Wedding Etiquette Forum

XP- uneasy about photography contract

knottierknottier member
First Anniversary First Comment
edited February 2016 in Wedding Etiquette Forum
So, we are due to sign the contract with our photographer pretty soon. 
  I have a question about a portion of the contract I feel a bit uneasy about. It is under 'model release' and it says the following:
  Client’s guests at the wedding shall be deemed to have consented to the use of their name, image, or likeness by Client, Studio and Photographer for the duration of the Assignment, and Client shall defend and indemnify the Studio and Photographer from and against any claims that any of Client’s guests may assert against the Studio or Photographer arising from, or related to, the use of any name, image, or likeness of Client’s guest[s] by the Studio and Photographer Client during the Assignment. 

I am not sure about this. Am I being paranoid? I am sure they would probably not use my pictures or pictures of my guests for anything other than advertising. However I am not sure I can sign a release to say that my guests consented to the use of their name and likeness, isn't this presumptuous? 

Another thing is my fiance does not want pictures of us on their website for strangers to see, and I am not sure if more of our guests feel the same way. However another part of the contract says that they can do pretty much what they want with our pictures (including selling them). I am not sure I am ok with this. 

 Is this unreasonable of us? I am a little annoyed that I am paying for someone to take pictures of me and I have basically no control of what they do with those pictures. Is this a normal practice, was this included in your contracts as well? 

Re: XP- uneasy about photography contract

  • knottier said:
    So, we are due to sign the contract with our photographer pretty soon. 
      I have a question about a portion of the contract I feel a bit uneasy about. It is under 'model release' and it says the following:
      Client’s guests at the wedding shall be deemed to have consented to the use of their name, image, or likeness by Client, Studio and Photographer for the duration of the Assignment, and Client shall defend and indemnify the Studio and Photographer from and against any claims that any of Client’s guests may assert against the Studio or Photographer arising from, or related to, the use of any name, image, or likeness of Client’s guest[s] by the Studio and Photographer Client during the Assignment. 

    I am not sure about this. Am I being paranoid? I am sure they would probably not use my pictures or pictures of my guests for anything other than advertising. However I am not sure I can sign a release to say that my guests consented to the use of their name and likeness, isn't this presumptuous? 

    Another thing is my fiance does not want pictures of us on their website for strangers to see, and I am not sure if more of our guests feel the same way. However another part of the contract says that they can do pretty much what they want with our pictures (including selling them). I am not sure I am ok with this. 

     Is this unreasonable of us? I am a little annoyed that I am paying for someone to take pictures of me and I have basically no control of what they do with those pictures. Is this a normal practice, was this included in your contracts as well? 

    1st bold is kind of strange to me. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can sign away your guests' rights, so I am thinking that clause will never hold up in court, and I wouldn't worry about it.

    2nd bold is more of a gray area. Our photography "sold" us the copyright to the photos he took, but he can use them to advertise his service. Still, we own them, so he can't sell them to a bridal magazine. If you aren't comfortable with this I would change the contract, try and buy the copyright, or find a new photographer.

    image
  • Yes, the copyright part also bugs me. She said that I would have access to the high res files if I wanted to reproduced them, but then the contract says this:

    COPYRIGHTS. The Work created by Photographer during the Assignment constitutes the copyrighted work of Photographer and the Studio. The Work at all times shall remain the property of Photographer and the Studio. Any portion of the Work delivered to Client is for Client’s personal use only. Client may not sell or reproduce, nor authorize the sale or reproduction of, any portion of the Work without the Studio’s written consent. The undersigned party or parties hereby gives the Studio permission to use the photos contracted for in commercial advertising, for display, for sample purposes (by photographer and secondary photographers contracted by the Studio) or for sale on or off Studio premises.

  • SoldiersMomSoldiersMom member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Name Dropper
    edited February 2016
    knottier said: So, we are due to sign the contract with our photographer pretty soon. 
      I have a question about a portion of the contract I feel a bit uneasy about. It is under 'model release' and it says the following:
      Client’s guests at the wedding shall be deemed to have consented to the use of their name, image, or likeness by Client, Studio and Photographer for the duration of the Assignment, and Client shall defend and indemnify the Studio and Photographer from and against any claims that any of Client’s guests may assert against the Studio or Photographer arising from, or related to, the use of any name, image, or likeness of Client’s guest[s] by the Studio and Photographer Client during the Assignment. I am not sure about this. Am I being paranoid? I am sure they would probably not use my pictures or pictures of my guests for anything other than advertising. However I am not sure I can sign a release to say that my guests consented to the use of their name and likeness, isn't this presumptuous? Another thing is my fiance does not want pictures of us on their website for strangers to see, and I am not sure if more of our guests feel the same way. However another part of the contract says that they can do pretty much what they want with our pictures (including selling them). I am not sure I am ok with this.  Is this unreasonable of us? I am a little annoyed that I am paying for someone to take pictures of me and I have basically no control of what they do with those pictures. Is this a normal practice, was this included in your contracts as well? 





    To the bolded...I have seen that before in business that use CCTV. They will hang a notice similar to the above, which states that by entering their business you consent to being recorded. It doesn't seem like you (the B&G) can agree to that for your guests, and some may not agree to being used in this photographer's advertising. If you are set on using this photographer, I would check out Legal Zoom or any similar legal consulting website and see what your options are in negotiating this point. As for the copyright, all of the photographers I researched gave full copyright. It may have been lumped in with the total cost, but either way, all the images are ours. The photographer we chose specifically told us we could do whatever we wanted...share on Facebook, print at Walmart, etc...I think you have less negotiating power on this point. Technically whoever take the picture owns the picture, and it sounds like this photographer will stick to that. Personally, I would keep looking at other photographers.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
  • edited February 2016
    Get a new photog if you are uneasy about the contact. Good for you, you actually read the contact, too many don't. That's always a good sign.

    If you don't want the images on the internet, ask to have it in the contact. Be specific if they agree to include it.

    The photog almost always retains the copyright. The only time they relinquish the copyright entirely is when they are paid handsomely. Think celebrity weddings, the ones where the couple sells their photos to US Weekly. In most cars, The photog keeps the copyright so they can use them to advertise their business. Some of that advertising will be digital, so typical they will only agree not post your full album on Facebook. They won't agree to not have any of your images in their online sample gallery. But your images may not end up being the cream of the crop, and therefore may never be in a sample album or gallery.

    Of course, you can compensate them to own the full copyright, and they relinquish all rights to the images, but be prepared to pay more than double the standard package price.

    I would never ever contract with a photog that retains the right to sell my images. I would only consent to advertising for their business - totally reasonable. I don't want to see me or guests at our wedding on the side of a bus. With this contract, if your uncle sues them for being in an advertisement, you are financially responsible, not the photog. 

    Get a new photographer. And post on the correct board - not sure how you XP but missed the obvious board - photography and videos.
    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • Get a new photog if you are uneasy about the contact. Good for you, you annual read the contact, too many don't. That's always a God sign.

    If you don't want the images on the internet, ask to have it in the contact. Be specific if they agree to include it.

    The photog almost always retains the copyright. The only time they relinquish the copyright entirely is when they are paid handsomely. Think celebrity weddings, the ones where the couple sells their photos to US Weekly. In most cars, The photog keeps the copyright so they can use them to advertise their business. Some of that advertising will be digital, so typical they will only agree not post your full album on Facebook. They won't agree to not have any of your images in their online sample gallery. But your images may not end up being the cream of the crop, and therefore may never be in a sample album or gallery.

    Of course, you can compensate them to own the full copyright, and they relinquish all rights to the images, but be prepared to pay more than double the standard package price.

    I would never ever contract with a photog that retains the right to sell my images. I would only consent to advertising for their business - totally reasonable. I don't want to see me or guests at our wedding on the side of a bus. With this contract, if your uncle sues them for being in an advertisement, you are financially responsible, not the photog. 

    Get a new photographer. And post on the correct board - not sure how you XP but missed the obvious board - photography and videos.
    Thanks so much for your input, I really wanted a photographer's perspective on this since I didn't know if our expectations were out of line. 
      I agree that the vendor should retain the rights to use our images for their portfolio, but I am not ok with giving them the right to sell our image, or that of our guests. 
     Sorry for posting on the wrong board!  :s
  • edited February 2016
    knottier said:
    Get a new photog if you are uneasy about the contact. Good for you, you annual read the contact, too many don't. That's always a God sign.

    If you don't want the images on the internet, ask to have it in the contact. Be specific if they agree to include it.

    The photog almost always retains the copyright. The only time they relinquish the copyright entirely is when they are paid handsomely. Think celebrity weddings, the ones where the couple sells their photos to US Weekly. In most cars, The photog keeps the copyright so they can use them to advertise their business. Some of that advertising will be digital, so typical they will only agree not post your full album on Facebook. They won't agree to not have any of your images in their online sample gallery. But your images may not end up being the cream of the crop, and therefore may never be in a sample album or gallery.

    Of course, you can compensate them to own the full copyright, and they relinquish all rights to the images, but be prepared to pay more than double the standard package price.

    I would never ever contract with a photog that retains the right to sell my images. I would only consent to advertising for their business - totally reasonable. I don't want to see me or guests at our wedding on the side of a bus. With this contract, if your uncle sues them for being in an advertisement, you are financially responsible, not the photog. 

    Get a new photographer. And post on the correct board - not sure how you XP but missed the obvious board - photography and videos.
    Thanks so much for your input, I really wanted a photographer's perspective on this since I didn't know if our expectations were out of line. 
      I agree that the vendor should retain the rights to use our images for their portfolio, but I am not ok with giving them the right to sell our image, or that of our guests. 
     Sorry for posting on the wrong board!  :s
    (Wow, I made a lot of fat finger typos using mobile. Glad you could still understand.)

    For that reason alone I would get a new photog. I wouldn't use a photog who needed to sell their photos to advertising or otherwise. If they want to use me as a model, and profit from those images, I expect to be compensated, not pay them for that honor.

    No worries on the board. You just get better responses if you select the proper board. People tend to check in on boards of their particular interests. Etiquette isn't really a catch all for everything wedding related. :)
    :kiss: ~xoxo~ :kiss:

  • knottier said:
    So, we are due to sign the contract with our photographer pretty soon. 
      I have a question about a portion of the contract I feel a bit uneasy about. It is under 'model release' and it says the following:
      Client’s guests at the wedding shall be deemed to have consented to the use of their name, image, or likeness by Client, Studio and Photographer for the duration of the Assignment, and Client shall defend and indemnify the Studio and Photographer from and against any claims that any of Client’s guests may assert against the Studio or Photographer arising from, or related to, the use of any name, image, or likeness of Client’s guest[s] by the Studio and Photographer Client during the Assignment. 

    I am not sure about this. Am I being paranoid? I am sure they would probably not use my pictures or pictures of my guests for anything other than advertising. However I am not sure I can sign a release to say that my guests consented to the use of their name and likeness, isn't this presumptuous? 

    Another thing is my fiance does not want pictures of us on their website for strangers to see, and I am not sure if more of our guests feel the same way. However another part of the contract says that they can do pretty much what they want with our pictures (including selling them). I am not sure I am ok with this. 

     Is this unreasonable of us? I am a little annoyed that I am paying for someone to take pictures of me and I have basically no control of what they do with those pictures. Is this a normal practice, was this included in your contracts as well? 

    1st bold is kind of strange to me. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can sign away your guests' rights, so I am thinking that clause will never hold up in court, and I wouldn't worry about it.

    2nd bold is more of a gray area. Our photography "sold" us the copyright to the photos he took, but he can use them to advertise his service. Still, we own them, so he can't sell them to a bridal magazine. If you aren't comfortable with this I would change the contract, try and buy the copyright, or find a new photographer.

    FWIW, you aren't signing away your guests' rights. You're agreeing to indemnify the photographer if a guest brought a claim. 

    I'm not commenting on whether it's a good idea or not, but ignoring it because you just assume it couldn't hold up in Court is unwise. 
  • Are you in love with this photographer?  I would probably look for someone else.  Especially knowing your fiance doesn't want your images used for advertising and who knows how your guests feel - I know several of my guests would want the option then to not be photographed.  And that includes my mother so it would be a no go for sure!
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards