This just received
Hi Bill,
Since we're apparently having problems communicating now, and even back when we signed this contact, how about we make this quick & simple and propose our best compromise that we'd be willing to accept.
This would make this less stressful for all of us, and it seems like we all need less stress here.
If you refuse, we will try to find a new photographer at the last minute willing to agree to our privacy terms, or ask a friend to take dedicated pictures for us. You don't come to our wedding - keep what you think is fair from our payment, already made in full - keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion.
Additional terms:
- Photographer (Bill Grayson, WSG) does not share any of client's photos unless approved by client on any medium, including Facebook, webpages, everything.
- Client (Mark & Van) agree to select a minimum 4 pictures from the photoshoot, and 4 pictures from the wedding, which include the Bride & Groom in the picture, to be shared on WSG website and WSG facebook page only - for WSG promotion purposes as basically a small online example album.
- Photographer agrees to not include any keywords/tags with the pictures that may help cause the pictures to be found with search engine type software. Any wording / tagging / search-tricks must be approved by client.
- Client co-owns full rights to hi-resolution version of all pictures, as clearly discussed during the original meeting, but not described correctly on the fine print / back page of the contract.
Please respond with a Yes/No by today 8/13.
You know, I did miss this somehow when responding earlier. Obviously, you're dealing with a client concerned with privacy, who doesn't deal with this sort of thing on daily basis, and was unaware of what the promotion section in the contract meant. Of course, the owning the rights bit is silly, but...
This echos what I've said before "- keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion." . Customers want their photos taken for them, not necessarily to be used to promote your business. I'd say if you need portfolio fodder that badly, hire some models with a real model release, and use those for your promotion. Or make it veeeeeery clear, big and obvious what you would like to do in the contract. Did the OP specifically tell the client that they planned to use their photos for his promotional use, or did that just get skimmed over? When sitting down, discussing the price, "By the way, my contract includes a release from you so that I can use the content in my business promotional works, online and in print. Do you have any issue with that?"
I keep hearing the same old tune, with some people trying to push the "I paid for the photos, I own them" agenda,. and the "big bad photographer taking advantage of some poor little clients that don't know any better with his wicked legalese" crap.
which is fine. get a contract made however YOU like it when YOU get work done.
But for MOST working photographers, part OR full time, it seems that retaining portfolio usage of all photos is extremely common practice.
this is not a new concept, by any means. And I would venture to say that pretty much any studio you walk into has that built into their contracts as well, unless otherwise noted and changed per an agreement between photographer and client. Even portrait studios in wal-mart and Sears (before they went under) retained usage rights for all images they took.
the issue you seem to ignore here, is that all of your points MIGHT ALMOST make some semblance of sense...IF the clients had not waited 11 months to bring up this issue. let me say that again. 11 months. with their photos up on bills blog. with a signed contract in hand that they could have gone over with a lawyer of their own.
but no.... 4 days before the wedding is when they have issues. just a privacy issue? im not buying it. Not 4 days before the wedding.
now, this also totally discounts the fact that not only did they want major terms of a contract changed last minute....they DEMANDED it. on threat of firing Bill no less.
in writing! you meet our terms or you don't show up to the wedding. Period.
"we have a contract, but if you want to shoot our wedding, you better change the terms...by tonight..or else"
then they changed their mind. TWICE!
dont sit there and tell me they did not "understand" the terms of the contract, because the bride clearly states to Bill in the email that he can keep whatever portion of her money that he feels is fair. SHE KNOWS `its all legal. she knew what the deal was, and for whatever reason does not want to tell Bill who put the bug in her ear about "owning her photos". Bill was more than fair with them. whether he "needed" portfolio work or not is totally irrelevant to this situation. THEY hired him, THEY signed a contract (which they were fine with for 11 months) and then THEY wanted to break it, or force Bill to change the terms with zero compensation to him. These were adults he was dealing with. not children.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39529-3b8de3decb03849c8e9c6abdae9650cf.jpg?1734173673)
