I do a lot of photography as a hobby and understand the importance of letting the pros be pros.

However, the photographer my fiance and I are considering for our wedding is asking for "... will own copyright to all images photographed for client. Images may be used for advertising, editorial, contests, exhibitions, or for display within or outside photographers’ studio."

I'd prefer that images of my event remain personal and not used for-profit or advertising.

Is it reasonable to ask her to re-consider?
Do any of you pros have an example clause they use for private events?

Thanks,
Nick & Melissa

I have similar wording in my wedding aggrement contract, but if someone would request me not using their images I would honor that. It's not like they will be publishing the whole event on the nightly news though-It just helps so we don't have to track everyone down and ask for an o'k before putting something on the business web-site etc. I really wouldn't worry much about it at all. I also put similar wording in my portrait brochure and have all my clients sign a model release/copyright aggreement that states that I have permission to use images for promotion/display and have a box that they can check to opt out of the display part of it. I've only had maybe 2 people in the last 3-4 years check the opt-out box.

The "owning copyright" is mostly to tell the client that the photographer owns the copyright, it's the default state of the law (in the US) unless contracted otherwise. Most photographers insist on retaining copyright or charging significantly more to transfer the copyright. There are a number of reasons that this is common, mostly having to do with maintaining control of copying for both artistic, business and financial reasons. It would be unlikely the photographer would negotiate on this.

An individual, any individual, has the right to control the use of their own image/persona for commercial purposes. This doesn't mean that the image can't be sold, it means the image can't be used to promote a business, goods or services without permission. (This is usually called one's "right to (or of) publicity." It's not a copyright matter.) The details of this vary somewhat from state to state. Some photographers will suggest they will charge additional fees if the contract doesn't allow them to use the images. Others will be quite willing to not use the images. This is negotiable and any particular concerns should be discussed. If they refuse to negotiate, then the solution is finding a photographer sensitive to your desires. (Note that because this is an individual's right, those rights can not be signed over by another person. The parties signing the contract can not sign the rights over for other members of the wedding party, guests, etc.)

Consider that the photographer's "portfolio" is very important to the business. One of the most important bits of advice given to potential customers is to check the "portfolio" and see the kinds of results that they get in different venues, different times of day, different types of ceremonies and services, etc. "Staged" work isn't representative of the types of results that they get in actual weddings, so actual customer pictures are important. You will also be able to tell by the current ads, website, etc., how tastefully they use customer images.

Part of the discussion should include how the photographer places images out for ordering. It's not unusual for them to be on website galleries. While these can often be password protected, it does depend on the various people involved to keep the password "protected." This is not covered by the restrictions on needing permission for promotional use. The images can be displayed for sale and to the various participants, etc., without specific permission from any/all of the identifiable individuals. This is common these days and since so many family members and guests take pictures too, wouldn't be something I'd worry about.

Craig is correct.

From my one professional point of view, it's not terribly uncommon for some of my high-end clients to request that I not use their images for advertising. They understand that once an image hits the Internet, it's impossible to retrieve, and I understand that as well. This particularly becomes more important with children and with clients that have a public image to maintain (which always implies a private image to protect). On the other hand, some of my clients eagerly inquire, "You're going to put me on your website, right?"

I try to provide a luxury level of service at a commensurate price for that level, so I don't nickel-and-dime my clients for such things.

To be frank, I myself wouldn't sign the super-inclusive model releases normally proposed. Those releases are written for models who are in the business of selling their images for all purposes imaginable, not for private commission clients. My own release stipulates that I would be using the images only to promote myself as a photographer and my photography business, not for any other purposes and not for sale to any other entity. Making these self-imposed restrictions clear allays most clients' fears.

Part of the discussion should include how the photographer places images out for ordering. It's not unusual for them to be on website galleries. While these can often be password protected, it does depend on the various people involved to keep the password "protected." This is not covered by the restrictions on needing permission for promotional use. The images can be displayed for sale and to the various participants, etc., without specific permission from any/all of the identifiable individuals.

This is an important point that most people don't realize. Model release is needed for commercial use of the image, but "commercial use" does not include the sale of that particular image or even advertising the sale of that particular image.

Seems pretty straight forward to me as well. The mention for advertising use is for him advertising his photographic services, and editorial use for when magazines may be doing an article about local photographers, and he submits a few samples. You should ask for clarification in writing if you have doubts. If you do not want anyone else to see them, you would be tying the photographers hands and interfering with his livelyhood by asking him to keep those images in permanent embargo. He Is certainly within usual and customary business practices to ask for a surcharge for your request.

Of course its completely reasonable on your part Nick. btw you are the customer and until you sign a binding contract EVERYTHING is negotiable - including copyright ownership. The photographer may not bend on certain things but that should not keep you from asking for anything you want or don't want icluded.

jjlphoto wrote:
Seems pretty straight forward to me as well. The mention for advertising use is for him advertising his photographic services, and editorial use for when magazines may be doing an article about local photographers, and he submits a few samples. You should ask for clarification in writing if you have doubts. If you do not want anyone else to see them, you would be tying the photographers hands and interfering with his livelyhood by asking him to keep those images in permanent embargo. He Is certainly within usual and customary business practices to ask for a surcharge for your request.

I guess that is the view from a photographers perspective...but if we put the shoe onto the other foot...why should I the client not ask for a discount if the photographer will not only be making money from shooting the wedding, but he will also get images he can use to further promote his business.

Thanks everyone! Lots of great ideas on how to approach the subject and some possible middle-ground solutions.

Nick

chez wrote:I guess that is the view from a photographers perspective...but if we put the shoe onto the other foot...why should I the client not ask for a discount if the photographer will not only be making money from shooting the wedding, but he will also get images he can use to further promote his business.


In the US, it is standard practice to show past work to gain future work. IOW, if no past work to show, no future work to gain. Potential clients expect to see shots from actual paying jobs, not just set-up test shots. (That is sometimes how you break into the biz, but not how you keep it going.)

Sure, if someone wanted their shots kept in the proverbial file cabinet, and the photographer already had lots of other portfolio shots doing a good job at promoting the photographers work, no big loss. But too much of that and eventually the buying public expects their shots will never be shown to others, the customers begin think they own all the rights, creating a marketing and client education nightmare for the photographer.

A pricing strategy may be to price the job at a premium initially, then at the box where the customer checks to give permission to use their likeness for the photographers advertising, offer such discount that in effect brings the job back to your normal price.

BTW, I'll guarantee that most photographers today who photograph people never get those folks express written permission to use the shots for their advertising. It's usually ASMP, PPA, etc., or Photo Forum members who follow these prudent business practices, unfortunately these photographers really only make up a minority of the photo business populous.

But too much of that and eventually the buying public expects their shots will never be shown to others, the customers begin think they own all the rights, creating a marketing and client education nightmare for the photographer.

Well, I'm one of the PPA crowd, so I explain in my initial consultation that I'll be asking for a release for my self-promotion. Upon delivery, I'll take them through both a copyright understanding document and the release document, as well as my product warranties.

A pricing strategy may be to price the job at a premium initially, then at the box where the customer checks to give permission to use their likeness for the photographers advertising, offer such discount that in effect brings the job back to your normal price.

This is not a bad idea for people who find themselves in that kind of client environment.

jjlphoto wrote:

BTW, I'll guarantee that most photographers today who photograph people never get those folks express written permission to use the shots for their advertising. It's usually ASMP, PPA, etc., or Photo Forum members who follow these prudent business practices, unfortunately these photographers really only make up a minority of the photo business populous.

I'm not really sure how this makes it "OK" not to get a model release signed?

mdude85 wrote:I'm not really sure how this makes it "OK" not to get a model release signed?

It doesn't make it okay at all. The reason I inserted that was to make a point that most photogs do not have all their ducks in a row as far as this stuff is concerned, and as a result, the public is often misinformed as to what prudent practices really are. That's put one hell of a burden on me trying to educate potential customers. Common reaction is "no one else does it this way" or "your'e the only one with all this official legalese sounding stuff", hence they go find someone who has paperwork without any legal sounding language on it, or no contract at all. People happily sign a contract for a new furnace because the entire industry works that way, but the same people are rather gun shy about doing the same for a photographer, for the reasons I stated above.

Oh yeah, I am an ASMP member.

jjlphoto wrote:
people are rather gun shy about doing the same for a photographer

I find that surprising... I think my fiance would sign about anything that gets in the way of the wedding

Nick

The clause you mention is very standard .... at least with most of the photographers I know ... did you not consider this photographer because of the other "personal" images he shared with you from previous wedding clients?

If all wedding clients chose to not grant permission to share their images ... there wouldn't be much point. All photographers would have the same exact portfolio to show .... nothing.

That's from the wedding pro's viewpoint. But if you are a "pro" selling an image to be used by someone else to advertise their business, it's common to price the image based on the perceived income it will generate. So the more valuable to the client, the more it costs them. Hence, if I were supplying wedding images, models, etc., the more valuable it is to the (wedding) business, the more they (you) should be charged.

The more valuable the use of the wedding customer's images are, the more willing you should be to pay for it or sweeten the deal to get use of the images. As it is, wedding pros are upside down to the rest of the industry. It's usually not a big deal, most people don't care. So ask, don't demand, don't try to diddle them on prices, and for those few that are sensitive, it should be easy enough to pass on it. It would seem that if the portfolio is weak, then all the more reason to gain permission instead of being adversarial about it.

Craig Gillette wrote:
The more valuable the use of the wedding customer's images are, the more willing you should be to pay for it or sweeten the deal to get use of the images. As it is, wedding pros are upside down to the rest of the industry. It's usually not a big deal, most people don't care. So ask, don't demand, don't try to diddle them on prices, and for those few that are sensitive, it should be easy enough to pass on it. It would seem that if the portfolio is weak, then all the more reason to gain permission instead of being adversarial about it.

That reminds me of a portrait photographer on another forum who wanted to charge a local doctor to display his baby portraits in her waiting room.

My comment was, "Go you your mall and ask them how much they'd charge you to display those prints in a kiosk."

I recently did a Bat MItzvah shoot and the parents requested that I strike a line similar to yours above - "advertising, editorial, contests, exhibitions, or for display within or outside photographers’ studio."

I explained to the the reason the line exists and that I would make an alteration for them that would limit my use only to print portfolio presentation - essentially only to show potential clients and never leave my possession and never displayed or printed to the internet - but I would still retain all copyrights etc.

It is not like I need more pics of mitzvah's.

Thanks everyone. Again, lots of great advice.

Nick