Client's Photo Usage?

Why can you hire a real lawyer? On your previous thread, your contract seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing. A lawyer helps you eliminate all your guessworks, and answers all your questions.

You're assuming I haven't already.

I don't know what is going on with your lawyer, but you can't accept the answers from the members who posted this thread and other threads. You seems confused posting thread after thread about your contract.
 
Yall are clearly getting my threads mixed up. Anyway... thanks for your feedback. I think I've got it handled now.
 
The contract to me seems wordy to the point of being unclear and I don't think I'd sign a contract like that. If I was contracting with a photographer to take photos of my event/wedding/whatever I don't think I'd sign something allowing the photographer to use photos of my event/guests to sell as stock, etc.

I don't quite get what you're trying to do - what would you do with photos of a client's portrait or wedding or whatever other than for a portfolio or to promote your photography business? I'm thinking of photos for marketing purposes in sports, there wasn't really anything I could have done with photos of sponsors' signs, etc. - nobody but the team and/or sponsor would give a rat's patootie about those. If you're shooting for a client you can't necessarily use the photos for another purpose, depends on what it is, but who would want pictures of a bunch of people at a wedding that they don't know? I don't think you can expect clients to sign something to allow such extensive usage of photos of their portrait or wedding.

ASMP is doing a webinar on releases this Wednesday, I think at noon - should be on their website, you sign up and get emailed a link. If you can't listen in live they usually email out a link afterwards. They already did one on contracts earlier this spring and it doesn't look like there's much scheduled for summer, but this is just one source of info. for photographers. You'd probably benefit from continuing to research and learn this stuff.

As far as original questions in the OP
- yes, using photos in ads is considered commercial use; on social media it's I believe considered editorial. However I think it's necessary to read Terms & Conditions on any site being used, and to think about once photos go online control may be lost about where they may end up (and how would clients feel about that?). I think photographers often are selective about what is posted and then link back to their site.

I don't do portraits but photographers usually seem to include print rights in contracts as appropriate - yes, for personal use (to hang on the wall), not commercial or retail. How prints/albums are justified is by showing prospective clients samples of high quality photos compared to typical examples of those done thru a discount/drug store or cheapie online sites. Licensing for commercial or retail use I think may be done separately from providing digital and/or print images; unless the client wants to put their portrait or wedding photos on T shirts or mugs and sell them (which seems unlikely), I don't think this would apply. If you contract for event photography, then licensing usage for a specific time period and specific purpose would be applicable.

Images provided are usually not watermarked, and appropriate sized (lower res, smaller size) images are often included for social media use. I'm not sure about exclusive/nonexclusive or how that comes into it. I think for exclusivity the cost is higher but you probably need to look that up.
 
I don't think I'd sign something allowing the photographer to use photos of my event/guests to sell as stock, etc.

Yea I know I definitely would not sign that. Even to a non photographer that is not going to make you come off looking all that great.
 
Thanks for the tweaks, John! And as for my own usage, that's actually covered in a different section (my model release):

7. Model Release

The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same. The Client hereby releases the Photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs. If the shoot being conducted is boudoir, nude, or otherwise sensitive subject matter, the use of these photos will be discussed and agreed upon mutually before any public usage by either party.

*I bolded for emphasis

There's no way a lawyer approved this last sentence (you alluded you had it reviewed). That last sentence is swiss cheese with so many loopholes that you are on the losing side.

Remember- a model release means the model is giving you permission to use their likeness. Having a vague sentence that essentially says "we'll figure it out" hurts both parties because there should be a clear expectation of what the photo shoot will entail. That is why you sign it and date it before you begin. If I was the model, there's no way I'd sign that release not knowing firsthand how my images will be displayed.

If you are photographing something along the lines of nudity or boudoir, you can have a different release. You do not have to have a canned model release.
 
Thanks for the tweaks, John! And as for my own usage, that's actually covered in a different section (my model release):

7. Model Release

The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same. The Client hereby releases the Photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs. If the shoot being conducted is boudoir, nude, or otherwise sensitive subject matter, the use of these photos will be discussed and agreed upon mutually before any public usage by either party.

*I bolded for emphasis

There's no way a lawyer approved this last sentence (you alluded you had it reviewed). That last sentence is swiss cheese with so many loopholes that you are on the losing side.

Remember- a model release means the model is giving you permission to use their likeness. Having a vague sentence that essentially says "we'll figure it out" hurts both parties because there should be a clear expectation of what the photo shoot will entail. That is why you sign it and date it before you begin. If I was the model, there's no way I'd sign that release not knowing firsthand how my images will be displayed.

If you are photographing something along the lines of nudity or boudoir, you can have a different release. You do not have to have a canned model release.

You're right. I added that after the fact as a courtesy. But I see how that could be taken advantage of.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top