Need advice: photographer watermarked our wedding photos

[Z1D]

Hi all, hope you can offer me some opinions. I recently got married, and naturally we had a photographer on hand. When we signed up with this photographer, we enlisted for a basic package only, which simply agreed to supply high resolution digital images for the day on CD (.jpeg not RAW). We recently picked up the DVDs and noticed that every single picture was watermarked. This was unexpected, and while we did not agree to receive watermarked images, the contract we signed didn't explicitly prohibit them either. I talked with the photographer, and though at first he admitted to it being a mistake, he seemed unconcerned overall. When I told him I would like a new set of discs without the watermark he became slightly standoffish and said that virtually any place would do the same thing regarding the watermark. I found that unlikely since, as I understand it, when you agree to buy the images, you become owner of those images (and their copyright - and yes, we have already paid in full). I spoke to a good friend of mine who is an experienced photographer, and he said this was most certainly not standard operating procedure, but I'm looking for a few more opinions. Is what he did legal and common? Legal but uncommon? Legal but unethical? Or outright illegal? For the time being I am hoping we gives us the new discs with no watermark, everyone moves on with a grumble, but I am preparing myself if he tries anything shady.

 

[MTVision]

I don't know where you are from but I don't believe you own the copyright to the image. The photographer owns the copyright. You (mire than likely) paid for the service and copies of the images. Usually, copyright is owned by who took the pictures. If your contract states that you are buying the copyright that's a different story but (from what I've heard) photographers charge quite a bit to sell their copyright.

 

[Evesdilemma]

The photographer retains the copyright unless you pay for it-paying for the copies doesn't transfer the copyright to you, it merely provides you access to the photos. What he did was not illegal, but it was poor business to not offer to remove them, especially since he said it was a mistake.

 

[Z1D]

I don't know where you are from but I don't believe you own the copyright to the image. The photographer owns the copyright. You (mire than likely) paid for the service and copies of the images. Usually, copyright is owned by who took the pictures. If your contract states that you are buying the copyright that's a different story but (from what I've heard) photographers charge quite a bit to sell their copyright.

Does that mean he was within his rights to watermark the images? I mean, the whole point of buying digital photos is to print them yourself, and I feel that the watermark detracts from the image.

 

[MTVision]

Have you done any research on this? Where are you from? I have pictures that were done by Olan Mills (a big box store studio) and they have a watermark on them so it's neither illegal not unethical in the US. Did he say he would give you a new disk? The photographer will probably give you a new disk but if you post the photos on your Facebook or anywhere online you should give then credit and/or use the watermarked photos.

 

[MTVision]

Does that mean he was within his rights to watermark the images? I mean, the whole point of buying digital photos is to print them yourself, and I feel that the watermark detracts from the image.

Yes he was within his rights. I said in another post I have pictures with a watermark from a studio. Is it a huge watermark?

Like another poster said he should remove it if he said it was a mistake.

 

[sierramister]

I would argue this... I've never seen this done. If the contract states that you should receive high resolution photos on a DVD and you are free to print them on your own, then I would say a judge would tell the photog to take watermarks off.

 

[Z1D]

Thanks for the responses. No, the watermark is not huge, it's in the bottom left corner, but it is red and fairly opaque. It certainly stands out in some of the lower light photographs. By the way I'm in Canada, so the copyright laws are likely quite similar to the US. He did say we would give us a new disc without watermarks, so hopefully this thread is only for my own information.

 

[cgipson1]

In Canada... the copyright laws are totally opposite of the US. In the US, the photographer owns the copyright. In Canada, whoever pays for the service owns the copyright (or at least, so I have read). I am sure some of our Canadian professionals will speak up and clarify the issue for you.

 

[tirediron]

the copyright laws are likely quite similar to the US...

You'd think so, but in fact, as cGipson alluded to, they're not. Read through the contract and find out if he had a clause about his retaining copyright. If he did not, than under Canadian Law, as the contractee, you should own the copyright (nb. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play on television; do not take this as fact) to the images. That said, irrespective of copyright ownership, it is IMO, very poor business practice to watermark client images in this way.

 

[willis_927]

Whenever I give the DVD of images, I provide a low Res, and a high Res copy. The low res has watermarks, the high Res does not.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, as I understand it, the laws in Canada are opposite to the US, on this issue. In the US, the artists (photographer) owns the rights to any images they create, unless they are working under a contract that states otherwise. In Canada, whoever pays for (commissions) the artwork, is the one who holds the copyright (unless specified otherwise in a contract).

So since you're in Canada, it's likely that you own the right to make copies, provided it doesn't say otherwise in your contract.

As for the watermark, that's the photographer's choice. Unless your contract explicitly says that they are to deliver images without a watermark.
I do agree that it seems very odd that they would watermark all the images, when they have sold you the image files.

It is common to give clients a set of proof prints or files that are watermarked, but in this situation the idea is that they are just for viewing and you would then order prints from the photographer. So maybe this is what the photographer is expecting, where-as you are wanting to make your own prints. So it's possibly a communication mix-up, and is something that should have been worked out before the wedding, on the contracts.

Unfortunately, weddings are something that most of us only do once (that's the idea anyway)....so it's not like you can really learn from your experiences and do it differently next time.

My suggestion would be to appeal (again) to the photographer, to get your files without the watermark....but maybe it would be best to ask if they are assuming that you will order prints directly from them. Maybe they are expecting you to pay for the 'clean' image files, at an additional cost.
Hopefully, if you and the photographer are both open and honest, this can come to an agreeable conclusion.

 

[Gavjenks]

Who owns the copyright seems pretty irrelevant. Even if the contractee gains copyright for contracted photos in Canada, the whole point is that it is unclear whether the contract covers UNwatermarked photos, or watermarked photos. It's a disagreement about what types of photos the contract refers to, not who owns them. I'm sure he would be happy to agree that you own all of your contracted, watermarked photos.

What seems much more relevant here, is that the photographer admitted that it was a mistake. Oral contracts are also contracts, and him admitting this is the equivalent of it being explicitly stated on your written contract that the photos are to be unwatermarked. This would most likely hold up in court, unless he risks committing perjury by denying it, which would be pretty stupid just to avoid giving clean photos to somebody who already paid you...

1) Was anybody else there when he told you it was a mistake, like your husband etc.?
2) It would be helpful if your written contract also sort of hints or suggests at unwatermarked photos. You say it doesnt, but would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

 

[SCraig]

... would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

This is a near 2-year-old thread. It's unlikely the OP will post anything.

 

[ShooterJ]

... would it be possible to post the relevant portions of it here, to be sure?

This is a near 2-year-old thread. It's unlikely the OP will post anything.

LOL... it IS however pretty amusing when it happens. I've been guilty of responding to an older thread myself ... and without fail, eventually somebody comes along and points it out. :lmao: