Paid Event and Proofing Issue - URGENT

[ronosmena]

Ok Pro People...It's time to gather your resources, ok I have an event date coming up next week. Client agreed to pay $$$ ok together with this are 30 Printed Pictures selected by client.

If for say I take 300 pictures in that event, does client have the right to get full release for all 300 images?

what other suggestions you think i should add to this point.

thanks

[llaamaboy]

Touchy question.
He does not have to given full rights.
The question really becomes what are you going to receive for the full rights?
Is his good will worth it? What might he do with full rights? Make money?

I learned early to try and figure out if jobs were coming to me becasue they really want to avoid the charges of more established photographers and what they possibly wanted to do with the imaegs.

Does that help? :D

[ronosmena]

I clearly understand your point, it will be a step that I will put in one of my guidelines, thanks man!

[snibbetsj]

The question is what was in the initial contract. Best case is client gets to see proofs (to select his 30 shots) and thats all. You should put this in writing up front so there's no ambiguity. It's imperative to get the event under a defined contract.

[Croasdail]

Exactly - the contract should determine if you were shooting for them and hence they own the images, or if you were contrated for a product - which would be your 30 proofs and the final product. When I freelance, I contract for a number of images for the customers use. I also contract shoot for a university for which I provide all images to the customer - and they do with them what they will. I prefer the first method so I can remarket what the customer doesn't take. But the contract is the over riding instrument here... it should detail what you contracted to deliver.

[Seefutlung]

If the client is paying for your time ... then he/she would have full use/control of any/all of the images unless stipulated beforehand in your contract/agreement. The client probably paid extra for the 30 prints to cover expenses which has nothing to do with paying for your time. If this event is an affair you could not have photographed without the client's approval, then yeah ... everything you shoot on the client's nickel belongs to the client.
My $.02

[symes]

If the client is paying for your time ... then I he/she would have full use/control of any/all of the images unless stipulated beforehand in your contract/agreement. The client probably paid extra for the 30 prints to cover expenses which has nothing to do with paying for your time. If this event is an affair you could not have photographed without the client's approval, then yeah ... everything you shoot on the client's nickel belongs to the client.
My $.02

This is not correct at all...

Just because the client pays for your time does not mean he has paid for the images. THat is like saying when you go to a sitting with a professional photographer and you pay for that sitting you are entitled to all the images. The money to get you to the event is the pay for you expertise and your time, not the pay for the photos themselves...

Only in cases where it is outlined before that youa re being paid for all the photos would this be the case...

Cheers,

[Seefutlung]

This is not correct at all...

Just because the client pays for your time does not mean he has paid for the images. THat is like saying when you go to a sitting with a professional photographer and you pay for that sitting you are entitled to all the images. The money to get you to the event is the pay for you expertise and your time, not the pay for the photos themselves...

Only in cases where it is outlined before that youa re being paid for all the photos would this be the case...

Cheers,

Maybe not in Canada, but in the USA it surely does! If you pay for a sitting, the photog hasn't any right to your image, for any reason, unless authorized by the sitter. Typically, when one "sits" and get photographed, there is an understanding that a selection of prints for monetary consideration will be made after the sitting. If the client wants a print of each and every image ... then they are entitled to said print of each and every image, unless otherwise stipulated prior to the sitting. ( Can you imagination a photog saying to a client ... "No you can't have that shot ... I'm keeping that for myself...")

Once again, if the client pays for your time ... then everything you shoot on his/her behalf, on his/her nickel belongs to the client (unless there is a prior understanding to the contary).

[symes]

Maybe not in Canada, but in the USA it surely does! If you pay for a sitting, the photog hasn't any right to your image, for any reason, unless authorized by the sitter. Typically, when one "sits" and get photographed, there is an understanding that a selection of prints for monetary consideration will be made after the sitting. If the client wants a print of each and every image ... then they are entitled to said print of each and every image, unless otherwise stipulated prior to the sitting. ( Can you imagination a photog saying to a client ... "No you can't have that shot ... I'm keeping that for myself...")

Once again, if the client pays for your time ... then everything you shoot on his/her behalf, on his/her nickel belongs to the client (unless there is a prior understanding to the contary).

You are quite right the photog can't keep the images and do as they like but just because they paid for the sitting does not mean they are entitled to all the images...They are entitled to pay for any and all photos that the Photog presents to them...A wedding photog is at a wedding on a job, but the bride and groom don't own all of the images...they own what their contract says...Only if the client pays for your time with the understanding that all the images you shoot are theirs is that the case, however if it is not stipulated, the wage, or nickle, they paid is simply for you to attend and take shots!!

[rklepper]

Before you get bad advice you may wish to check contract law with special attention to a "Work for hire". And read the contract very carefully, it will usually stipulate what is and isn't covered.

[mbze430]

Okay this is usually how it works here in LA. 2 options

1) Hired as the event photographer. All your images will be given to the employer at the end of the day. They have the rights to use what they want. In part your fee should reflect how much usable images you can capture. you retain the rights to your image. However this needs to be in written some sort of a contractual agreement. your miles will vary.

2) You are INVITED to an event. At the end of the event you can SELL each shot to your client.

[fortinaa]

I think in this situation, it will depend completely on the initial agreement with the client, which is very sketchy here. In the initial agreement as stated, I look at it as being hired to come to an event and produce 30 usable images for a set price. Photographer owns the rest of the images, and if the "employer" want anything above the agreed number of prints, it is at an extra charge.

However, if the wording was different than the way I am seeing it... The "employer" is paying quite a bit more money. He hired you as an event photographer, has rights to all the images, and the money he paid you covers you professionally printing 30 images for him.

There is a big difference between the two, and it should have never been left as a question after the initial agreement. That can only lead to problems if not solved before the shooting starts. Make sure both parties have a full understanding of what is being offered on both ends.