - i really need advice, is this right??

missimaxo

Tozer wrote: »

Funnily enough if the OP did NOT sign a contract (and waive their moral rights to privacy in a commissioned photograph) then they cannot ask for the photos to be removed.

As far as I could see the OP does not make reference to signing a contract or not, what they said was that they had not given permission. I would be very surprised if they had not signed a contract and was just suggestion they check the wording to see if they had forgotton or not realised they had given permission.

Ste_C

Tozer wrote: »

Sorry but no it is not incorrect. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act states that the 'author' is the owner of the copyright. These are called the 'economic rights'.

The only exception (again in the CDPA) is that when copyrighted work is created in the course of employment.

Releases and such like are used to get around possible infringement of 'moral rights'.

I'm well aware of the ownership of copyright, I'm not disputing that.

But technically it's wrong of him to try and sell the prints without a model release.

In any case, I fail to see why this thread is dragging on. Common sense would tell anyone to just ring the photographer in the first place, tell him you don't like it and that'll be the end of it.

Why people constantly feel the need to bang on about their rights rather than just using common sense I don't know

Tozer

Ste_C wrote: »

I'm well aware of the ownership of copyright, I'm not disputing that.

But technically it's wrong of him to try and sell the prints without a model release.

In any case, I fail to see why this thread is dragging on. Common sense would tell anyone to just ring the photographer in the first place, tell him you don't like it and that'll be the end of it.

Why people constantly feel the need to bang on about their rights rather than just using common sense I don't know

Model releases are just a means to obtain a waiver of the moral rights. Technically, according to CDPA, there is no need to obtain them.

Best practise dictates that it is useful to have - particularly as the laws on privacy are becoming tighter in this country.

Position is as I said - Ownership - if silent (i.e. not assigned to OP), photographer. Photographer has the economic rights and so can sell.

Exhibiting - if silent, OP can object. If OP has waived moral rights (in a contract or other release) then OP is without a remedy.

Tozer

Ste_C wrote: »

I'm well aware of the ownership of copyright, I'm not disputing that.

Oh, by the way, I thought the word "Incorrect" was a form of disputing what I said...

pinkshoes

Amy,

Your first port of call would be to look at the contract you signed detailing the copyright and distribution of the photos.

You should then speak to the photographer and highlight your concerns to him in a calm and non-accusational manner. It's quite normal for photographers to display their work on their web page, so perhaps in the excitement of getting married, you didn't double check the copy right details?

I'm sure if you explain all this to the photographer, and talk it through, then you can come to some sort of agreement. There's no need for legal advice at this point.

Tozer

pinkshoes wrote: »

. There's no need for legal advice at this point.

In fairness, it is important for the OP to actually know her rights in this matter.

pinkshoes

Tozer wrote: »

In fairness, it is important for the OP to actually know her rights in this matter.

True, but surely it's better to try and sort this out amicably before going in all guns blazing??? If there is no amicable solution (i.e. the photographer won't remove the photos at the OP's request), THEN it's time to seek legal advice and find out rights.

I personally think it's always best to sort things out amicably first, in case the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

Tozer

pinkshoes wrote: »

True, but surely it's better to try and sort this out amicably before going in all guns blazing??? If there is no amicable solution (i.e. the photographer won't remove the photos at the OP's request), THEN it's time to seek legal advice and find out rights.

I personally think it's always best to sort things out amicably first, in case the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

Couldn't agree more but forewarned is forearmed.

Tozer

OP - any update?

advent1122

Ste_C wrote: »

Incorrect. To use photographs of people commercially, photographers need a signed model release form for each photo from the subject (i.e the OP).

WOW!! I didn't know this.
It must make the paparazzi's job a headache getting a release form signed by the people they stalk..