You are mistaken.  In the U.S. and many other jurisdictions, you do
_not_ own the photographer's work.

In order to own the copyright in the photographer's work, one of two
situations must exist: (1) the photographer must agree, in advance,
explicitly, and in writing, that the photography constitutes a "work for
hire" and that the original copyright resides with you, the client; or
(2) the photographer must be your regular employee (that is, you pay
FICA, unemployment, insurance, and generally fulfill all the reasonable
and customary requirements of employment) _and_ his photography must be
part of his assigned job responsibility.

In all other cases, the photographer has the copyright.  A wedding
photography (and all other commissioned photographers) are not
employees, and they do not generally sign work-for-hire agreements, so
you do not own their work, no matter how much you paid for their
services.

I don't know what the law says in India, but in the United States, the
law works as described above.

They keep them for the purpose of making reprints and/or providing
evidence of their authorship, generally.

Not in the U.S. and most of the developed world.

In the software world, you are an employee, and the software you write
is (presumably) written as part of your normal job responsibilities.

Some companies try to force you to relinguish this right, although you
should refuse.  They don't own software you write in your own time by
default, however.

We keep 'em just to screw people like you.

If you had come into my studio with this attitude, I'd have explained
my position - then suggested you find another photographer.

No he's plain right. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless there is an
agreement signed that he is doing the assignment as "work for hire". At least
here in the U.S. and w/ U.S. copyright law, I don't know whether India is a
signator of The Byrne Convention which ensures certain copyright law(s) be
respected in whose countries are signators so I can't speak for Indian
copyright law

Let me compare your idea to my work.

Not comparable. If you are an employee then the firm that hires you to do your
work owns the copyright for that work. You are a salaried employee doing "work
for hire" as opposed to free lance work. Wedding photography is "free lance
work" therefore the photographer owns the copyright to the wedding work he does
not the client. You have a regular salary and most likely certain benefits
(medical or otherwise) you are (most likely) a hired employee. Here in the U.S.
a client pays a fee for usage and he is a client not an employer, freelance
work is not considered a salaried employment/work for hire but "free lance" and
as suvh all rights unless otherwise stated go to the photographer whether you
like it or not.

As a

We are paid for the work that we do _not_ for the copyright. No it is not owned
by you, you pay for rights and specific usage(s) and time but _copyright
remains with the photographer_ unless you have a signed agreement with the
photographer that states otherwise. That's U.S. copyright law. Like it or not,
its that simple.

See comments above.

Keep them on file for reprints, another source of income, or perhaps with a
model release, sell the images commercially, or if no model release is
available and the contract permits it, to use the images for your portfolio
and/or for editorial (non-commercial) sales.

You own nothing here in the U.S., not the copyright or anything else other than
the time and skill and whatever prints you pay for. Copyright always remains
with the photographer unless stated in writing/contract otherwise.
Photographers who saw your attitude and wanted to retain their right would
simply be advised not to work with you. You own nothing, not the film, not the
copyright, we are not your whores, the power of your money ends where copyright
law(s) begins.

Even if it was your film, your developing, etc. - the copyright to any images
created remains with the photographer who created the images.

Like in the

You are hired as an employee with a salary, half of federal taxes are paid by
the employer (here in the U.S.) and if you are a free lance (nad perhaps evenif
you are an employee) you probably signed some kind of agreement that the code
you create belongs to them as they don't want their source code to belong to
anybody.  Photogrpahers, unless they were hired on "work for hire" terms are
defacto considered free lancers with full power/possesion of their own
copyright unless explicitly stated (in writing) otherwise. In India YMMV.

What I do with software I write in my own time/business is upto me.

Not relevant, the photographer in a wedding is a frelance not your employee
_regardless of the fact you are paying him/her money_ to do a job(s). You are
not paying his benefits or half his taxes nor do you have any work for hire
agreement with most wedding photographers (who are freelancers). Now if your
computer company had an inhouse regularly salaried (and benefits/taxes covered
by the company) employee whose job function was to do work for hire weddings
and other types of photography then the copyright would belong to that company.
But outside photographers, wedding or otherwise, unless there is a contractual
agreement stating otherwise between the photographer and the company are
considered "free lancers" and not doing "work for hire", _so in the case of an
outside freelance photographer it is the photographer who owns the copyright_ -
whether you like it or agree with it or not. Period. Exclamation point. End of
story.

Not like the negatives, see above.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

SD,

I disagree.. If I was hired to shoot a wedding, the client would be paying
for my time and the quality prints that he wants. The negatives are never
part of the deal. If you visited a high street portrait photographer for
example, to have some shots done of you and the family you would never get
the negs... The photographer always has the copyright to the images and can
impose clauses that can stop you scanning in and re-printing your own
copies. If someone wanted to have the negs as well then they would have to
pay a price depending on if I could use the images again. If they were good
for my portfolio or for stock then I would charge for them based on what I
felt I could earn for them.

If this is not what you want then I would always suggest buying a $399
camera from your local dealer and getting a member of the family to shoot
them for you. This way you get it all... except the quality and experience.

MM

This is ridiculous. I paid for taking the photo, so I was the
photographers employer, so I own the rights. For e.g. if the
photographer works for National Geographic and clicks pictures, who owns
the copyright - the photographer or National Geographic?

What else is it?

I would hope so

That depends on the contract, the jurisdiction, and jurisprudence.  In
many jurisdictions, the photographer has an implicit right to include
the photos in his portfolio, although he cannot use them for strictly
commercial purposes (postcards, advertising sales, etc.).

Read the contract carefully, though.

The photographer can have you sign a contract that makes you responsible
for all model releases.  Always read the contract.

It's usually not considered commercial per se.  After all, photographers
do have to be able to show examples of their work, but that isn't
necessarily advertising.

In the U.S. and elsewhere, it's okay, if it's for editorial or
informational use.

That depends on what sort of contract you signed.  Read the contract.

That's because you're ossified. Having been married just 4 years ago, I
had a chance to review many wedding packages. I've shot a few weddings
successfully, but shooting your own really isn't an option. Only the old
brick-n-mortar places with their dreamy soft-focus portfolios (yuck)
didn't offer an option to keep the negs.

All of the younger photogs offered some package that let you keep the
negs.  Sometimes they charged more for that option, but mostly they
didn't want the book keeping hassles of extorting monies for prints.

The guy I selected worked hard, did a great job, I got the negs, and he
got paid a fair price for it.  For the stuff he shot in CN he even
provided the setting he used to tone the proofs.

The fact is that it is not hard at all to find photogs willing to part
with their negs these days. That you don't know that says a lot.

Marc

Then the first person who does will make a killing.