I'm still amazed people will google, read and believing rubbish.
Why don't people look up some credible sources?
But then again, some credible sources are pretty rubbish as well.
For example, The Professional Photographers Association (Singapore)
http://ppas.sg/site/index.php?Itemid=9&id=7&option=com_content&task=view
Why is this rubbish: The analogy is totally wrong. Not to mention, it's contradicts the real law.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...t&TYPE=simple&mode=and&version=currentVersion
Basically translated into english at
http://www1.ipos.gov.sg/main/aboutip/copyright/ownershipnrights.html
Of course, this is not valid if any prior agreement has been reached, like the photographer charging less money if copyright remains with them... But of course, most photographers I know do not make it clear upfront..
If the photog don't make it clear right at the start, then the copyright lies with the person who paid $$ for your services..
----------
Why don't we play nice and just continue the conversation as per Singapore law?
:sweatsm:
This is precisely why wedding photographers should have these 2 points in their contract:
1. Title/ Ownership belongs solely to the photographer. w/o this clause, copyright is by default the client's.
2. Define what are your rights /power over the images. Make it clear that you use it for your own advertising (website, blog), monetise some of the images (in the case of images with the client's face, you'll need to get a model release from them). This is to safeguard yourself and not having any baggage when you post or publish any of your work.
Having spoken to many photographers, the general feel is that most photographers are just giving away way way too much to the clients just to land themselves into the the job.