Who Owns Your Wedding Photos?

Photography by Imagine Nation. Copyright 2014.

My wife and I got married last December and since that exhausting but enlightening experience, we have been exploring opportunities in the billion peso wedding industry in the Philippines.

What fascinated me personally was the photography business and how little people know about the implications of copyright law on their work.

The Philippine Intellectual Property Code (IP Code) has this to say about commissioned works:

178.4. In the case of a work commissioned by a person other than an employer of the author and who pays for it and the work is made in pursuance of the commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall have ownership of the work, but the copyright thereto shall remain with the creator, unless there is a written stipulation to the contrary.

Even after paying a small fortune for your wedding photos and videos, the couple has to understand that you may own the CDs, the printouts and the files provided for you, but copyright is generally retained by the photographer.

This general rule, however, may be changed in the contract.

Photography and editing by M.R. Dy. Copyright 2014-2015.

So what exactly does it mean when a photographer owns copyright?

It means that, without the authorization of the photographer, the client cannot publish the photos in any medium (including the Internet), display the photos in a public space, make copies of the photos, print them, or in any way communicate them to the public whether the use is commercial or not.

In addition, the photographer must always be acknowledged as the author unless he or she instructs otherwise.

Although, in practice, I have never met a wedding photographer who would prevent a client from making copies or publishing their wedding photos, it's good to know that photographers do have a high level of protection in our intellectual property law as creators of original artistic works.

So how long does copyright over photographs last?

IP Code reads: 

213.5. In case of photographic works, the protection shall be for fifty (50) years from publication of the work and, if unpublished, fifty (50) years from the making.

This period is much shorter than the 'lifetime + 50 years' rule but it should be long enough to provide some level of protection. 

Still, I think our lawmakers need to review this and rationalize if there really is a significant difference between photography and other works of art. 

I honestly see no such difference.