photo release form

[phill900r]

I am just getting into doing portrait pictures for people,
I don't have the means to print any pictures for people, so I have been putting the photos taken onto CD,
so they can take them to a photo developing/printing shop.

The thing is I am finding that a lot of the photo shops won't print them, as they say it's breaking copyright law, due to them not being taken by a amateur photographer.

does anyone know if there is a legal document, which I can fill in so they can take it with the disk to get the photos printed.
(some sort of photo release form or something).

I have been looking on the internet, but all I can find is a model photo release form, the one the model signs to give you authority to use their pictures..

Many thanks for your help

I wonder whether words wriitten onto the first photograph identifying; Permission granted to named persons along with your watermark would be acceptable to printers.

At least your customers will then not worry about losing a formal receipted letter, which may be another alternative.

They will just need to prove they are the person in the photo.

[xavier]

Hi Phill900r

[QUOTEI am just getting into doing portrait pictures for people,
I don't have the means to print any pictures for people, so I have been putting the photos taken onto CD,
so they can take them to a photo developing/printing shop.

The thing is I am finding that a lot of the photo shops won't print them, as they say it's breaking copyright law, due to them not being taken by a amateur photographer.

does anyone know if there is a legal document, which I can fill in so they can take it with the disk to get the photos printed.
(some sort of photo release form or something).

I have been looking on the internet, but all I can find is a model photo release form, the one the model signs to give you authority to use their pictures..

Many thanks for your help ][/QUOTE]

As I understand it any photos taken are the copyright property of the photographer, BUT!!! if one is comishoned to do a shoot THEN! that person THAT HIRED YOU owns the the rights as far as I am aware ( IAM OPEN TO CORECTION ONTHIS!!)

[xavier]

I GUESS its realy, on this issue who ownes the copyright? and whether should send a letter with the CD on who owns the copyrights ( still open to corection on this). thing is the copyringht by default belongs to the photographer, But when one is Hired for what ever reson or job then (this is where things get confuseing for me) the person hireing you owns the copyrights

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by xavier

As I understand it any photos taken are the copyright property of the photographer, BUT!!! if one is comishoned to do a shoot THEN! that person THAT HIRED YOU owns the the rights as far as I am aware ( IAM OPEN TO CORECTION ONTHIS!!)

All photos you take are yours and yours alone. The copyright on a commisioned portrait shoot stays with the photographer unless he or she signs that copyright away.

It seems a bit odd to me that the shops won't print them under copyright law as it sounds like nonsense to me.
I think Andys suggestion is the easiest - have a simple document stating that the bearer is granted full rights to reproduce the images and has the full permission of the photographer to do so. If you put your contact details on it, the shop could get in touch with you if they really wanted.

Your other option would be to set up an online system allowing people to order their prints directly off the internet. I have a system where people can order a print which is sent directly to them and all I have to do is authorise it. Have a look at the "Buy my prints" link in my signature to see the system in action (I'm not coercing you into buying though!)

[xavier]

it would seem I got it wrong but I thought if sume one hired you for lets say a Wedding or a portrait shoot they owned the rights to that shoot or am I wrong in this again? or is it in the case of sume publication? becouse I'm quite confused about who has the copyrights on certian shoots. and as for the when & where to use a "model release form". It just that one lad said on sirimo.co.uk that you only need the form when the shoot is used for endorsing goods or service from sume company is this right or wrong? its just that I thought if one plans th publish the shoot or show the shoot in a galery you need the release form.

[ap4a]

Originally Posted by xavier

it would seem I got it wrong but I thought if sume one hired you for lets say a Wedding or a portrait shoot they owned the rights to that shoot or am I wrong in this again? or is it in the case of sume publication?

In the absence of any agreement or employment contract that states otherwise, the copyright remains with the photographer. When you hire a wedding photographer you're paying for their time and skills, and you'll usually get to choose a limited number of prints, and often and album or photo book within the cost (simplistically; what you actually get will vary with cost and what the photographer chooses to offer). But if you want additional copies, or your guests want copies, then you would need to pay extra to get these from the photographer.

If you shoot for an employer then it's probable (check the terms of employment to make sure) that the employer will own the rights under the terms of your employment contract; and shoots for some clients (magazines for example) may involve the rights being transferred to the client, but if that was the case then you'd expect to be paid a lot more as a result.

becouse I'm quite confused about who has the copyrights on certian shoots.

The photographer, unless the rights are transferred by the photographer to someone else.

and as for the when & where to use a "model release form". It just that one lad said on sirimo.co.uk that you only need the form when the shoot is used for endorsing goods or service from sume company is this right or wrong? its just that I thought if one plans th publish the shoot or show the shoot in a galery you need the release form.

Most commercial uses will require a model release if there's a recognisable person in the image. However what's considered commercial doesn't include everything that can earn money - you don't need a release for artistic uses, so if you want to display a photo in an exhibition you can without one, you can sell prints too. If you want to include images in a book, you can, and they can be used in the press without a release if they're newsworthy too.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by xavier

becouse I'm quite confused about who has the copyrights on certian shoots.

This always gets very complicated but, simply, the photographer owns the copyright unless they specifically give/sell it away (and that doesn't mean selling the photo as a print - it's the rights to the photo).
If you were comissioned to do a shoot the terms of the agreement with the comissioner might be that you transfer ownership of the images to them but when you take a photo, it's yours and no-one elses. Ever.

David has covered most things that I can think of.

[xavier]

Thanks that quit informative

[DavidLocke]

Just wanted to add that I agree the photographer owns the copyright unless they specifically give/sell it away and not anybody who has hired the photographer. That person simply pays for photographer's time and expert and professional photography skill.

-----------------------------------
London Photographers | Corporate Photographers | Portrait photographers | Actors Headshots