One literally told me I offended her by attempting to negotiate. Most replied saying they'd give me a DVD of the digital photos, so I shouldn't worry about it.

I tried explaining to them that I work as a freelancer/contractor too and am very familiar with IP issues unlike probably most of their clients.

They mostly justified it by saying they're artists and that the work is theirs. I know these days they also put a lot of time in post-production and color correction. They like the idea they can showcase their work in magazines and on their websites (which I don't like). They also like selling prints to your friends/family (which is ok with me, as long I can do the same for free).

Historically photographers have generally owned their work. But I doubt they've historically made as much as they do from weddings (which is an insane industry, pricing-wise).

Artist arrogance must be cousin of designer ego: folks that overrate themselves with hubris believing that others will see that as a signal of quality.

The only reason for a photographer to retain copyright is to screw unsuspecting people and others that will bend to the manipulate nonsense. If it's your private event and they're any good, they don't need unlimited rights to your memories. That's offensive.

What it comes down to is nobody who produces art (photography, painting, etc.) wants to be in a situation where their work is being curated or published and they have remove good work because they don't have the rights to their own photos. It could be for anything from a gallery show (many photographers' bread and butter) to one of their online sample books. What makes the issue more complex here is that a photograph captures a moment in time (meaning it can not necessarily be recaptured) and the perceived implications of that will vary widely from person to person. But again, if you're a photographer who gets one great photo, some perfect moment from a job, you want to be able to do more with it since you can't just tell the client "hey, this photo is so good you need to pay me 10x as much for it!"

(Hopefully that's coherent enough to make sense of, writing multiple things at once now...)

From my perspective, not being able to re-sell that one great photo is exactly the deal you're making when hired to do a job. I wrote some pretty cool software for some past employers, and they could sell one of my patents for a few hundred grand, but they also paid me a fair wage so I signed away my rights.

If photographers' bread and butter is gallery shows, then they should come to my wedding for free, or maybe I should charge them admission to cover the costs of the extraordinarily expensive set and costume.

> From my perspective, not being able to re-sell that one great photo is exactly the deal you're making when hired to do a job.

Only as far as the contract says that is so, as at least in the US the implicit agreement is the opposite.[1]

Don't conflate having a client with being employed (I don't think you are, but the second sentence could be read that way). A more realistic understanding of the freelance photographer's life is that their bread and butter is almost never just one thing... even successful photographers who demand high fees are constantly looking for new and steadier revenue streams. As time goes on and technology improves, the number of photographers (at least: people able to take pleasing photos) will only increase. Naively this means that the price for services should be driven down, but what it really means is that pros will have to charge more and amateurs will have to do more for less. Photographers in the middle, the ones who do most of the business, will have some tough decisions about how to proceed and many will stick with whatever disadvantages them the least. Giving up your rights in a field where that's uncommon is a pretty major disadvantage, especially when today's client comes from anywhere. Giving up the rights to display visual work online will make any creator gulp, because that's the new portfolio. And, unlike code or patents, people can and do give a quick flick through everything you show in order to make a judgement about whether to hire you.

There are plenty of photographers who will do your job for free (a wedding is a bad example here though) and try to make money some other way but they will either be: students, friends with prosumer gear, or people who have another guaranteed income (gallery/publishing contracts perhaps). That last group will be tiny and probably pick what events they do themselves.

I'm sorry for rambling a little bit on the subject because I do agree that there are probably better compromises to be made in the future. I think there's a great potential market for photographers especially to market themselves in the way you want them to actually operate, i.e. not as producers of intellectual property but as technicians providing a service. Unfortunately, until it becomes normal it will really be just another way to charge more. What would help is if these sorts of contracts could be developed by interested parties and released free to potentially gain mindshare. Everyone is in a much better position to negotiate a price ("fair wage", which is obviously dependent on many externals) if the implications of a contract have already been worked out.

Summary: You have a good argument, but it's just one good argument in a sea of tradition and status quo. There are good arguments on the other side as well I think. When photography becomes more of a "need" and less of a luxury (or maybe when it doesn't necessarily need to be done by people) then those compromises may work themselves out anyway. Some ideas for what could be done before then.

All in all, it sounds like you found someone good to work with on fair terms and probably both learned something about how photography is valued by the other side. By you as a private memory, by them as rendered services.

[1] I actually work mostly in a visual field producing work which I retain full rights to. The client is given a perpetual license to use in any way they see fit which usually means public display and publishing (in monographs or online). Though I am not contractually obliged to, I refrain from publishing any work myself at least until the client has done so themselves. It's a courtesy that no doubt would work become part of the contract if I were to stop doing it, but it's agreeable even if it requires checking in every so often to ask if the thing is public yet. Clients understand that I (and others who do the same thing) would be at a severe disadvantage if I was prevented from displaying my work for the sake of getting more work even if I can find a way to make marginal profit from it. Sometimes it actually helps both myself and the client to put a tagline of "Commissioned by [Client Name]" (free advertising for them). In short, I'm sympathetic to the less cutthroat ways of dealing with intellectual property while at the same time being very protective of my legal right to do what I need to do based on my own moral compass I guess.

[I'm just going to apologize again in case you actually read all this. Heh.]

The photography I went gave me the copyright to the photos with an exception that they can show them as sample to future clients and that only they are allowed to enter them into contests. It seemed more than fair to me.

I wouldn't let them have any copies, period. They can just resell them to stock photo sites or do whatever else they like and it's nearly impossible to police them.

If the subject of the photograph is an identifiable person, that type of publishing without a model release opens the publisher up to civil liability...