Photography copyright?

Copyright of images belongs to the photographer, even if the client is paying for the photo shoot.

If you are going to give out digital copies, best to give only low resolution images for use on the web. No need to watermark them if they are low res, since they won't be able to get decent prints from them anyway. Unless you really want to give them high resolution images so that they can cheat the photographer, and just go buy the prints somewhere else. If you do that, you are losing out the potential profit you could make from selling prints.

I'd rather give them prints of the best shots with no watermark or copyright. I don't give out digital copies, CD or online.

I never watermark my photographs.

A watermark serves several purposes. First, it identifies the fotog, and owner of the copyrights, and it is a way of advertising one's skills. But it also deters some when reputable printers refuse to print images from someone other than the fotog. Low-res images are are usually "giveaways," since they can't be enlarged to any appreciative size, even if they can be copied to another computer or disc or memory card and can be posted on the Internet, which is why even low-res images often have watermarks (to advertise and protect). Now, the level of resolution and the size of prints should be negotiated and finely detailed in the contract for a planned and paid shoot to prevent misunderstandings or demands not specified in the contract.

The law in most countries (you do not sat where you operate) says that the copyright belongs to the photographer. So it is the photographer's choice to retain that copyright, or to sell it, or to give it away, or to hire it out for a limited period or type of use, etc.

In practicality, once you have given your clients digital images of reasonable quality (on CD, or USB stick, or by e-mail, etc) you have little control over those images unless you are prepared to send in the heavy gang as enforcers!

Wedding pictures and those taken by photography studios put their watermark on because it represents their studio work. Independent artists usually sell 'as is' so no watermark is needed. It depends on who still owns the copyright, was it work for hire, is it studio work, etc. If the photos are for the clients to do with as they wish (making any number of copies, etc.) I'd leave the watermark off.