[Pavel_Zhelev]

I would like to add to the discussion. I believe that there is some confusion between intellectual copyright and commercial rights. When you sell a photograph, the customer buys some commercial rights; these rights might differ from country to country and from contract to contract. But the intellectual property (or ownership) remains with the photographer who took the photograph.

I regularly provide (commercially and freely) photographs to publishers (for educational books, scientific journals...). The publisher gains permission to use the photograph(s) for commercial purpose. But I retain the intellectual copyright of the shot(s) as the photographer who took the photograph, and I can list the photograph on my portofoilo and resume.

I fully appreciate that wedding photographs may be a different business....

I agree however this is valid for the type of Right Managed (RM) images, and yes it is different with the assignment work where you have an employer and this employer pays you salary for certain service (I assume you are not under contract with the mentioned publishers and you are not receiving salary from them, they are paying as per picture basis). With the RM images the copyright holder is always the photographer, but these usually are images on selected from the photographer subjects in his/her "free" or "workflow" time between the assignments or as a freelancer.

[MPrince]

If you're really concerned about the language in the contract, you need to consult an attorney, preferably one with experience in intellectual property rights.