Giving up Copyright??

[Bnack]

So I have a question. I'm an amateur photographer who has never done any assignment work before. A friend of mine has asked that I photograph her and her now husband at their farm as engagement photos etc... I explained to her what I expected costs to be etc, and said that I would then get any prints made that they would want, but I would retain copyright on the images and would keep all originals. She has then specifically asked that I would photograph them and give them a CD with all originals so they can print what and release all copyrights to them. This doesn't seem right to me, but I wanted to get others thoughts and opinions on this. Do I hold onto CR at all cost, or is it ok to allow them to have the originals? Thanks for any sage advice I might receive.

[nikonhswebmaster]

It is common practice in the wedding photography industry to hold onto the negatives, and rights. It is one of the major scams in that industry, and why I personally find it all pretty repulsive.

If they are friends give 'em the stuff, and you retain them also.

[kevin m]

It is common practice in the wedding photography industry to hold onto the negatives, and rights.

was common practice.

[dmr]

was common practice.

A good friend of mine was recently a MOB. The photographer they hired (I assertively declined) provided CDs of everything and yes, this was a big factor in their hiring. They even said "we're in the business of taking photos, not selling prints."

[mhv]

By giving away your negatives and scans you are not automatically giving away your copy right. Legally, you are still the originator of the work, and copies cannot be sold without your authorization. That's what I understand of Hogarth's law: it's about the right to sell copies (yes, the MAFIAA are also against non-commercial copies, but that's another problem).

I'm not sure why your friend wants you to waive your legal rights to the photos. Maybe she just wants to have the negatives to print as she wants (a reasonable request), and is confusing the legal with the practical.

Personally, I don't have a problem with letting a friend have the negatives of herself, but I would make sure to be very clear on the legal ramifications. IANAL.

[jwhitley]

It is common practice in the wedding photography industry to hold onto the negatives, and rights.

At least in the Seattle area as of a few years ago, this practice was very much on the decline. Most (all?) of the photogs that my wife and I talked to had reasonable terms along the following lines: The photographer retained some specific rights useful to their business (e.g. promotional use), we retain all else, and we got the negatives for all film.

I'll pose that with so many photographers shooting digital, the concept of "keeping the negatives" became irrelevant. This applied a similar pressure to anyone still shooting film. Decent quality scanning also provided a straightforward way for the photographer to keep selected copies for promotional use.

[Bnack]

Ok.... seems to make sense to me. For my own purposes I think what's important is that I'm able to use these to promote my photography in the future. Whatever they do with them doesn't much matter to me (assuming they weren't somehow trying to make money off them). So it sounds like I can allow them to have the originals but still retain the rights to use my photographs for a portfolio etc...

[M. Valdemar]

What do you care what they do with them?

Technically, what you're agreeing to is called a "work for hire".

Traditionally, when an entity hires someone to do a "work for hire", the employer retains the copyright.

This is sometimes waived with big name writers and photographers, but in the case of wedding photos of a non-celebrity, demanding to retain copyright is somewhat ridiculous.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html

Google "work for hire" in quotes and you can find free contracts and forms if you want to be a stickler for it.

[nikonhswebmaster]

At least in the Seattle area as of a few years ago, this practice was very much on the decline. Most (all?) of the photogs that my wife and I talked to had reasonable terms along the following lines: The photographer retained some specific rights useful to their business (e.g. promotional use), we retain all else, and we got the negatives for all film.

I'll pose that with so many photographers shooting digital, the concept of "keeping the negatives" became irrelevant. This applied a similar pressure to anyone still shooting film. Decent quality scanning also provided a straightforward way for the photographer to keep selected copies for promotional use.

I have not paid much attention to it, but the fact that this work is now being treated as "work for hire" sure is a breath of fresh air.

The concept of wedding albums was the backbone of a lot of wedding work.

The whole thing seem ridiculous to me, I would much rather hire a friend and get beautiful causal photos, not the horrors produced by many photogs.

[maddoc]

I was once asked by friends to take photos at their wedding, as a "backup" to the professional photographer and to take non-formal photographs. They received an album from the pro with selected photos and I gave them the prints of my photos together with the negatives as a small present. Kept me out of any "business" related stuff ... :)

[Paul T.]

What do you care what they do with them?

Technically, what you're agreeing to is called a "work for hire".

Traditionally, when an entity hires someone to do a "work for hire", the employer retains the copyright.

First sentence is true, but not the rest. You are a freelance worker, not the employee of the couple. If you were the salaried staff photographer for a newspaper, they would keep copyright; if they had hired you as a freelancer you would retain the copyright, and generally only give it up for an increased fee.

But in any case, you won't be wanting to sell on the prints, unless you expect the couple to become famous (or infamous). Hence you might as well let them have the negs, for non-commercial use, while you retain copyright if you think you might want to use them for promotion etc.

[BillBlackwell]

It sounds like your not a professional and therefore do not do this for a living. That being the case, (IMHO) you could stand to loosen up a bit.

OTOH if their request goes against your principles, just tell them - "I don't do that."

Regarding model releases (those of you who do this for a living can correct me if I am wrong) - your standard contract would cover model releases and your right to use and sell the final images.

As for me, if I had to do photography for a living (I would probably starve to death BTW) and friends wanted to hire me to do some work on the order of what you are representing, I would most likely strike a bargain with them. Friendship (if they are really friends) is more important to me than whatever copyright I would be giving up.

Just remember one thing - they will remember your rigidity - or they will remember your generosity.

[nikonhswebmaster]

First sentence is true, but not the rest. You are a freelance worker, not the employee of the couple. If you were the salaried staff photographer for a newspaper, they would keep copyright; if they had hired you as a freelancer you would retain the copyright, and generally only give it up for an increased fee.

But in any case, you won't be wanting to sell on the prints, unless you expect the couple to become famous (or infamous). Hence you might as well let them have the negs, for non-commercial use, while you retain copyright if you think you might want to use them for promotion etc.

I have worked freelance both "work for hire" and sometimes on a contractual arrangement of ownership of images. The idea that retention of the copyright is going to automatically earn you more money is a nice thought, but often just means you get paid for a single photo rather than a day rate.

Much "freelance" work in NYC, simply means you get a two year contract.

Sometimes freelance "work for hire" I have done, meant I never saw the images at all (during the film era), but just turned in exposed rolls of film.

Some staff photographers retain some rights, all depends on your contract.

[mikeseb]

Paul T. is right. Keep it cordial, keep it businesslike (nowhere more important that when doing business with friends!); but keep the copyright.

In your WRITTEN agreement with the happy couple (you do have a written agreement of some type, don't you?), grant them liberal license to make prints, etc, for PERSONAL use. Retain for yourself the rights to use the images however you wish for promotional purposes.

Friendship works both ways; friends who make unreasonable demands are either ignorant of what they demand, or may not be quite as good friends as you think.

[kaiyen]

I must admit that I'm rather shocked at the highly negative commentary about how wedding photographers are all evil for wanting to keep copyright, etc. I do think there is confusion about keeping the negatives (or full-rez files) and copyright. I also think there is a HUGE misconception about where the margins come from with wedding and event photography. Unless someone is charging a LOT ($5000+), then the margins come from the prints and albums, plain and simple. This is if someone is running this as a primary business and they are in fact billing the processing time as part of the job.

Having said all that, my contract states that I gave full-rez files to the couple, they are allowed to do whatever they want as long as it's for personal use (ie - don't sell them), and that while I retain copyright I only use them for advertising purposes. Anything above and beyond what would constitute normal advertising would involve notification to the couple. When they ask me what "normal" means I give an example of my becoming so famous that I have a billboard or side of a building painted with an advertisement, and I choose one of their photos. And when they ask what "notification" means, I explain that I would inform them that I'm doing it, but that I technically don't need their permission according to the contract.

At the same time, I also explain that if I ever get that famous, they probably wouldn't mind having a photo of them being part of an advert for me, and also that in all reality I would not do such a thing without their consent. But I retain copyright and use for promotional purposes, plain and simple.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I must admit that I'm rather shocked at the highly negative commentary about how wedding photographers are all evil for wanting to keep copyright, etc.

[...]

But I retain copyright and use for promotional purposes, plain and simple.

I know that seems reasonable to wedding photographers.

When I hire photographers for web illustration, I retain all rights, they retain none, other than portfolio use. Otherwise I would simply buy stock photos.

[bobbyrab]

I know that seems reasonable to wedding photographers.

When I hire photographers for web illustration, I retain all rights, they retain none, other than portfolio use. Otherwise I would simply buy stock photos.

So you hire photographers, who if they don't like the terms can go whistle such is the market that you deal with, but why does it p*** you off if in another market photographers are able to retain copyright, I make a reasonable living as a wedding photographer, I'm good value, and don't feel I'm ripping anyone off, do you think I should feel guilty because I don't have to accept the terms you offer to people working for you.

[nikonhswebmaster]

So you hire photographers, who if they don't like the terms can go whistle such is the market that you deal with, but why does it p*** you off if in another market photographers are able to retain copyright, I make a reasonable living as a wedding photographer, I'm good value, and don't feel I'm ripping anyone off, do you think I should feel guilty because I don't have to accept the terms you offer to people working for you.

You are absolutely right, it's your call, I have to hire as "work for hire." It does not piss me off at all that you do not want to work as "work for hire" why would it??? Each person has to work in a way they feel comfortable.

I have had many clients who do not want to see photos published as illustrations on another client's web site. That would be a waste of money, they might as well buy stock. They do not want to see their CEO as an illustration on CNN.

However when I have worked with some clients, who did not want their copyright images, or logos, on my web site, since they were concerned about dilution of service marks.

For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone would want their personal wedding photos anywhere outside of their control. It was OK in the day when the photographer was just using them as samples, but on the web? Not for me, but I am not getting married.

I know many freelance photographers who do retain rights, on portraits, usually after a period of time, and they make a lot of money off the stock sales. The original shots are usually priced accordingly.

[kaiyen]

When I hire photographers for web illustration, I retain all rights, they retain none, other than portfolio use. Otherwise I would simply buy stock photos.

So you're having them do work for hire. That's completely different than this situation. And if you are having photographers do work for hire then you should know that. I've done work for hire as well but it's not the same thing.

My point, somewhere in there, is that we should stay on topic for the OP. He isn't doing work for hire.

[nikonhswebmaster]

So you're having them do work for hire. That's completely different than this situation. And if you are having photographers do work for hire then you should know that. I've done work for hire as well but it's not the same thing.

My point, somewhere in there, is that we should stay on topic for the OP. He isn't doing work for hire.

It has always been my position that wedding photography is private, and therefore should be considered "work for hire," since the photos are specifically for the one user exclusively. In the past negatives were held for one reason, to sell prints. My guess is that many couples no longer want prints but perhaps want a web site?

As noted, since a number of photographers are now releasing the negatives, they also agree it is indeed "work for hire," and not a contract photo, where the rights might be shared with stock agencies and the like.

[bobbyrab]

What is it you find repulsive then, and indeed what are the scams that we're getting up to, as your initial statement implied more than the one issue?

[kaiyen]

um. unless someone says that it is work for hire, using those specific terms, in a contract, then it is not work for hire. so since my contract does not say I am doing photography as work for hire, I retain copyright. it's a legal term.

[nikonhswebmaster]

What is it you find repulsive then, and indeed what are the scams that we're getting up to, as your initial statement implied more than the one issue?

A lot of wedding photography in the US was [is] run like the funeral business, the kind of thing everyone has to do, but no one really likes much. At least in the US there are huge wedding photography trade shows. For some it is just big business. People spend $5000 and more to get a book of sentimental crap.

As I implied in other posts, as an artist, I would prefer to give a friend $5000 for 5 great photos, rather than the usual 50 mediocre photos.

I don't think "repulsive" is the word I would choose. Many famous photographers supported themselves doing weddings or portraits. Diane Arbus springs to mind. I did portraits when I was a "kid."

Like any industry, there are good wedding photographers and terrible ones.

[bobbyrab]

fair enough

[M. Valdemar]

This is really almost in the realm of the absurd.

A couple getting married hires a photographer to take photos of their wedding.

They are not celebrities and the wedding is a private event, not a public "celebrity" or "royal" wedding.

They are paying the photographer to produce images for them, prints, web photos, whatever.

Why on earth would they want the photographer to own unlimited license to market their photos in the future or "own" the photos?

It's ridiculous. Moronic.

The images belong to the wedding couple, the photographer can retain rights to display some of the photos for his promotional web site or portfolio.

That's it. Case closed.

Photographers can chose to work for hire, and publishers can chose to buy all rights. I personally negotiated some of these deals. It's probably little known that photographers like Helmut Newton did work for girly magazines as "work for hire", and relinquished all rights to them. Well, it's true. When someone needs money, they make deals.

If a publisher pays for the shoot, he is entitled to the rights to the photos, in their way of thinking.

Other deals can be "first rights", for example, where a photographer shoots on spec, if the publisher buys them, he has exclusive right of first publication, say for a year or two.

Then the photographer is free to sell "second rights" to all and sundry.

There is nothing set in stone, and most of the "internet generation" of photographers who post online have absurd, childish ideas of ownership, and of the importance of their own work, which is usually quite grandiose.

[kaiyen]

Okay - back to the original OP, since the rest of this thread is getting stupid. I think you're fine in wanting to keep copyright. But it is also my opinion that it is perfectly legit for the couple to want the right to do whatever they want, as long as it's not commercial, with the photos. so you are giving them an unlimited non-commercial license.

This is my opinion. I don't think anything is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, whatever. This is just my opinion. There is a big difference between licensing and copyright relinquishment. The couple will be fine, in my opinion, once they understand that.

[M. Valdemar]

It is absurd to want to retain copyright to photos of a private wedding that one has been hired to photograph. The couple can do WHATEVER they want with them.

Okay - back to the original OP, since the rest of this thread is getting stupid. I think you're fine in wanting to keep copyright. But it is also my opinion that it is perfectly legit for the couple to want the right to do whatever they want, as long as it's not commercial, with the photos. so you are giving them an unlimited non-commercial license.

This is my opinion. I don't think anything is absurd, stupid, ridiculous, whatever. This is just my opinion. There is a big difference between licensing and copyright relinquishment. The couple will be fine, in my opinion, once they understand that.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It is absurd to want to retain copyright to photos of a private wedding that one has been hired to photograph. The couple can do WHATEVER they want with them.

No they can't, not unless the photographer gives them the copyright, or a license to 'do what they want'. Years ago I worked for a major drugstore chain. We were fanatical about refusing to copy professionally made photos because the company I worked for was sued by a photographer who objected to a wedding customer 'doing what they want' with the photos he took. The store lost and paid a LARGE settlement. $50,000 if I remember correctly what the store manager told me back then. (it wasn't the location I worked at, but all the stores got paranoid after that....copyright law in the USA holds the stores responsible for copyright infringing they allow on their machines).

I agree with you that wedding photographers should sell the right to make unlimited prints, but it is not a 'right' the customer has when they pay for the service. Not under US law.

[nikonhswebmaster]

No they can't, not unless the photographer gives them the copyright, or a license to 'do what they want'. Years ago I worked for a major drugstore chain. We were fanatical about refusing to copy professionally made photos because the company I worked for was sued by a photographer who objected to a wedding customer 'doing what they want' with the photos he took. The store lost and paid a LARGE settlement. $50,000 if I remember correctly what the store manager told me back then. (it wasn't the location I worked at, but all the stores got paranoid after that....copyright law in the USA holds the stores responsible for copyright infringing they allow on their machines).

I agree with you that wedding photographers should sell the right to make unlimited prints, but it is not a 'right' the customer has when they pay for the service. Not under US law.

That was just an exaggeration, of course, some guys just can't help it, but most stores won't copy anything with a "do not copy" label on it. Those kind of photographers really have given the wedding biz a bad name.

At any rate, I am very lucky, if I ever get married in another life, I could have any number of choices, of wonderful photographers, who I am lucky enough to number among my friends, to have a few photos taken. Think how great it would be to have a photo by Man Ray rather than the local guy Ray Man.

[nikonhswebmaster]

This is really almost in the realm of the absurd.

There is nothing set in stone, and most of the "internet generation" of photographers who post online have absurd, childish ideas of ownership, and of the importance of their own work, which is usually quite grandiose.

It would seem so, I was thrilled in 1975 to have someone at a magazine send me $75 for a photo. When I shot film stills, I was just glad to get a check at the end of the week, who cared that I never saw any of the developed film?

The first time I had a full page of color appear in the St. Louis Post Dispatch "Pictures" I would have paid them!

If someone was sending me to Iraq tomorrow, copyright would be the last thing on my mind.

[kaiyen]

Throwing this notion of copyright-retention at the "internet generation" doesn't make a ton of sense since it's actually mostly younger wedding photogs that are giving up the full rez image files (but not copyright). Most established (I'm not using "older") photogs have been slowly switching to that option over the last few years. Saying a whole group of people have "absurd, childish ideas" is a bit rough...

And when did we switch from wedding photography to iraq? And....thus ends my contributions to this thread. I apologize that I didn't end it earlier.

[sirius]

Most brides that I know are pretty wound-up about the whole marriage thing. Why get on the bad side of all that stress?

You retain copyright to all your creative work until 50 years after your death unless you sign it away. I would just leave it at that with her. Ask her if she minds if you used the images for self-promotion, give her the files, and say she can do what ever she would like with them.

People still have the right to how their images are used. If you wanted to sell the photos to someone else you would still need to get a model release. You might be getting the whole discussion mixed-up with the way photojournalist/artists handle their work. That is a bit different, but it is not likely to be the situation with you being hired for a model shoot.

Make that lady happy and you will have a better experience over-all. Try and get the whole topic of copyright off the discussion with her.

[WoolenMammoth]

It is absurd to want to retain copyright to photos of a private wedding that one has been hired to photograph.


sure, if photography is some kind of hobby then yes, who cares.

I would sooner eat my own foot than shoot a wedding for $5k, but there is no circumstance (as in NONE in the known universe) where I do not retain all the rights to the images I create. I have a standard free use license which I grant people, but if someone has some problem with me owning my own intellectual property they can hire some other "photographer" lord knows the world is now full of them.

[swoop]

1) You're not a professional photographer in any sense.

2) These are your friends.

What's the issue? What are you going to do with the copyright? Sue them if they make copies? Rubbish. They want you, a friend, to take pictures at their wedding. That's all there is to it. They're giving you some cash for your time and energy. Say thanks, enjoy the free meal at the reception. Get her co-workers sisters phone number. Go home, copy your pics to a DVD. Go to her place when she gets back from the honeymoon. Get your cash. Take her co-workers sister out to dinner. You're done.

If anything you should be thanking your friends for giving you the excuse to use your camera, eat their food, and get laid. Not haggling over a copyright issue.

[Kevin]

So I have a question ...Do I hold onto CR at all cost, or is it ok to allow them to have the originals? Thanks for any sage advice I might receive.

There are several reasons why you should take care in holding and protecting your visual copyright. For starters, many of the images you take during a wedding are free from the context of the specific wedding party itself: details of flowers, rings, churches, unidentifiable children being themselves, a bouquet flying through the air (you get the point).

Now imagine if your perfectly timed, composed and exposed picture ends up on a commercial greeting card 3 years from now? The greeting card company is an international one and your image has been used for a card distribution of 5 million pieces selling at an average $3 a piece.

You might not believe it right now, but you will undoubtedly take at least one such image at every wedding you cover, whether you intend to or not.
Do you remember how you ruined your new suit got while trying to get that picture??

Before you hand anything over to the client, before you upload any images into the internet ether, before you send anyone your know that cool wedding shot by email, BULK register ALL of the wedding images you took at the U.S. copyright office. A bulk registration costs only $35. In other words, for only $35 you can register all of those wedding images you took (but not yet published on the internet or elsewhere) using ONE single bulk registration form.

In the long-term this registration "insurance" will pay off handsomely. Sooner or later some person or company will use your best images in an unauthorized way. It's only a matter of time before this infringement happens.

Happy shooting!
Kevin

[M. Valdemar]

Bulk-registering wedding pix at the copyright office? Waiting for a private wedding photo to be printed in the millions on a greeting card? Refusing to email a photo the next day to the bride?

We have now reached the realm of the "Rarebit Fiend".

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/9642/nemo4mz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

There are several reasons why you should take care in holding and protecting your visual copyright. For starters, many of the images you take during a wedding are free from the context of the specific wedding party itself: details of flowers, rings, churches, unidentifiable children being themselves, a bouquet flying through the air (you get the point).

Now imagine if your perfectly timed, composed and exposed picture ends up on a commercial greeting card 3 years from now? The greeting card company is an international one and your image has been used for a card distribution of 5 million pieces selling at an average $3 a piece.

You might not believe it right now, but you will undoubtedly take at least one such image at every wedding you cover, whether you intend to or not.
Do you remember how you ruined your new suit got while trying to get that picture??

Before you hand anything over to the client, before you upload any images into the internet ether, before you send anyone your know that cool wedding shot by email, BULK register ALL of the wedding images you took at the U.S. copyright office. A bulk registration costs only $35. In other words, for only $35 you can register all of those wedding images you took (but not yet published on the internet or elsewhere) using ONE single bulk registration form.

In the long-term this registration "insurance" will pay off handsomely. Sooner or later some person or company will use your best images in an unauthorized way. It's only a matter of time before this infringement happens.

Happy shooting!
Kevin

[dmr]

That was just an exaggeration, of course, some guys just can't help it, but most stores won't copy anything with a "do not copy" label on it.

LOL, wasn't it somebody here who went in to a shop (Wal-Mart?) with a self-signed release only to have some "crimson cervical" clerk declare "you ain't no professional!"? :) :)

[mikeseb]

Can't remember now why I subscribed this thread, unless it was to be entertained by some of the fanciful---if not outright whacky and ill-informed---responses that have flowed into it.

Respondents are mixing up two issues, therein making sense of neither. First is copyright law: it is what it is, and no amount of wishing it away, at least in the US, will change that. Unless you have a specific work-for-hire contract, you OWN the copyright to a photograph the moment it is fixed in tangible form. Even the store clerks you disdain understood this in their refusal to make unauthorized copies of another person's work. Registration serves to affirm that ownership, and confers specific legal benefits in case of infringement; but registration is NOT REQUIRED in order to "copyright" a work. Several here have heaped scorn upon this notion, or have maintained that the internet has somehow made it obsolete, but their scorn makes it no less a matter of law.

The rest of the OP was really about the other issue, which is whether, and how aggressively, to assert the legal rights the photographer enjoys by virtue of his creation of the work. One hopes that as friends, they can work it out. It should be a situation wherein the most liberal use of the work is granted; but I still say it's an unreasonable, and frankly strange, demand by the bride to "own the copyright". How many "laypeople", ie those not in the professional content-creating business (ie photographers, writers, artists) think about copyright issues enough to ask to appropriate someone else's copyright for nothing? (Thought you had to be an online photo buyer to know that! ;)) Seems unusual for her to bring it up.

Then again, I don't shoot weddings (I'd rather have my man-sack pounded with a ball-peen hammer), so maybe this is yet another item the wedding-industry glossy mags have added to the bride-zilla's bulging to-worry-about list.

[Pablito]

Then again, I don't shoot weddings (I'd rather have my man-sack pounded with a ball-peen hammer)

Didya hafta put it that way?

:eek:

[wlewisiii]

LOL, wasn't it somebody here who went in to a shop (Wal-Mart?) with a self-signed release only to have some "crimson cervical" clerk declare "you ain't no professional!"? :) :)

Every time I've gone to the local Walgreens to reprint something I have to sign a release stating that I am the pro that made the photo and have all legal rights to it... :eek: 'tis good for my ego though :angel:

OP: Give them everything with a notice stating that they have an unlimited non-commercial license to use that material but that you retain copyright. If that's not an acceptable option for them, then I'd suggest you respectfully decline the job.

William

[Roger Hicks]

Respondents are mixing up two issues, therein making sense of neither.

Dear Mike,

That is my understanding too -- both as a photographer and as a lawyer (well, LL.B., anyway).

'Work for hire' means that someone hires you as a photographer, not for a specific job, and that they can then tell you what jobs to do, and where, and when. Describing a single freelance job as 'work for hire' requires a more creative interpretation of the phrase than most lawyers would be happy with; and the fees that would be demanded by those who would be willing to argue the contrary would be equally unpalatable fo most non-lawyers.

If you are not working for hire, copyright is automatically yours, and must be assigned. (Apart from the loathesome 'Orphan Works' legislation -- and even then, you can reclaim it).

I have shot a handful of weddings, formerly for friends, the last time, for the daughter of my oldest friend. It is always a wedding present, and I put it in writing that while I automatically retain copyright, they have the right to all non-commercial use, i.e. pictures for friends, family etc.

Because, after all, they're FRIENDS, dammit.

Cheers,

Roger

[Rayt]

If I am not a pro and these people are friends then why would I want the copyright to their wedding? Unless some famous people are in the wedding party naked why would I care?

[40oz]

A perfect reason to request copyrights from the photographer of a wedding is so the couple can get additional copies made at their local shop rather than ask a non-professional to run off prints. I have to question the judgement of anyone who thinks there is something wrong with a friend asking for some formal portraits and the right to make prints. The alternative would be for the photographer to be obligated to deliver any and all prints whenever the couple asked. It seems to me that transferring the right to make prints to the subjects of the photos would be entirely reasonable and desirable from the point of view of the friend-photographer.

If one isn't intending to make money off prints, the holder of copyright to portrait photos is irrelevant. The reason to control copyright is protect a revenue stream. The right to make and sell copies sits with the copyright holder, as should be obvious from the term itself. The right to use an image for promotional purposes is a different thing than the right to sell copies. The copyright holder might generally have legal control over promotional usage, but it's not the same issue. I'm not an expert in any way here, but it would sem to me that one could give the friend the right to make prints while retaining the ability to use the images for promotion in the unlikely case that arises, given that we are assuming said shooter is not a professional in that field.