Venue wants me to sign very strict contract...have questions

[6Speed]

Photographing a wedding in 2 weeks at the beach. 90% of the photos will be outside. Even the reception is mostly outside. Get a call last week from the coordinator who works for the venue. She says I need to sign a contract with them that states what I can and cannot do. Ok, no problem.

The contract has some fairly strict rules. One of them is that I must provide them with a shot list of what and where I intend to shoot. Another stipulation is that after the wedding is over I must show them all of the photos I took. Another part of the contract says that they have they right to use my images on their website. Ok, no big deal, even though I think they should pay for that since it is advertising for them, I can let it go since it's also advertising for me.

Here is the kicker she then tells me that I can only use the images on my website for up to a year and then I must seek permission for additional time. This is the one that got me. It is my understanding that I own the exclusive rights to any images I shoot, and therefor should be able to use them on my own website for as long as I want. By them trying to dictate when and where I can use my imagery, it would seem that they are trying to assume exclusive rights?

Here is another problem. The Bride has already signed a contract with the venue (and paid them), and nowhere in that contract were there stipulations about photography. She has also paid me for my services. She cannot back out of the contract with the venue, nor does she want to use another photographer. It would seem that if they wanted to set boundaries for the photographer, that those rules should have been in the original contract the bride signed?

Is this normal for a venue to come back after the fact and start trying to outline things such as these? I have not had this happen in the past. The only thing ever asked of me is to not shoot during the ceremony inside a church. This wedding isn't in a church, it is on a beach, and the reception is nearby outside on the patio of one of the buildings.

 

[Destin]

This is a very sticky legal situation.

Issue 1: it's on private property, owned by venue. Therefore they can tell you that you cannot take photos there, or make you sign a contract in order to do so.

Now; where that COULD be negated, is in that the bride has rented the space, and therefore it MIGHT be up to her as to what you can/cannot do, as long as the photography is not mentioned in the contract she has signed.

It's really going to come down to the wording in the contract she signed, as to who's call it is.

I've never heard of anything like this for a wedding venue, they are generally used to dealing with photographers.

I've encountered situations like this at motocross tracks and concerts, but never heard of such a rule for a wedding venue.

If it does turn out to be the venues call, I would refuse to sign the contract, and back out of the deal (as long as your contract with the bride doesn't prohibit you from doing so). I would never agree to those rules, period.

 

[Overread]

Honestly you need to pull in a lawyer and have them go over both contracts (the one to you and the one the bride has already signed) and get some proper advice on the best course of action. It's not unheard of for companies/venues to push for demands in a contract which are unreasonable/unsound and which simply don't stand up legally speaking - they get away with it because most people either sign or walk away - in your case you've already got a contract with the bride so its in your interest to seek the proper legal advice.

 

[bennielou]

I sign contracts with almost every venue I work with, and I've never heard of such rubbish. This is where I would have a frank talk with the bride, and have her do the legwork.
Personally, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would sign such a contract.
YMMV

 

[sierramister]

I would talk to a lawyer immediately. But now I'm going to add a clause in my contracts that allows me to out of a contract if the wedding venue doesn't provide photographer stipulations at the the time the bride books the venue. So that if they book the venue, and me, and then the venue says I need to sign a contract, I will tell the bride that they were required to secure any contract that I needed to sign with the venue when we signed the contract.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I'd give them the finger.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Really? Im still new to the game and have shot like 7 weddings... Never signed a contract for a venue once.

I sign contracts with almost every venue I work with, and I've never heard of such rubbish. This is where I would have a frank talk with the bride, and have her do the legwork.
Personally, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would sign such a contract.
YMMV

This is rubbish. Tell them you are not going to sign such contract with them. You are not hired by the venue. I believe they are trying to put a pressure on B&G so that they hire their photographer. I am sending you a pm.

 

[Big Mike]

I can see where a venue owner would want to have as much control as possible. For example, you will take photos of their venue/property etc. If your photos aren't flattering (to the venue), or worse, if they show it looking bad, it could mean lost business for them. Maybe your photos catch a location when it hasn't been cleaned well/lately, that's not the type of thing that they want out in cyberspace. Maybe they update change things regularly, so they don't want old photos coming up in a search for their venue...that's maybe why they have the one year policy.
I'm just guessing here...but I can see why they would want a strict contract. For similar reasons, we have strict contracts for our clients.

But I do agree, it seems like a lot of B.S. to deal with. Maybe try to talk to someone to get a more realistic jist of what the deal is. And yes, if the bride (or anyone other than you) chose that location, they should be doing most of the 'leg work'.

But in the end, this is just one gig. The best course of action may be to just shut up, sign the contract and shoot the wedding the best you can. If they want to see the photos, give them a disc of tiny images or heavily watermarked or printed contact-sheet style. If they want to use them, they'll have to come to you and ask for high rez, and at that time, you can negotiate a price etc.

 

[bennielou]

I'd give them the finger.

Me too Christoper! That contract is total B.S.
And beyond that, I would go to my facebook and blog IMMEDIATELY and tell every bride in the area to avoid the venue at all costs. But that's me. I'm b!tchy like that......

 

[orljustin]

Agree, that is crazy talk in that contract. Stipulating how you can use the images. Laughable.

 

[bennielou]

I can see where a venue owner would want to have as much control as possible. For example, you will take photos of their venue/property etc. If your photos aren't flattering (to the venue), or worse, if they show it looking bad, it could mean lost business for them. Maybe your photos catch a location when it hasn't been cleaned well/lately, that's not the type of thing that they want out in cyberspace. Maybe they update change things regularly, so they don't want old photos coming up in a search for their venue...that's maybe why they have the one year policy.
I'm just guessing here...but I can see why they would want a strict contract. For similar reasons, we have strict contracts for our clients.

But I do agree, it seems like a lot of B.S. to deal with. Maybe try to talk to someone to get a more realistic jist of what the deal is. And yes, if the bride (or anyone other than you) chose that location, they should be doing most of the 'leg work'.

But in the end, this is just one gig. The best course of action may be to just shut up, sign the contract and shoot the wedding the best you can. If they want to see the photos, give them a disc of tiny images or heavily watermarked or printed contact-sheet style. If they want to use them, they'll have to come to you and ask for high rez, and at that time, you can negotiate a price etc.

I agree with the part you said about having them ok shots of the venue to put it in a good light. I can see that.

However, MY contract says that I can use any shots I want on my website, blog, facebook, publication, etc. So who's contract matters more to the bride?

I also think the part of the contract saying that they would have to "ok" my shots, or most importantly that I would have to TURN MY SHOTS OVER TO THEM TO USE AS THEY PLEASE ON THEIR WEBSITE, is also blatant BS.

And to think that I would need to ask some stupid venue to use my own shots for more than a year? Pretty Please? Oh HELL NO!

This is exactly why I would put this to the bride to work out. It's her choice to work it out with the venue or choose between me and the venue. If she left, I wouldn't feel bad about it. Who needs the additional headaches?

 

[Overread]

The thing that seems odd to me is that they try to restrict what the photographer can/can't show and yet surely the bride is going to be showing their photos off - if not online at least in person and for well after a year. So it seems odd that they come down so hard on the photographer when they won't be doing likewise to the bride or other guests.

 

[Big Mike]

or most importantly that I would have to TURN MY SHOTS OVER TO THEM TO USE AS THEY PLEASE ON THEIR WEBSITE, is also blatant BS.

This is a part to check closely on their contract. And that's why I suggested using very small photos and/or huge watermarks when you 'hand over' the photos.

Unless they specifically say that the images must be a certain size/resolution and free of identification, you could loop-hole them by giving them photos too small to use and/or watermarked. Your still playing to their contract, but giving them a 'screw you' at the same time.

As happens so often in this business, they probably put this into place after some jerk of a photographer screwed them over, so now the rest of us have to pay the price.

And really, they do hold the cards here. What are you going to do, refuse to shoot the wedding? It's their property, they get to set the rules. Although, they probably don't want to stop you from photographing the wedding, as that would give them bad pub.

 

[bennielou]

or most importantly that I would have to TURN MY SHOTS OVER TO THEM TO USE AS THEY PLEASE ON THEIR WEBSITE, is also blatant BS.

This is a part to check closely on their contract. And that's why I suggested using very small photos and/or huge watermarks when you 'hand over' the photos.

Unless they specifically say that the images must be a certain size/resolution and free of identification, you could loop-hole them by giving them photos too small to use and/or watermarked. Your still playing to their contract, but giving them a 'screw you' at the same time.

As happens so often in this business, they probably put this into place after some jerk of a photographer screwed them over, so now the rest of us have to pay the price.

And really, they do hold the cards here. What are you going to do, refuse to shoot the wedding? It's their property, they get to set the rules. Although, they probably don't want to stop you from photographing the wedding, as that would give them bad pub.

You are probably right about the jerk of a photographer part. I can't go hardly anywhere anymore without 10 zillion rules. Normally the 10 zillion rules are common sense stuff.

But I totally disagree with you that the "venue holds the cards". No. They. Don't.
The bride does.
I have rules. The venue has rules. If the bride signed on for both, she either needs to work it out, or choose.
And yes, I would ABSOLUTELY refuse to shoot the wedding if I was being forced to sign that contract. My contract states VERY CLEARLY that my contract as written superceeds any later contracts.

It's a bummer for the bride to be sure, but she really needs to handle it, IMO.

 

[Big Mike]

Does the bride really hold the cards? The venue, if they so choose, could probably return her money (except the deposit) and say, thanks but no thanks. They loose a bit of money, but if it's a Saturday in the summer, they probably fill up anyway. The bride, on the other hand, would have to book a new location, loose the deposit and deal with a frustrating situation. The bride could give them bad press...but to the public, it may look more like 'Bridezilla didn't get her way' and the extra publicity may actually help them.

I agree, though...it's a bummer for the Bride (or whoever is planning the wedding) and they should deal with it. But in the end, they may just come back to you (the photographer) and ask you to bend and sign the contract. I do believe that we have to stand up for our rights, but we should also choose our battles. So like I said before...it may be the least about of hassle to just shoot the wedding, give them photos, take your money and move onto the next gig.