[USER=35036]Hoogle[/USER] -
Re your statement: "...Most of the time you pay for an image to be made which is exclusive to you, and within the transaction it becomes the Purchasers image to do what they like with. This is because you have paid someone to make something for you. ..."
It simply is not correct here in the USA. Perhaps copyright laws are different in your area.
In the USA, the statements that "TheBestCPU" made in an earlier post in this thread are exactly correct. In the USA, unless the contract specifically states that the copyright will be assigned to the person commissioning the work, the copyright remains with the creator, no matter how much has been paid. That is what "TheBestCPU" meant when he used the US legal term, "work for hire" and stated that the contract must be of that type for the copyright to transfer to the buyer.
Standard wedding photography, school yearbook and sports team shots, etc. etc. all fall under this rule in the USA.
There have been many instances where couples have thought the way you do, scanned the proofs supplied by their wedding photographer, and made their own copies or posted digitized versions to be available to their friends. If the situation has proceeded to litigation, US courts have never held in favor of the couple. I suppose the reason for this approach is that it protected one of the classic revenue streams of photographers and artists: making and selling multiple copies (eg, prints) of their work.
Tom M
