HELP - ADVICE/OPINION WANTED

[weepete]

Yep. The details were in the contract and its pretty standard for photographers to display their lastest work, its not nearly about getting free models.

Tbh I think its probably for the best, take a fee off to cover the work you've done and refund the rest. Maybe they have a genuine reason or at least a fear that seems real enough for them, I can't think why else any normal person would cancel at such short notice knowing they might not find another photographer. Either way the op has done his best to work with them.

 

[orljustin]

OK I understand thank you. I wasn't asked.

Maybe they didn't know to ask. Just because you have 4 weddings online doesn't mean you didn't shoot 8. Maybe they think your promotional usage is opt-in. I would. I wouldn't expect my commissioned work to be used to promote you.

As someone who isn't in the photography industry, and who has never hired a photographer for anything...I still know that it's common for photographers to own the rights to any photos taken. The fact that it's also in writing in the signed contract should really mean that they knew everything before hand...if they didn't read the contract then maybe they'll start reading things they sign from now on.

Now, I didn't say they didn't own the rights. I was referring to commercial usage of clients' likenesses. And as I said, I wouldn't hire someone who wants to use me for free advertising. And perhaps these people didnt know better at the time.

 

[orljustin]

"Now my contract is pretty clear and I have full 100% right to use"

Lets see the wording, btw. And include the model release section as well.

 

[tirediron]

...Now, I didn't say they didn't own the rights. I was referring to commercial usage of clients' likenesses. And as I said, I wouldn't hire someone who wants to use me for free advertising. And perhaps these people didnt know better at the time.

While I am by no means an expert on US IP law, I don't believe that a photographer's use of his work to advertise his services counts as commercial use, but rather as 'self promotion'. Just out of curiosity (because I think you've taken this position in other discussions) if a photographer isn't permitted to use previous work, then how is he supposed to demonstrate his skill and style to clients?

If you want to hire me to photograph your event, are you going to accept my word that I will do a good job, or are you going to want to see examples of my work?

 

[pixmedic]

Maybe they didn't know to ask. Just because you have 4 weddings online doesn't mean you didn't shoot 8. Maybe they think your promotional usage is opt-in. I would. I wouldn't expect my commissioned work to be used to promote you.

As someone who isn't in the photography industry, and who has never hired a photographer for anything...I still know that it's common for photographers to own the rights to any photos taken. The fact that it's also in writing in the signed contract should really mean that they knew everything before hand...if they didn't read the contract then maybe they'll start reading things they sign from now on.

Now, I didn't say they didn't own the rights. I was referring to commercial usage of clients' likenesses. And as I said, I wouldn't hire someone who wants to use me for free advertising. And perhaps these people didnt know better at the time.

Im not sure whether your are in the photography business or not, but just you know...we don't use people as "free advertising".
heres the breakdown. you see, what happens is, if you want "full" rights to your photos (whereas the photographer does not use them), thats perfectly fine. I have no problem with that at all.
that comes at a price though. like many luxury items, some people are willing to pay for it. now, suppose you want a discount, and you say "hey Jason, how
can I get my wedding photographed by you a little cheaper?" and I say, "no problem, I got just the thing. you let me use your photos in my portfolio as advertising, and I will discount your wedding/portrait package by XX amount". The client either thinks that is a grand idea and saves some money, OR, they want their photos kept private and they pay a premium amount. whichever way it goes, it gets typed up into the contract as per what the client wants. typically, the client READS the contract, AGREES with what is on it, (or they say something and we work it out) and they SIGN it. everyone's happy.

so you see, you are NOT "free" advertising for me. I give you a discounted rate in exchange for advertising rights, or you pay full price and retain the photos yourself.

 

[Trever1t]

hope that works for you.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

It sounds like they cant print either.

 

[Trever1t]

They can with my provided print release.

 

[pixmedic]

It sounds like they cant print either.

well, if your trying to listen to print...that MIGHT be where your issue is...
(thats supposed to by funny BTW....LAUGH!)

 

[pixmedic]

View attachment 52582

hope that works for you.

very clear. very concise. nothing to get overly confusing if you are wondering if the photographer can use your pics on their website.
assuming of course, that someone actually READS what they are signing.
cause seriously, that really is unmistakeable.

 

[tirediron]

View attachment 52582

hope that works for you.

very clear. very concise. nothing to get overly confusing if you are wondering if the photographer can use your pics on their website.
assuming of course, that someone actually READS what they are signing.
cause seriously, that really is unmistakeable.

Agreed - simple and straight-forward.

 

[paigew]

I haven't read other responses, but I would tell her that she was given a reduced rate with the understanding the images would be used in your portfolio. If she is not comfortable with that then she can pay $xxxx (your full fee) and you will be happy to remove them.

 

[orljustin]

View attachment 52582

hope that works for you.

Well it isn't bad. However 'the photographer shall only make reproductions', may not necessarily translate into digital use online. It reads as if you are only talking about print uses. I would say they may have a case based on terminology.

 

[pixmedic]

View attachment 52582

hope that works for you.

Well it isn't bad. However 'the photographer shall only make reproductions', may not necessarily translate into digital use online. It reads as if you are only talking about print uses. I would say they may have a case based on terminology.

actually, no. because it clearly states the photographer owns the copyrights. so...no.

in fact, I submit that the clients have already looked into this and come up goose-eggs.
they told Trevor in the email that he could keep whatever amount of their money he felt was fair. (they were paid up in full)
you don't just do that if you think you can have your cake AND eat it too.
my guess is they have already had someone look at the contract, and were told THEY had to eat it.

 

[orljustin]

'actually, no. because it clearly states the photographer owns the copyrights. so...no.'

Actually no, holding the copyright has nothing to do with releasing a likeness for commercial use.