171
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
171 points (94.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43728 readers
1206 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
With a lot of photographers you dont own the photos they take and all that stuff is part of the deal. The whole thing is ridiculous.
Its just how photography copyright law works. The person who presses the button owns the photo. I was a wedding photog or a while. I wouldn't stop the couples sharing my photos on social media, but they wouldn't be allowed to sell the photos for use in marketing or anything. Nit that ot ever came up.
If a couple asked me not to use their photos for advertising then I would have taken them down, not because I was legally obliged to, but because I'm not a horrible person.
When I was getting started I charged less, because I didn't have examples of my work at weddings. But I made it very clear to the couple that I would be using the photos for advertising o get my business off the ground, so they knew their pics would be all over my website, etc.
True the contracts nowadays can be nuts