Photographer contract clause on image use and copyright, is this standard?

[cqwa]

I would really like full ownership of the images- is that not normal or something that is done? Also I don't want them on their website, is that not normal?

Model Release: The Clients grant the Photographer the irrevocable and
unlimited consent to use the photographs of the Clients for editorial,
competition, advertising and any other purpose and in any manner, to alter
the photographs without restriction; and to copyright the images. The
Clients hereby release the Photographer from all liability and claims in
connection with the images.

Copyright Law: The copyright of photographs remains with the Photographer. The Photographer grants the Clients permission to make copies of the images under the following conditions. The final images may not be altered or manipulated in any way.

This is for a wedding!

Mine was optional. I ticked not to use the images publicly for advertising or social media etc.
just say you don’t agree to images being used. You don’t have to

Totally normal. Copyright remains with the photographer - they are never ‘your’ photos. Even if you want to take them elsewhere to get copies you need the photographer’s permission.

Wedding photos are a rip off. You pay extortionate money for an album you will barely ever look at again. We had friends and family take photos and send them to us and we made a great album that way. We’ e got it out twice in 25 years, both times because old friends who couldn’t be there were visiting from abroad, so they had a quick shuffle through at their own request.

Unless you are planning your wedding for social media, nobody actually needs photos of brides with rollers in their hair holding champagne, etc - it’s all toe-curlingly cringy.

Thank you for responding - @tiredofworking this one isn't a box to untick it's in the main contract, I'll ask for it to be removed. Is the copyright part normal?

I didn't copy the whole of the copyright part- here it is:

Copyright Law: The copyright of photographs remains with the Photographer.
The Photographer grants the Clients permission to make copies of the images
under the following conditions. The final images may not be altered or
manipulated in any way. Images taken by the Photographer are for personal
use by the Clients, their friends and relatives. Sale, Publication or any
Commercial use of the photographs is not allowed without prior written
permission from the Photographer.

@MildlyMoist I get that but I would regret not having one!

Some relevant info here.

I want to use photos taken for me by a professional photographer

Where you commission a professional to take photographs on your behalf, for example wedding photographs, the copyright will usually remain with the photographer. This means that you need to get the photographer’s permission before printing further copies of the images, sharing them with your friends or family, or undertaking other acts restricted by copyright such as posting the images to social media sites.

Many photographers will include licence terms setting out exactly what use you may make of images in their contract with you. If you have specific uses in mind, you should ensure these are discussed before contracts are settled. You could also agree with the photographer that the copyright will be assigned to you – this would be done by having a written and signed contract with the photographer saying you had bought the copyright from them. Depending on your needs, a less expensive solution may be to pay for a licence.

Where a photograph is commissioned for private and domestic purposes, the commissioner does have a right that the photographs will not be issued to the public without their permission. This means that, although a wedding photographer may own the copyright in images of your wedding, they should not post them on their website or exhibit them in public without your permission.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet

You don’t own the photos - the photographer does. They give you a licence to use and print them but they’re not yours.

You can ask that they’re not used on social media or their website - that’s a common request. But photographer may not agree so you have to decide whether you want to carry on or find someone else.

Yes, that is perfectly normal.

Unless you buy the copyright from the photographer (which would come with a cost), they will own the copyright in the photos they take. Unless the contract specifically gives you permission you cannot make copies of the photos at all, even for personal use. If you wanted to give a copy of a photo to a friend or relative, you would have to buy a copy from the photographer. This photographer is granting you a license allowing you to make copies provided you comply with certain conditions.

Ask the photographer how much extra they would charge to give you the photgraphs and have the right to make copies. They should give you a price provided you commit to buying a certian number of prints.

On the copyright, the clause is standard and unlikely to change. It essentially means you can’t profit from them but, as stated, you can make copies, an album etc, share them with family. It is unlikely they will agree to that changing and unlikely it will limit you from doing what you want to do with them. What is it you would like to do that you think this will prevent you from doing?

In terms of use for publicity, social media etc, it is pretty standard but I expect there may be some flexibility here. I wouldn’t just ask for it to be removed wholesale, though, let the photographer know what specifically it is you are uncomfortable with them doing and see if it can be tweaked to reflect that.

Copyright - normal.
Social media - ask to opt out if it bothers you.

I disagree that it's a rip-off. We have our professional wedding photo framed and on display and it brings us joy nearly 40 years later. The DC used to love looking at the album when they were younger too.

I regularly book photographers for work (advertising and editorial)

it’s totally normal to include clauses like you’ve mentioned here.
in the world of commercial work we’d pay extra (a few thousand!) for ownership and usage rights.
in the world of private work (like weddings) most photographers include these clauses as standard so that they know if they want to update their website or social media they have the right to use your pics without coming back to ask you, but if ask them to remove it they’ll likely do so without charge, and just not use your pics for their own promotion.

Completely standard - ask them about removing that clause, they will probably quote you quite a bit.

Totally normal. You can request the change before you sign.

total rip off. Especially if you get divorced

In what way is it a rip off and how is divorce relevant?

How so? The legal position when it comes to copyright and ownership is that copyright belongs with the person who created the work. In this case, it is the photographer who created the images so the copyright belongs to them.

Generally, photographers grant you a licence to use, and print and share for personal use. If you want it for any other reason, then that verges on to a business relationship in which case it’s not unreasonable that the photographer will be more restrictive with how its work is used.

Don’t like, don’t use a photographer.

that's normal and actually pretty generous because it allows you to make and give away as many copies as you wish because it includes permission to give them to "friends" Some say no copies at all although I think that's getting less common for ordinary weddings, graduations and so on. Many more say "clients and relatives"

'Publication' is a bit vague here. Does social media count as publication? A personal blog/website?

I know someone who had a nightmare with a photographer at their wedding. They were on a budget and a number of friends helped them out with things for the big day, including someone who gifted a wedding cake from their bakery business.

Once the bride had posted their photos on Facebook, the friend who'd done the cake spotted a nice picture of it and asked if she could share it on her Facebook and Instagram.

A couple of weeks later the photographer sent an invoice to the bakery for hundreds of pounds for unauthorized commercial use of their image. A few weeks later he sent a letter before action stating that if he had to take her to court, he would also seek damages for reputational harm as the image had been altered - she'd used a filter and some cartoon graphics when posting it.

The baker took legal advice and was told to pay up, and that she'd need to sue her friend to recoup the money. She didn't, but it caused a big rift in their friend group.

To cap it off the photographer emailed the bride to say that he was considering legal action against her for breach of contract for allowing the commercial use of his images. Apparently he has a bit of a reputation in the industry for taking legal action.

Which I guess is the moral of the story - if you're hiring a professional that you don't know, expect them to behave like a business rather than a person.

"Publication" is not at all vague. It is defined in section 175 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and means issuing copies of the images to the public, including making them available by means of an electronic retrieval system. Posting an image on Facebook or any other social media is publishing it, for example.

Best option to avoid these problems is to hire a photographer who charges a daily fee for professional services but gives you copyright, student photographers are often a good bet