[DennisH]

I am asking this for a friend; I am not a professional, and I know there have been threads on the subject, but I didn't want to hijack them.

If you hire a wedding photographer, it is probably within that photog's rights to post the pics on his website as advertising, correct? I don't know what type of contract was signed, but I assume it was a standard release.

Is it normal to sign a release saying that the photographer could then sell a photo to another company for their advertising? That is apparently what happened here - a photo is being used on a limo company's site.

Also, do both parties have to sign the contract? In this case, the bride did not.

If the photographer cannot produce the contract, is my friend within her rights to demand the photos be taken down?

Sorry about the general nature of the questions, but if you can help get me started that would be great.

[bdery]

I believe if there was no contract, the pictures should not be distributed. If there was a contract, look what's in there.

[DennisH]

There was a contract (I don't have it yet), but the bride didn't sign it - only the groom.

At this point, I guess I'm only asking what's "normal." I fully expect that the photographer can use them for his own website, but to sell them to another company seems odd.

[flyer]

The photographer has all the copyrights, but he can't sell any pictures without a release signed by all the people on the pictures. There are some exceptions for editorial/educational purpose, but the generally accepted practice is to have releases signed by everybody involved. Having the right to use the pictures for his publicity is not the same thing as having the right to sell them to third parties.

[DennisH]

Thanks, flyer, that's what I gathered from the bit of research I did last night.

Come to find out, there was no contract of any kind. My position is that he can use them on his own website, but he cannot give or sell them to the limo company.

[maxwell1295]

It is my understanding that the images cannot be used commercially or sold for profit without a model release.

[George Lama]

Agreed - assuming there was indeed no contract and no discussion over the selling of the images: whoever is printing/producing the ad should require a model release however chances are they will not ask.

She should first ask the photog and if he/she refuses, wait for the ad to be produced/printed then have an attorney send a cease and desist order to the limo company. The limo company will not be all too happy they got in trouble over someone else's unauthorized use of images.

[DennisH]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. You've been most helpful.

[Wheatfield]

Thanks, flyer, that's what I gathered from the bit of research I did last night.

Come to find out, there was no contract of any kind. My position is that he can use them on his own website, but he cannot give or sell them to the limo company.

If he wants to sell them to his Limo company, he would need a release, and the subject should be getting some form of compensation.
As far as ownership goes, that depends on the copyright laws in your country.
In the USA, if I am not istaken, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the creator of the work is considered first holder of copyright, and though there are probably some exceptions to this, wedding photography is not likely to be one of them.

In Canada, it is exactly the opposite. Here, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the person who commissioned the work is first holder of copyright.
All you TFP'rs take note: in Canada, if the model approaches you, and there is no contract, the model owns the work, not you.

[code4code5]

I've been recruited to do some senior photos for a friend of mine's daughter. She really enjoys my work and feels comfortable working with me. The agreement that I've made with them is that since I have never had a professional gig before, I will charge her only for the prints and use the results of the shoot to start my portfolio. Just in case, I've prepared a model release and a minor model release, both of which indicate that I own the copyright to the photos and may use them for advertisement, promotion, or "any other purpose."

My employer requires that I "apply" for outside employment and it must be approved by the department head before I can accept any compensation whatsoever. I'd rather not lose my 80k a year job, so perhaps this is the motivation I need to submit that paperwork.