This is probably one of the most misunderstood topics in the photography world, and it's become even more convoluted with the boom of social media and sharing posts and content found online. Bottom line - when you hire a photographer, you paid for the photos, so you own the photos right?

Wrong.

By law, creators own their own art (photography, videography, etc) the moment it is created. This is known as Copyright Law, and since the 70s, all creators have had their work protected instantly and automatically. Just because you have hired that photographer does not mean you own the rights to the images. A typical photographer contract grants you certain rights usage. So, if you hire a photographer for personal photos, the contract generally states you can use the photos for personal uses (getting prints made, sharing with friends and family...) but not for commercial use. Meaning, if a well-known soda brand asks for photos of people enjoying their product for an upcoming ad, you cannot send them the photo the photographer took of you and your brother sitting with bottles of said soda. That would be outside of the usage rights.

Likewise, if you hire a photographer for commercial uses, there will be very specific license details in your contract. Typically, a commercial photographer will grant you the right to use the images for specific uses (for example: on your website, on social, on business cards, etc) - and some contracts have license durations. This means you only can use the images for a certain amount of time before you have to renew the license.

Now, let's say that a friend of yours is starting a jewelry business and you were wearing her jewelry in your branding photos. You can share those photos with her so she can use them to promote her jewelry right? Again, that's incorrect. If that jewelry-business friend used the images, it would be to promote her business and try to get new clients and make more money. That's a commercial use called sub-licensing, and it's generally forbidden in most photography contracts. Now, if she showed interest in the photos and your contract says you can't sub-license, simply ask the photographer. Sometimes they will be fine with sharing the photos either for free or will offer her a paid license option.

So, if you don't own the photos outright, why hire a photographer? Because you intend to capture something specific. You're capturing your business, your employees, your food, your product... You're capturing your family, your kids, your high school senior, a family event... You need someone who knows how to utilize lighting, to style the food, to offer posing suggestions, to edit the images properly, to compose the scene, to produce high quality work - and do all the things that the pros do on a regular basis.

What if you want the rights to the photos? Is that even possible? Yes! This is called a full rights buyout. A full buyout comes with a much higher price tag - typically 3x or more the cost of a license. If it's something you're interested in, ask your photographer, and they can give you options. Keep in mind that this must be detailed in the contract in order for the rights transfer to occur. A full rights buyout typically is only done by commercial clients who specifically need full control of their media. Personal photography (family portraits, wedding photography, high schools senior portraits, sports portraits, etc) don't tend to need a full rights buyout.

When in doubt, check your contract and ask your photographer. They can clarify the language of their contract and what you can and can't do with the images. Keeping communication open and honest helps keep everyone on the same page and creating together!