3 ms·

It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense. Also, if

It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense. Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree. Photography is a very expensive vocation, and the wedding season is very short. There is little room for error, and the photos have an enormous emotional significance. The event day (or days) is incredibly long, and cataloging and processing images can be an enormous time suck afterward. I get that some people may not be interested in wedding photos, but that doesn't mean the photographers are overpriced for the work they do.

nordsieck 7y ago
> Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree. The market sets the price. I don't really have a problem with that. > It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense. I understand the rationale. That doesn't make it any less absurd. If I'm a freelance journalist I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If I'm a freelance web designer I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If a photographer wants a portfolio to show potential clients, they can do what everyone else does: make a portfolio on their own time.
jcl 7y ago
> It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising That's probably not the main reason, since many other artists are able to use their work-for-hire in self promotion. All they'd need is an appropriate usage license, not copyright ownership. More likely, when wedding photographers try to keep the copyright, they are hoping to charge separately for additional prints or DVDs, control which print shop reproduces their work, enforce the presence of their watermarks, or relicense the images as stock photography. These are all additional revenue and advertising streams that would not be available if the customer held the copyright.

nordsieck 7y ago

> Also, if you think the cost is unreasonable, I completely disagree. The market sets the price. I don't really have a problem with that. > It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising, which totally makes sense. I understand the rationale. That doesn't make it any less absurd. If I'm a freelance journalist I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If I'm a freelance web designer I don't get to keep the copyright so I can do self-promotion. If a photographer wants a portfolio to show potential clients, they can do what everyone else does: make a portfolio on their own time.

jcl 7y ago

> It seems that wedding photographers keep the copyright so that they can reproduce them for self-promotion and advertising That's probably not the main reason, since many other artists are able to use their work-for-hire in self promotion. All they'd need is an appropriate usage license, not copyright ownership. More likely, when wedding photographers try to keep the copyright, they are hoping to charge separately for additional prints or DVDs, control which print shop reproduces their work, enforce the presence of their watermarks, or relicense the images as stock photography. These are all additional revenue and advertising streams that would not be available if the customer held the copyright.