How can I show to the internet brides I’ve taken photos of?

[aspiring39]

I’m an aspiring traveling photographer for just about anything. I’ve had experience in wedding, travel, and nature photography under the wing of my mentor and boss that I won’t disclose here. I’ve been under him for about 5 years now and I think it’s safe to say that I’m ready to spread my “wings and fly off.”

During my travels alongside him, I’ve taken hundreds photos which are mostly from weddings; since wedding photography is where the big bucks come in. I’ve now gotten a collection of portraits perfect for a personal portfolio. I was thinking of setting up my own wedding photography team as a way to earn capital for other opportunities. I know that events are where photography can earn large amounts of income so I’d want to start from there. The only question is, how can i show the internet brides I’ve taken photos of?

 

[KmH]

What are the image publication laws where you are and plan to base your business from? (No location info in profile.)

Here in the US to use images of people made under controlled circumstances to promote you have to have written permission - a valid "Model Release" form on file - from any recognizable person in an image to use their likeness to advertise/promote your business.

 

[ac12]

The photos taken while you worked for your mentor/boss could/would be considered HIS business property, not yours, even if you shot them. Because those where HIS clients, not yours, and you were working for him. Thus you cannot use the images without his approval, in writing. You would need to get that legal point figured out.

You may have to buy the rights to use those photos from your boss.
But you are not yet clear to use them.

Next, following on Keith's comment, any release given by the bride and groom was to your boss as part of the original contract with HIM, not to you.
So even if you got written approval from you boss, you would still need to get a release from the bride/groom and likely everyone you post images of.
Can your boss assign his model release rights to you? You need to consult an attorney to determine that.

BTW, in the US, there is a concept in contract law where there has to be "consideration" (something of value) given by both parties. Or said another way, why should the couple give you a model release, if they get nothing in return. So what are you prepared to give/pay the couple, to use their photos?

 

[KmH]

If you're in the USA and were legally an independent contractor, instead of an employee, during the 5 years with your mentor you would own the copyrights to every image you made.
Under Copyright Concepts see circular 30 - Works Made For Hire.

Any legal considerations are dependent what country your mentor had their business in, and on what country you plan to have your business in.

 

[ac12]

First thing to determine is employment or independent contractor status.
If employee, the boss owns the copyright.
If contractor, then further questions.

According to the circular, only if there is a written agreement between him and his boss stating that he retains copyright owner ship of those photos.

Did the parties expressly agree that the work shall be considered a “work made for hire”​

If I were his boss, that is NOT something that I would sign, because those images were of HIS client for HIS business. And having the copyright for images of HIS client leave with the photographer is not acceptable business practice.

But not being an attorney, that is just my opinion, and has no standing in a court of law.

 

[KmH]

If only it were that cut and dried! And you have it backwards. See #3 below. The written agreement has to state "the party that ordered or commissioned the work" is to be the copyright owner. If there is no written agreement, the employee (creator) retains copyright.

However, I suspect the OP is not in the USA.

. . . The work made for hire concept can be complicated and has serious consequences for both the individual who creates a work and the hiring party who is considered to be the author and copyright owner of that work. . .
. . . A specially ordered or commissioned work is considered a work made for hire if it satisfies all of the following four criteria:
1. The work must fall within one of the nine categories of works listed above that are eligible to be specially ordered or commissioned as works made for hire.
2. There must be a written agreement between the party that ordered or commissioned the work and individual(s) who actually created the work.
3. In the written agreement, the parties must expressly agree that the work is to be considered a work made for hire.
4. The agreement must be signed by all parties.

If a work fails to satisfy any of these requirements, it is not a work made for hire.

Emphasis added

 

[ac12]

Keith,
On 4th reading, I think you are correct. But it feels like something is missing.
Which is why I am not an attorney.

So the photographer retains copyright.
But he still does not have a release to use those photos commercially, as that would have been between the client and his boss, not him.

 

[KmH]

Maybe.
If he's the copyright owner he just needs permission ( a signed model release) from people in the image to use the image to promote/advertise his business.
The trick is contacting and getting people to sign a model release some amount of time after the image was made.

A model release is needed by the publisher of an image that has people in it, unless the image was made in public and not by using controlled conditions.
Since a photographer is there when the image is made, the photographer usually gets people in the image to sign a model release.
When the photographer uses the image to promote or advertise their business, a commercial use, the photographer becomes the publisher of the image.

If the image gets used for a commercial purpose by a 3rd party, then the 3rd party is the publisher and would want a copy of the model release on file. If the photographer does not have a valid model release on file, the image the 3rd party wants to use has less value. Maybe so much less value that the 3rd party (the publisher) elects not to pay for usage of the image, because sans a model release and a commercial use the 3rd party has legal exposure to being sued for using likeness of the people in the image without their permission.