Thanks for taking the time to comment. In the situation you outline I would say you have summed it up nicely. The most important thing is that both parties are clear on the agreed usage at the outset and in the situation you describe, I think you’ve covered all the bases. The watermarking would prevent reproductions being made and I think would be a wise move if a photographer has not taken the photos with a view to the artist making such reproductions.

If the job was to provide digital images from which prints could then be made, I would expect the photographer to charge an appropriate rate for the work – i.e the digital image production. This might vary based on whether the artists requires just the image as it was captured or a print ready file (i.e post production work – cropping and print preparation – that they can take straight to a printing service). In those circumstances it would be expected that the photographer could not distribute those images for any commercial purpose, or, even for non commercial use as the image depicted belongs solely to the creator of the original art. Again, both parties need to be sure of their agreement at the outset.

There have been various cases where disputes have arisen and no doubt such cases will continue to occur but if a little common sense is used and both parties have a modicum of integrity there should really be no reason for disputes.

An artist asks a photographer to photograph their drawings in full as well as the photographer’s creative composition of (for example) multiple drawings or portions of drawings in the artist’s gallery, perhaps the artist themself with a drawing etc. in high resolution for the artist’s website, printed materials, catalogs, etc. There is no payment and this is done gratis by the photographer. The photographer adds a small watermark of their photography studio logo for recognition in exchange for the gratis work.

So while the artist still maintains all creative and commercial copyright to their artwork’s content that does NOT include use of the photographs except for the permitted use given by the photographer, correct? Those photographs are art themselves (composition, lighting selection, camera and lens settings) and are copyrighted by the photographer to protect the photograph’s usage by the client and third parties BUT they absolutely cannot be used for commercial purposes, i.e. selling, printing en masse, etc., by the photographer because the artist maintains all rights to the creative image as subject of the photos, am I correct here? Both parties must give the other explicit use rights of the photographs…or in this case, the photographer would give specific use restrictions to the artist and/or allow/deny any third party use? (i.e. the artist can use the photos for their website and catalog but a gallery may not use them without permission/payment, etc) There is no commercial right held by the photographer to sell the photos because they contain copyrighted or portions of copyrighted artwork, correct? Both parties are protected here.

Thank you.