Advice re: Wedding Photography Contract

[Joshs]

I'm getting married soon at SF city hall. We're having a super small ceremony (just us most likely!), and we're hiring a photographer.

I'm having issues with the contract, and I was hoping some people here who have gone through it, and the photographers, could help out with some advice.

Here are the paragraphs I don't like:

1. Copyright:

As the author of all images made hereunder and as provided for by United States Copyright Laws (Title 17, U.S. Code Section 101), the Photographer shall retain the ownership and copyrights in perpetuity, regardless of possession or ownership of photographs, digital files or any other format of reproduction.
Client recognizes and agrees that the Photographer may reproduce, publish (including internet), exhibit, sell, license and otherwise use images created. Such usages include but are not limited to (1) as samples of work to be shown to prospective clients, (2) for instructional purposes, (3) as samples of work to be displayed for marketing or competition.

2. Personal use license to Client:

Photographer grants Client and members of their household the right to print and reproduce the images provided for non commercial purposes. This personal use license does not allow the photos to be altered, sold, distributed or published, used for profit or advertising or to enter competitions. Client further agrees not to supply images to any third parties (including vendors associated with the wedding).
Client understands that all posting of images on the internet need to be acknowledged as images by Photographer. Photographer retains the right to inspect and approve any materials to be used in conjunction with Photographers name.
Any public & internet use without consent from Photographer will be construed as breach of copyright. This personal use license is voided if client’s account is delinquent.

I have a ton of issues with these stipulations. I do not feel that the photographer should retain sole ownership of the images. In fact, I would consider the job as a 'work-for-hire', which means that I retain ownership. Very similar to a session musician being hired to perform for a recording, if you're familiar with that industry. I'm not sure how that translates to photographers though, or if 'work for hire' is commonly used when hiring photographers..

Granting me a highly-restricted personal use license is not sufficient. The text basically says that I cannot alter the photos (which to me would include even simple adjustments like color balance, etc), or send copies to friends. Furthermore, it says I must put his name along with each photo, and then continues to say any use of his name requires approval, and any public/internet use requires consent.

I view this as my photo-shoot, and the photographer is providing 'work-for-hire', which basically means that I own what he produces while he's working for me. At a rate of $500/hr, this seems perfectly reasonable to me. If this was his photo-shoot, and I were a model, then of course he would retain all rights to the photos. That is not the case here though!

I'm perfectly willing to give him a copyright release to use the photos on his site, for contests, etc. But not to sell as stock footage, or any other commercial endeavor (without my consent).

Does anyone have some text that I could swap in that essentially reverses the proposed ownership/license agreement (i.e. I own the rights to the photos, and grant the photographer a non-exclusive license to use them under most reasonable circumstances [self-promotion, non-commercial])?

Are my requests reasonable? Or is this all standard stuff that pretty much any photographer will require?

Thanks in advance!

-Josh

 

[robr]

Unfortunately this is pretty standard for many photographers these days. My brother in law makes a killing on weddings because he not only gives them the rights (though he has to be allowed to use them for his portfolio), he doesn't make them pay for pics, he does it all digitally and burns them a DVD on the spot before he leaves the wedding. For extra $$ he'll do touchups in photoshop and prints, albums, etc.

 

[heySkippy]

Or is this all standard stuff that pretty much any photographer will require?

I think you're going to find it's standard language for most professionals.

 

[quack]

That contracts rediculous, your right. Make it a work for hire. Are you paying them $500 an hr to sell your pics to walmart for their frames. Web search for work for hire nolo press and that should come up with easy swappable wording for the ownership section of your contract.

 

[heySkippy]

^^ He doesn't need swappable wording, he needs a different photographer. I can almost guarantee the photographer with the original contract isn't going to give up his copyright without doubling his price.

 

[Acura NsX Pilot]

I dont see a problem with it either but if you dont like the terms you can discuss it with him or just find another photographer but any photographer who is any good or building there portfolio will probably tell you to take it or leave it

 

[RSO 34]

What are you actually getting for $500 per hour? Just a DVD of raw/unprocessed images?

For that amount of money it sounds like all you get are a disc of images straight out of the camera. Wedding photographers command between $7500-10,000 these days but include actual prints/books/dvds, etc., in addition to post-processing, at least in this region.

It is not unusual for the photographer to retain the copyrights and you get a personal license in return. However, if you are only get "raw" images and would need to do post-processing on your own then technically the language needs to be tweaked.

I don't do weddings but have never released my copyrights, only sold a license to use and I have always required my name and copyright be included when published in any form.

 

[JonBoy]

This is a very standard contract from a professional photographer. However, there are plenty of photographers that will give a more open-ended release if you ask. You'll just pay a lot more for it.

There are very few pro photographers that will ever give you full copyright of the wedding images, however. They are proud of their work and disassociating their name from the photos is considered an injustice or disservice to them. Hence, they make you pay a lot more for it.

 

[SilverStone05]

Not knocking the photographers in anyway, but when I was looking, they were a dime a dozen- and there were literally hundreds of very talented folks with impressive/brilliant portfolios willing to undercut their competition for the sake of building their portfolio and getting referrals.

Start looking elsewhere if you don't like this one's contract.

Good luck, I know it's a pain meeting with all these people.

 

[colslaw87]

Are you searching for professional photographers?

Just a thought...there are tons of really talented student photographers. These people can be very talented with less complicated legal issues.

When I was at art school, there were dozens of super talented photography students.

 

[docjohn]

You are getting married in city hall no friends or family,do you really need a pro Have a friend with a good camera snap your pics.Now if you have a big reception/party afterwards then consider a pro.

 

[EuroBoutique]

I'm a semi-pro photographer and if I was to do any shoot, I would never release all copyrights to a client unless they REALLY pay me since as another has said it's a rather unfair injustice to remove it otherwise.

You're going to find this is pretty standard wording, if you don't like it, just go find another one but be prepared to pay more!

We're getting married this year and I have tons of friends who wanted to do the photography but in the end I chose a pro from HK because I wanted my friends to enjoy the party too. We chose this pro because:

a) He's really professional but also has the personality we think would click best with our guests

b) His pricing was fair

c) Most importantly we like his portfolio and choice of angles (anyone can take pictures but to take the right ones at the right time is important)

 

[Ben]

If you still need someone, I know of a guy down in LA, but comes up to the Bay Area often for shoots. He was one of the S2000 guys that turned pro, and his work is pretty good. I don't know about his prices or terms, but he's a pretty cool and easygoing guy. I can put you guys in touch if you like, so you can discuss directly with him.

 

[Daedalus]

Unfortunately this is pretty standard for many photographers these days. My brother in law makes a killing on weddings because he not only gives them the rights (though he has to be allowed to use them for his portfolio), he doesn't make them pay for pics, he does it all digitally and burns them a DVD on the spot before he leaves the wedding. For extra $$ he'll do touchups in photoshop and prints, albums, etc.

+1. The photog we picked gives up all digital images, and that is a big reason we chose him. The $500/hour I'm paying means he's working for me; not the other way around.

 

[Joshs]

Thank you all for the advice. That was exactly what I needed. I wanted to test the waters and see what was normal, reasonable, etc., before I went into negotiations.

The photographer was completely amenable, and had no problems swapping in some edited text. Below is what I settled on - basically removed the ability for him to reuse it for any commercial purpose, and removed the restrictions on my personal use, such as editing, or requiring his name to be on anything we post (if we do use his name, he wants approval, and I'm ok with that - since it no longer says we must include his name).

There was no increase in rates or decrease in service. We'll just be taking the raw images, since we are comfortable doing our own post-processing (wife-to-be works at Adobe!).

I'm happy to have this resolved, plenty of other things to deal with!

As a thank you, I'd like to offer you guys accounts on a private, invite-only website my company has been working on. It's basically a video search and discovery site for professional content (not UGC), but unlike anything else out there. If you watch video online, you should find it useful.

PM me with your email address and I'll send you an invite!

-Josh

1.Copyright:

Added: As the author of all images made hereunder and as provided for by United States Copyright Laws (Title 17, U.S. Code Section 101), the Photographer shall retain the ownership and copyrights in perpetuity, regardless of possession or ownership of photographs, digital files or any other format of reproduction.
Client recognizes and agrees that the Photographer may reproduce, publish (including internet), and exhibit images created for self-promotion, instruction, or competition. Any other use, including any commercial use or licensing, must be pre-approved by the client. *

2.Personal use license to Client:

Added: Photographer grants Client and members of their household the right to alter, print, and reproduce the images provided for non-commercial purposes. This personal use license does not allow the photos to be sold or published, used for profit or advertising or to enter competitions. Client further agrees not to supply images to any third parties (including vendors associated with the wedding). Any public display (including internet) of images in conjunction with Photographer’s name, must be pre-approved by Photographer. *This personal use license is voided if client’s account is delinquent.

 

[HIJACKER]

Can you post the language for the rest of the contract? I'm interested to see what else was stated.