D. Diggler wrote:
This is getting a little ridiculous! I've occasionally had couples say they don't want anything put up on the internet and I agree to that. Not an ideal situation but, oh well. What's the big deal, really. Just put up shots from other weddings if you feel the need to put up fresh images.
It becomes a big deal when the majority of your clients want this type of exclusivity. Not necessarily a problem, but at a certain point you have to shift from selling your portfolio to selling something else.
D. Diggler wrote:
This is getting a little ridiculous! I've occasionally had couples say they don't want anything put up on the internet and I agree to that. Not an ideal situation but, oh well. What's the big deal, really. Just put up shots from other weddings if you feel the need to put up fresh images.
I agree if it's one or two clients a year, but it's not ridiculous at all when it becomes 25% or more of your clientele demanding such rights. I also agree if it's simply, "we don't want to be blogged." However, this is not what the OP is stating. The more rights you give away, the less you have to market your best work.
I'm not suggesting to charge out of spite; or just "because". I'm suggesting to charge for what you potentially lose when it is appropriate - advertising and marketing loss. I have a few images that literally drop brides jaws when they see it. I've booked more weddings off those images alone. What if I had given those rights to the clients? What if YOU take the absolute best image of your life and give the rights to ever using it away - an image you want every potential client to see? Well, now they won't, because you "gave" it away? Is it so ridiculous now?
Sure, you could say, "just recreate the image"... well, that's not always possible.
Cal166 wrote:
.... I know how to process photos .....
I know of plenty of people (including "photographers") who think they know too. That right there is a reason to limit use. Stopping it is a different story.
I'm working with a client that considers herself to be a very private person, and therefore didn't want me to post images where they can be seen by others. So I got into a conversation about how nearly everyone at weddings has some type of camera, and some of them post pictures while drinking beer at the reception. "Uh, I didn't think about that." We finally agreed to a compromise that allows me to post and/or use images that she specifally approves. She's happy. I'm happy. Life is good.
Camera's are nearly everywhere, and they're even talking about putting up drone's that can see in your windows. The Constitution says otherwise, of course, but it's just a matter of finding the "right" judges to come up with the "right" interpretation. Anyone that expects complete privacy at a wedding is dillusional, but it's still reasonable for a photographer to do his/her part to satisfy their needs, and then move on.
williamkazak wrote:
I have it all in the wedding contract. You won't always need every wedding for sample images, so I would not let one wedding become a problem for me if they want some privacy. You might want to book them anyway.
