-> My slant is that if he paid you to help him with the wedding (in other words
-> he booked the wedding and got you to also shoot with him) he has the major
-> interest in rights.  If it is something that was done 50-50 in payoff, he
-> coud maintain his half was what he put on the website.  You could use
-> another shot and so claim that.  
-> 
-> The question of image rights seems to boil down to whether you acted as his
-> agent or not.  I'm personally not aware of any true partnership weddings not
-> done by actual partners in business but have knowledge of numerous other
-> weddings booked by one party and shot by a second party.  The rights belong
-> to the first party, all else being equal, as he hired the second photog to
-> shoot it for him and the purchasers pay the one who did the hiring.   That
-> serves to identify who owns image and reprint rights, in my opinion.  
-> 
Hi Bob
All that threw me for a second.  Then I thought back to the pictures I
recently mentioned that I took for the newspaper.  It was their film, and
they own the pictures, even if my name did land on some of them. 
Basically, I don't like that situation as I have had some pretty decent
photos published that I can't share with you as I have no copies, other
than the dotty things right out of the newspaper. I can't make reprints. 
If anyone wanted a copy, the paper made money selling the pictures. 
Bummer.

Karen
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5