Appropriate use of photos?

[awes1964]

hey all, I'm new here but wanted some feedback from experienced photographers. I had some photos taken of my son by a professional photographer for his senior year in high school. I did not see, but in print in the contract are these statements:

"1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints, thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer)."

and:

"I always post my latest work on (photographer) blog and on my Facebook. To see your images posted, become a fan on facebook! This will not only give you access to your posted images, but will also keep you in the loop with the latest shoots, promos and events! Most clients love when (photographer) tags their images on face book. If you would prefer not to be posted on Facebook, tagged, or would rather tag yourself only in your favorite images, please let me know ahead of time so I can be sensitive to your wishes."

What are peoples thought? this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like. I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"?

I'm not some artist basher - I'm an architect and work with photographers all them time and support them getting work out there - this one just seems too much to me. Am I off base here?

Thanks

 

[tirediron]

This is 100% normal. You don't actually own the images; like software your payment is for the right to use the them, and the photographer retains ownership of them regardless. With few exceptions (commercial use, inappropriate use (read, "Illegal"), he can do pretty much whatever he wants.

 

[ronlane]

I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.

An important lesson as to why you need to read a contract before signing.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so in the contract you signed you state this appears:

"I always post my latest work on (photographer) blog and on my Facebook. To see your images posted, become a fan on facebook! This will not only give you access to your posted images, but will also keep you in the loop with the latest shoots, promos and events! Most clients love when (photographer) tags their images on face book. If you would prefer not to be posted on Facebook, tagged, or would rather tag yourself only in your favorite images, please let me know ahead of time so I can be sensitive to your wishes."

And yet you go on to state:

this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like.

Which tells me you didn't read or understand the contract you signed. Yes, he did let you know that he was planning to post these on facebook, right there in the written agreement that you signed - a signature, I would point out, that acknowledges that you understood and agreed to the stipulations in the contract. He even mentions in this stipulation that if you have any objections to this all you have to do is let him know ahead of time and he won't post them on facebook, something I'm guessing you failed to do - and yet now you apparently wish to decry the photographer when in truth you were the one who has failed to live up to your end of the agreement.

So in answer to your question are you off base? Absolutely. Way off base. At the moment your standing in the outfield somewhere and facing the wrong direction, to continue the baseball metaphor. Now from the way he worded this agreement it sounds like this photographer is a pretty reasonable person. What I would advise you to do is contact them, politely explain that you really didn't realize that he would be posting these on face book and simply ask him nicely if he could please take the images off facebook for you. I'm guessing if you approach it that way you probably won't have a problem.

 

[Derrel]

"I did not see, but in print in the contract are these statements:" >SNIP>

Well, my guess is that somebody told somebody everything that was to be expected, most likely before the shoot even took place. And yes, the situation as described is pretty common in this, the second decade of the 21st Century. We live in an era where social media is common, and "tagging" of images on FB allows people who might know people to see the images of said people.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.

An important lesson as to why you need to read a contract before signing.

Oh ron, that reminds me. The studio called, they wanted you to come in for a second read on that soap opera part you were up for.. the blind lawyer? They think you'd be perfect.. lol

 

[amolitor]

Given the number of people who are surprised to learn what's in the contract, it sounds like many professional photographers are not doing a good job of going over these pretty important points up front.

Is it common to send the contract home with the client, to be returned with a signature later, or is it more usual to say "here's our standard contract, signature here, here, initial there, thanks"?

In the latter case, it behooves the contractor to take a little time to skim over the contract with the contractee, giving a rough precis of what's in it. Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards. Only a small percentage of people will in fact wade through the contract at precisely that moment, slowing things down.

 

[ronlane]

I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.

An important lesson as to why you need to read a contract before signing.

Oh ron, that reminds me. The studio called, they wanted you to come in for a second read on that soap opera part you were up for.. the blind lawyer? They think you'd be perfect.. lol

Oh sweet, I've been waiting on that call back. Left me finish this paperwork up and run my other errand and I'll be there. [now where did I put that walking stick and my braille machine.????]

 

[Overread17 5]

OP I agree with the others, you've signed a contract that is standard and that gives the photographer every right to do what they have done. That said its likely that the photographer is used to people going through the same predicament that you are right now; or those who change their minds after the fact - however its set out the photographer when approached calmly and clearly should be willing to remove the photos from display. Whilst they want to promote and display their work the loss of one session shouldn't be much to them (they'll have others to promote and show).

Is it common to send the contract home with the client, to be returned with a signature later, or is it more usual to say "here's our standard contract, signature here, here, initial there, thanks"?

For something like a portrait session the latter might be the more common simply as a matter of timing and the photographer trying to ensure a simple and well paced transaction whilst at the same time protecting themselves legally (at the same time of course). It might well lead to more rushed contract signing than is ideal; although they should aim in this day and age, to cover things like facebook and promotional display.

 

[amolitor]

I have no problem with the 'this is our standard contract, sign here' approach. It's used a lot, and it works fine.

What makes it better, though, is when you build in a couple of minutes and a little canned patter of the form:

"So this section just covers what we're doing and where, it's s studio shoot so it just says we're shooting here. Here we're talking about which print package you're getting, in your case it's 1 8x10 and 15 wallet sized, blah blah. This next bit is important, it says that you're paying for the photography NOT for any rights, we retain those, and for any more prints you have to come back to us and pay the standard rates. Now this next paragraph... " etc.

It just takes a couple minutes, it protects everyone a little bit more, and it prevents unpleasantness. Best to have a standard set of answers for common questions that will arise.

 

[Overread17 5]

Aye and I agree and I suspect that its going to become even more critical in todays world where marketing isn't just your picture being known in the town but pretty much the world over by any online marketing. It's a fantastic tool for marketing, but at the same time comes with the baggage that not everyone really wants to be "marketed" world wide (even if 5 seconds later they are posting pics online themselves).

It's a changing market; much like many photographers are finding that supply of digital files ready for facebook display are part of what many clients want (and if htey don't get it have the hardware if not the full know how of producing it themselves i).

 

[vintagesnaps]

The photographer has the copyright for whatever photos they take, however I think it's up to you if you sign a contract. If the contract isn't reviewed with you so that you understand what you're signing that's probably the time to ask questions. If you didn't want to have your under 18 year old child's photos used for advertising or posted on social media sites it might have been better to find another photographer.

I don't think it seems appropriate or necessarily professional to tell clients the only way to access their photos is thru a social media site where the photos are then under Terms & Conditions of that site, but apparently people are using their Facebook pages as an alternative to having their own site or using one that has protected galleries that can only be accessed by the clients (which is what I've known photographers to use for senior or student athlete photos).

I usually take time to read anything I have to sign even if it takes time to do that, and in my professional work (not photography related) that's what I'd typically recommend to families. Maybe if you express your concerns you could work out something with this photographer.

 

[Steve5D]

Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards.

At the end of the day, though, that's the fault of the client, not the photographer.

When I bought my house, I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

The last time I financed a car (some 15 years ago) I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

As person who was going to be forking the cash, it was in my best interest to do so. Whenever I hear someone say "I didn't see this in the contract", there is only one reason for that: They didn't read what they were signing...

 

[robbins.photo]

Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards.

At the end of the day, though, that's the fault of the client, not the photographer.

When I bought my house, I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

The last time I financed a car (some 15 years ago) I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

Wait.. I'm sensing a pattern here.. don't help me.. lol

As person who was going to be forking the cash, it was in my best interest to do so. Whenever I hear someone say "I didn't see this in the contract", there is only one reason for that: They didn't read what they were signing...

Well Steve, I guess all I can add to that would be.. damn skippy.

 

[orljustin]

"What are peoples thought? this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like. I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"? "

Unfirtunately, many 'pros', including a lot here, will include legal wording like that to use the images of your family, that you paid to have taken, as advertising fodder for their business. Next time, you'll have to shop harder for a photographer that respects your desires, or negotiate those bits out of the contract.

It's not something I would do without a separate model release for advertising and a heavily discounted rate as compensation. Totally optional.