RE: [OT] Wedding Photographer

["Keith Doxey" <ukha@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Calum Morrell
>
> Yes, this is absolutely standard as it should be. The photographer
owns
> all copyright on the photos taken at your wedding unless you
explicitly
> agree otherwise. If that happens, you can expect to be charged several
> times their normal rate assuming they don't just stare at you as if
your
> mad and walk out muttering to themselves.

Agree entirely. At work we had a similar discussion about Intellectual
Property. The conclusion reached was that at normal rates the IP was owned
by the developing company and if the customer wanted to own the IP rights
they would have to pay much higher consultancy rates.


> Most wedding photographers make their money from sales of prints
rather
> than the wedding itself. So sorry, but either be prepared to pay
through
> the nose to gain originals or live with it!
>

Picking up on Calum's last point, when I got married the first time, the
photographer I used also used to work on the Holiday Camps taking photos of
all the happy punters.

He took the photos at the church and also when everyone arrived at the
reception and then disappeared off to the processing labs.

He returned in time for the evening reception and was able to display the
proofs to the guests at the wedding. I thought this was an excellent idea
as....

1. the photographer made more money as guests ordered and paid for photos
on
the spot

2. we didnt have the hassle of getting the album round to everyone and
getting orders and money from people.

Digital photography makes that even easier to do now as the photos could be
displayed in some of the LCD Photoframes that we saw at Smarthome 2005

WOW - managed to bring it back on topic :-)

Regards

Keith