i am reproducing the provisions of the Copyright Act for your perusal :
2.Interpretation. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) adaptation " means,- (i)in relation to a dramatic work, the conversion of the work into a non-dramatic work; (ii)in relation to a literary work or an artistic work, the conversion of the work into a dramatic work by way of performance in public or otherwise; (iii)in relation to a literary or dramatic work, any abridgement of the work or any version of the work in which the story or action is conveyed wholly or mainly by means of pictures in a form suitable for reproduction in a book, or in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical ; and (iv)in relation to a musical work, any arrangement or transcription of the work ; (b) " architectural work of art " means any building or structure having an artistic character or design, or any model such building or structure (C)" artistic work " means- (i)a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan,), an engraving or a photo- graph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality
d) author " means,- (i) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, the author of the work ; (ii) in relation to a musical work, the composer; (iii)in relation to an artistic work other than a photograph,the artist ; (iv) in relation to a photograph, the person taking the photograph.
but here they talk about a person taking pictures of nature or persons with lawful means as such n the above case too, the lawfullness shall play an important pat while adjudging legality of licensing the said copyright to third person.
if we take another view then it comes out tht if the consent was given only to the said photographer, then he was bound not to makethe photos published by third pardy. its an encroachment to the right to privacy as well as breach of contract.