If you hire a photographer to photograph you, don't you own the copyright as their employer?
Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.
Unless they took the photographs for free, the copyright notices they put on them are fraudulent.
edit: If you are working as a employee (think W-2), it is different. Just hiring someone to take pictures (think 1099/contractor), I think is not covered under the same rules.
The long answer: not unless transfer of copyright was explicitly part of the agreement.
Slightly longer answer:
In most cases nowadays when you hire a photographer, the photographer retains the copyright and will ask a considerable amount to transfer those rights to you. What you’re essentially are paying for is for them to take the photos (cheapest option), for them to print the photos after taking them (slightly more expensive), or for them to hand you the digital photo files (expensive).
Neither of those options transfer copyright, as copyright is in principle granted to the person who takes the photos. Wedding photographers are notorious for monetizing every aspect of the job (I say this without value judgement) for example, where you pay a fee to cover the event, a fee for printing photos and a fee for receiving digital copies (because you don’t have to pay them for printing).