Kungfool wrote:.

Do all photos actually have to be copyrighted, or are theycopyrighted in my name by default?.

Copyright is automatic at the time of the creation of your photos, but not everyone knows this, so if this a concern, including a copyright notice with your name can be used..

Albert-Ohttp://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Also, if you want to maximize your rights and have recourse in court, you should register any unique photos you want to protect from being copied and sold..

This is all stuff I've read because I was interested in this question also, but I am certainly no authority in this matter .

Albert-Ohttp://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Country?.

Subject?.

Contractural arrangements between the photographer and whomever is paying for the shutter release to be pressed?.

It's a big world with lots of laws..

BAK..

Very good point, BAK..

Thanks for bringing that up..

My comments were based on US practices, based on a gov website..

Also, when shooting another person, it is my understanding that the photographer owns the image, unless a release signed by both parties states otherwise..

Please correct me if this is untrue, but everything I've read leads to this conclusion..

Albert-Ohttp://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

If you are going to sell your photos I would go to the site below, they have a list of companys that will sell your photos (if their good) and protect your rights to them, each site has a forum to help you learn things about how to sell, protect & make money with them, Theres no cost to you (other than the hard work of capturing good photos) for them to market your photos,Good Luck!.

Http://www.prophoto1.com..

I would recommend, if you photograph another person and if there is even a slight chance you will sell or display the pics, to have them sign a model release..

Albert-Ohttp://www.berto.zenfolio.com.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Good point, indeed. Although there is increasing consistency among Western countries about copyright laws. Australia and the US recently signed a Free Trade Agreement and one of the conditions was some changes to Australian copyrigth laws to bring them more into line with the US..

So although it is true to say "depends on the country" some of the principles at least can be discussed across borders - with the disclaimer that the devil is in thedetail..

With that in mind, and for what it's worth....

Cosilver wrote:.

Also, when shooting another person, it is my understanding that thephotographer owns the image, unless a release signed by both partiesstates otherwise..

In Australia, copyright ownership has nothing to do with the subject matter (whether it is a person or whatever) - it has to do with who paid for the photos. The rules (as I understand them) are:.

1. The photographer owns the copyright in all photos they take, unless they were paid to take them.

2. If the (paid for) photos were taken for "private and domestic purposes" (e.g. weddings, family portraits) the client owns the copyright..

3. If the photos were taken for "commercial purposes" (e.g. promotional material) the photographer owns the copyright..

- 2 and 3 above are the default situation, but can be varied by the terms of the contract between photographer and client..

Obviously none of the above is good advice for the US, but I think you'd find that the broad principles are similar - in particular that the fact that the photo is of a person is not the key factor..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Cosilver wrote:.

Also, when shooting another person, it is my understanding that thephotographer owns the image, unless a release signed by both partiesstates otherwise..

In the US (which according to the OP's profile is where he lives), the photographer owns the photo, but the person being photographed owns the rights to his likeness. Therefore, the photographer can only use the photo for non-commercial use unless there is a model release...

Arrowman wrote:.

In Australia, copyright ownership has nothing to do with the subjectmatter (whether it is a person or whatever) - it has to do with whopaid for the photos. The rules (as I understand them) are:.

In the US, the photographer always owns the copyright to photos unless it is clearly stated in the contract. The only reason I'm mentioning the US is because the OP's profile lists him being from the US..

1. The photographer owns the copyright in all photos they take,unless they were paid to take them.

2. If the (paid for) photos were taken for "private and domesticpurposes" (e.g. weddings, family portraits) the client owns thecopyright..

This is different in the US. The photographer retains copyright on the photos even for "private and domestic purposes" like weddings (unless the contract specifically states otherwise, which is very rare)..

3. If the photos were taken for "commercial purposes" (e.g.promotional material) the photographer owns the copyright..

- 2 and 3 above are the default situation, but can be varied by theterms of the contract between photographer and client..

Obviously none of the above is good advice for the US, but I thinkyou'd find that the broad principles are similar - in particular thatthe fact that the photo is of a person is not the key factor...