It's a work made for hire only if one of two things is true.
First, if it's a work (a) made by an employee, (b) made within the scope of his employment. A wedding photographer is an independent contractor, not an employee, so that's out.
The other ways is if (a) it's a work made by an independent contractor and (b) the parties agree in writing that it's a WMFH, and (c) (and this point is usually missed) it's on a list of specific types of works: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas..."
Wedding pictured don't qualify on that (c) list. I've seen at least one case where the court held that the creator was the author and copyright owner, *despite a written agreement that the work would be a WMFH*, because it was not a work of the qualifying type.
So you can't, even in writing, enforceable agree that wedding photos are works made for hire.
What you can do is agree (in writing) that the ownership of copyright is assigned to the hiring party. The *author* will still be the creating party,and will still have some vestigial rights of "termination" that will kick in 35 years later, but then the hiring party will be the copyright owner.
Work-made-for-hire
First, if it's a work (a) made by an employee, (b) made within the scope of his employment. A wedding photographer is an independent contractor, not an employee, so that's out.
The other ways is if (a) it's a work made by an independent contractor and (b) the parties agree in writing that it's a WMFH, and (c) (and this point is usually missed) it's on a list of specific types of works: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas..."
Wedding pictured don't qualify on that (c) list. I've seen at least one case where the court held that the creator was the author and copyright owner, *despite a written agreement that the work would be a WMFH*, because it was not a work of the qualifying type.
So you can't, even in writing, enforceable agree that wedding photos are works made for hire.
What you can do is agree (in writing) that the ownership of copyright is assigned to the hiring party. The *author* will still be the creating party,and will still have some vestigial rights of "termination" that will kick in 35 years later, but then the hiring party will be the copyright owner.