Wedding client altered my contract

[Vtec44]

You run a business, you set your policies within the legal limits of the laws. Your potential clients will either agree and go forward with your services or or don't agree and find someone else. You can't walk into a bank, trying to get a loan, and alter the lending agreement and tell the bank to agree to it. In my personal opinion, I would decline this client in a heart beat. Your sanity is worth more than this.

1. The copyright clause doesn't make any sense and can get you in huge mess if you go through with it.
2. The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act
3. I'm not an attorney and this client sounds like a big headache.

 

[benhasajeep]

With weddings your always wary of bridezillas or momzillas. And this just might be a clue to just that.

 

[astroNikon]

I just read the first couple lines but ... Put it this way

YOU are now LIABLE for what your CLIENT deems any breach of contract or PERCEIVED breach of contract.

DON'T DO IT ... just don't do it. WALK away as fast as you can.

 

[Designer]

What should I do? Sounds like a client I may need to turn down.

How badly do you need the job?

 

[Designer]

I'll discuss giving copyright to clients, ..

Actually, I don't think you can even do that. Please consult an attorney who practices in copyright law, but in my opinion, the copyright ALWAYS belongs to the creator, who can then sell/lease publishing rights as he wishes.

See what staying at a Holiday Inn Express can do for you?

 

[Jmm06]

there are substantial areas of business in which making edits to contracts is standard practice. in fact the retail photography business is the only one i can think of offhand where certain vendors brush off the idea of editing a contract.

a pdf can be printed and marked up with a pen. don't rely on technology to solve what is ultimately a problem of local customs.

its clear that what the client wants is some form of leverage. they want some legal recourse which gives them somethign otehr than a refund in the event that you drop the ball and fail to deliver, which isn't a horrible idea. they're not going to get a chance to reshoot.

obvously you'll be told that this is an awful idea and you should just blow these losers off, but if you offered them the right to a complete cpy of your raw unedited files if AND ONLY IF you fail to deliver by such and such a date and after so and so procedures for recourse blah blah. this covers them if you drop dead before you can get the edits done, etc, and it's obviously all they're looking for.

if you wanted to get fancy you could drop a copy of the data in escrow the morning after the wedding, and pick it up after you complete your deliverables

It's almost as the client has switched the power and protection of my contract to favor in theirs, leaving me exposed. Therefore making me liable for any perceived breach of contract the client deems so.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

well, yes. generally when negotiating a contract one tries to make it more advantageous to oneself and, perhaps, less so to the other parties. this is normal.

this client does not seem to be aware that retail photographers don't negotiate contracts, and doesn't understand enough of the technicalities on copyright law to write anything that makes sense. their intent is clear, though.

properly their idea would be structured, probably, as making the wedding photography a "work for hire" with the copyrights to the pictures transferring to the photographer at the successful conclusion of the contracted work. there's no reason, beyond tradition, that this isn't a perfectly sensible way to do things. the end result is the same when all goes well, and the client has a little more legal leverage if things go pear shaped.

a thought experiment: what happens if you get hit by a bus after the wedding but before you do any editing?

 

[astroNikon]

Giving them all the images, I would only give them in jpg small rather than raw to protect myself. Thank you for your input.

Where in their revised contract does it allow you to do that ??

Don't think in what "you read" the contract states. But think in what the "customer" thinks the contract states. If it doesn't specifically states something, then it DOES NOT specifically state it. If you gave them small JPEGs then you could be in breach of contract.

I'd rather have a verbal contract than the one they provided.

 

[Jmm06]

You run a business, you set your policies within the legal limits of the laws. Your potential clients will either agree and go forward with your services or or don't agree and find someone else. You can't walk into a bank, trying to get a loan, and alter the lending agreement and tell the bank to agree to it. In my personal opinion, I would decline this client in a heart beat. Your sanity is worth more than this.

1. The copyright clause doesn't make any sense and can get you in huge mess if you go through with it.
2. The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act
3. I'm not an attorney and this client sounds like a big headache.

Couldn't agree more. There were minor changes that were negotiable, but the client changing my contract without giving me a heads up the copyright and a vast majority of the model release were red flags. Thanks for your advice.

 

[Jmm06]

What should I do? Sounds like a client I may need to turn down.

How badly do you need the job?

Not badly enough that it will give me a heartburn and a headache.

 

[Jmm06]

I'll discuss giving copyright to clients, ..

Actually, I don't think you can even do that. Please consult an attorney who practices in copyright law, but in my opinion, the copyright ALWAYS belongs to the creator, who can then sell/lease publishing rights as he wishes.

See what staying at a Holiday Inn Express can do for you?

That's good to know, I'll look into that. Thank you.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

of course you can sell a copyright. good lord. you don't even need to sell it for consideration, you can just give it away to someone if you like.

Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office

 

[Jmm06]

Giving them all the images, I would only give them in jpg small rather than raw to protect myself. Thank you for your input.

Where in their revised contract does it allow you to do that ??

Don't think in what "you read" the contract states. But think in what the "customer" thinks the contract states. If it doesn't specifically states something, then it DOES NOT specifically state it. If you gave them small JPEGs then you could be in breach of contract.

I'd rather have a verbal contract than the one they provided.

That's definitely good to know, thank you. We agreed verbally over the phone upon giving them jpgs of all the images but nothing specific on size. I should clarify on that then.

 

[vintagesnaps]

A photographer provides the final product (digital images, albums, etc.) - not the original Raw images, not JPEGS of everything, only the final product.

Usually providing 'everything' including copyright may be done for commercial work at a high price. (Didn't Charlie (Snowbear) say thousands? that's it.) Or it's work for hire, which is usually done if the photographer is an employee and his/her job is taking photos.

I don't think I'd sign your contract if I was a client (because of the perpetual, unrestricted etc. including heirs, etc. etc.). As a photographer I don't get the part about commercial use without consent - why allow a client that at all? If it's my work it's not up to a client to use my work in any other way; the photos are for their personal use, period.

But what the client expects is inappropriate. You automatically own the copyright when you take the picture; those rights can be sold or transferred but I don't see how it's even possible for a client to hold copyright to photos they don't even have yet. And then to give copyright back to the photographer after the client gets all the photos, that doesn't make sense.

You need to know more about this type thing so you can have an informed discussion with the client and be able to explain things. Get on American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA and find resources from pro photographer organizations on contracts, licensing usage, etc. etc. You need to do some 'homework' so you know this stuff. And ASMP has webinars, and work/contract samples, etc. so you don't have to totally reinvent the wheel.

 

[Jmm06]

well, yes. generally when negotiating a contract one tries to make it more advantageous to oneself and, perhaps, less so to the other parties. this is normal.

this client does not seem to be aware that retail photographers don't negotiate contracts, and doesn't understand enough of the technicalities on copyright law to write anything that makes sense. their intent is clear, though.

properly their idea would be structured, probably, as making the wedding photography a "work for hire" with the copyrights to the pictures transferring to the photographer at the successful conclusion of the contracted work. there's no reason, beyond tradition, that this isn't a perfectly sensible way to do things. the end result is the same when all goes well, and the client has a little more legal leverage if things go pear shaped.

a thought experiment: what happens if you get hit by a bus after the wedding but before you do any editing?

It seems to me that I would need to assure the client about the copyright laws since they don't have an understanding of it and see if we're on the same page. As for your thought experiment, although that sounds a bit dramatic, I would have my girlfriend give the clients unedited jpg photos and have a photographer friend of mine, edit and complete the task.