Digital Negative Question

[MTVision]

You have to look at legal cases though. I am not sure on Canadian Law, but in U.S. Law, there is criteria to determine what is "work for hire" and what is not. Depending on whether the person is an employee, or an independent contractor. A wedding photographer would be the latter. For independent contractors, it must be specified within the contract that this is "work for hire." If it does not, then the contractor retains copyright for all work created. You have to look at what makes someone an "employee" as well. In the US, this has been determined through previous court cases, as I am sure could be found in Canada as well and could help to strengthen or defeat a claim of work for hire.

In the US, a few factors in order to be considered an employer/employee relationship consists of some of the following:

1 Control by the employer over the work (e.g., the employer
may determine how the work is done, has the work done
at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or
other means to create work)

2 Control by employer over the employee (e.g., the employer
controls the employee’s schedule in creating work, has the
right to have the employee perform other assignments,
determines the method of payment, and/or has the right
to hire the employee’s assistants)

3 Status and conduct of employer (e.g., the employer is in
business to produce such works, provides the employee
with benefits, and/or withholds tax from the employee’s
payment

This does not apply to a wedding photographer. They do not have benefits or taxes witheld. THEY determine payment methods not the client. The client has limited control over the photographers creative input, gear, assistants etc. Nor does the client provide any type of gear to complete the job.

I understand that about the US but Canada has different laws/rules/regulations about photography. I think, from what I've read, they are trying to change the whole copyright thing for photography. This girl I know from Canada paid 150.00 for photos and she got the RAW unedited files included. For 150.00! It's crazy!

 

[mwcfarms]

Shes correct about the Canadian law. In Canada you have to explicitly state in your contract that you (the photographer) will retain the right of copyright and the client is aggreeing (signing off) to it. Otherwise if your paid for the job the client holds copyright. The PPOC and many others are fighting to change this.

 

[KmH]

In other words, a Canadian photography contract may contain a clause that is a transfer of copyright ownership. That can also be the case with US photography contracts.

Which is why I mentioned to the OP to "be careful". Caveate Emptor - buyer beware.

 

[MLeeK]

I did know that several countries are much the same as Canada. I did not, however pay attention to the fact that the OP was from Canada. My bad there.
A LOT of photographers in such countries will have a blurb in their contract regarding the copyright and what the "commissioning party" gives back to the photographer and what they retain. I'd hope there was a contract drawn up and I'd refer to it to see what that contract says regarding the images. LOTS of if's and could be's there.