This is very believable, resulting from a poor understanding of copyright and intellectual rights laws which are widely ignored but are a real feast for lawyers. The principle can be summarised by the fact that if the photographer was paid a fee for taking the photographs, he does not have any right to sell or use the images in any way without the written permission of the client. If however, like many in the wedding trade, he does not charge an attendance or assignment fee but makes his money from print sales both he and his clients are governed by the written contract made between them before the photographs were taken, and this is where lawyers can earn big fees, arguing over the interpretation of the contract.
It is never safe to use any photograph for any purpose without written permission unless it was your own idea, taken in your own time and at your own expense, and even then you may require a model release or disclaimer . . . but don't take my word for it because it is actually far more complicated than that, as some have found to their cost.
Hate to hear you feel that way Crom. What do you do for a living? Are there any bad apples in your line of work? Would you wish to be lumped in and judged as no better than the very worst of the lot, by someone whom you have never even met? @cromwell
@cromwell Ah, Crom. I don't think you meant to insult, but I've been a lawyer for 13 years now and I don't think it has turned me into scum (or that it ever will). I know a lot of good people who happen to practice law for their livelihood. We're not categorically bad people. :)
@rockinrobyn -- Well, of course there are always a few exceptions, like the lovely and talented Robyn. :-)
I still rate lawyers somewhere between politicians and used car salesmen on the scale of scum. I base this on life expierences. If I ever have a good encounter with one in real life then maybe the balance may shift. I'm still waiting...
@wordpixman from my understanding the lawsuit is because the cliet didn't like the pictures, even though the client himself put them all in facebook and his friends liked the images and made comments about the images being great. The photographer also didn't give the client a contract...bad bad bad move.
@cromwell@jreyna . . . Thank you. I don't much like lawyers either, but photographers are asking for trouble if they don't read the small print which has the force of law, or fail to make it very clear in larger print exactly what rights they claim, reserve or grant when accepting a client's instructions or requests. In this situation a verbal contract is not worth the paper it's not written on, and the excuse "well, he/she did it first" is not a defence, so the moral of the story is to be careful. It is also not unknown for a client to buy a single set of prints and save money by copying them to give to their friends, which sounds sensible and harmless enough but as it deprives the photographer of further income it should be made very clear in the contract whether this right is covered by the initial fee. It's a minefield, so be careful out there. As for not liking the pictures, that is a matter for consumer law ... ask for a refund, and only go to law if both parties cannot agree a proportional sum.
@cromwell Wow, that is quite a stereotypical generalization. I'm a really nice and friendly guy who happens to make his living as a lawyer. Never judge a book by its cover, my friend.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
It is never safe to use any photograph for any purpose without written permission unless it was your own idea, taken in your own time and at your own expense, and even then you may require a model release or disclaimer . . . but don't take my word for it because it is actually far more complicated than that, as some have found to their cost.
I still rate lawyers somewhere between politicians and used car salesmen on the scale of scum. I base this on life expierences. If I ever have a good encounter with one in real life then maybe the balance may shift. I'm still waiting...