Surcharge for B&G not wanting to sign model release

[noxcuses1]

I was recently contacted by a B&G about wedding photography. They said they don't want to sign a release because they "are not interested in our images or likeness used for advertisement".

If that is the case, would there be an extra charge since I wouldn't be able to use their photos in my portfolio or advertising?

Thanks in advance.

[Mark1]

I would think not. I take it as a bonus to me if they do. I dont necessarily want/need every customer to be an advertising piece. Even if I did, what would I do with all of them? Hanging a picture of them in your studio lobby is not advertising per se. So that would be ok I think. Just cant do it in public with the express intent of gain.

I look at it as free models when I get a customer to sign. If not I just ask the next.

[Dennis_Hammer]

I wouldn't charge a surcharge. I charge for a wedding as if I can't use their images for advertisement and if they do sign a release bonus. By the way they can still be used for portfolio so not that great a loss unless they were going to be on your business cards or brochure or featured on your web site.

[noxcuses1]

I wasn't specifically implying that I my intent was to use them for an "advertising piece".

It's just uncommon for me to run into any person who didn't allow the photographer to be able to use the images AT ALL in their portfolio or as a gallery on their website.

I'm sure some wedding photographers may have some input..

[tim]

I've had two couples ask not to show their images, and I agreed. I have enough photos that one couples makes no difference. You could just add a clause that says "images will not be displayed publicly without the prior approval of the customer".

This can be a red flag that they're going to be a difficult customer though.

[noxcuses1]

It's just strange how the wording of their email was. They didn't even give a contact number so I can't call them or meet with them.
And it's for this Sunday!! Sheesh, why do they wait so long?
I'm just cautious because I've recently gotten a lot of spam from emails with potential "clients".

[photoguy6405]

I consider myself to be an extremely easy going and accommodating person, but I am also a very private person, so I don't think I would fall into the 'difficult' category just because I request that the images be kept from public display.

ETA: I would find another photographer if they asked for a surcharge.

[ssim]

It's just strange how the wording of their email was. They didn't even give a contact number so I can't call them or meet with them.
And it's for this Sunday!! Sheesh, why do they wait so long?
I'm just cautious because I've recently gotten a lot of spam from emails with potential "clients".
Let me get this straight, you are going to go do a wedding for someone that you have never spoken to or met with. Sounds all too fishy for me.

In relation to your original question, I simply ask them as an option to display their images on my website. They can say yes or no, makes no difference to me. As Tim said, I have enough other couples to satisfy that need. I don't believe that you actually need a model release to display on your own website for images that you own the copyright to and are not reselling. It is for display purposes only. A model release cannot hurt in any event.

[noxcuses1]

Let me get this straight, you are going to go do a wedding for someone that you have never spoken to or met with.


You're incorrect. It was the initial email with the potential client asking for information. It was also in that email where they stated they didn't want to sign a release. There usually is some sort of initial contact whether it be email or phone.

I was just curious what other wedding photogs did in the event this happened.

I didn't state I was "hired" to do the wedding. Please don't assume.

[sspellman]

Kristen-

I think is perfectly reasonable to state that "As part of the regular course of growing and advertising my creative services and business, I ocassionally use images from clients for advertising and promotion. After all, if all my clients prohibited me from showing samples of my work with them-you would have never seen my work or be interested in my services. There is a 10% surcharge for clients who do not sign the model release clause."

-Scott

[Marnault]

I think it would be better to do it the other way around, instead of charging them if they don't sign the release, offer a discount to all those that do. For example I would just increase my base price by $100, and let clients know that if they sign the model release they get $100 off.

I think this way it will be perceived better by the client, having a surcharge may make the client feel like your giving them a ultimatum saying sign this or pay me more. With a discount it would be perceived more as a you scratch my back i scratch yours type of deal.

It's all about perception.

[moeronn]

Just one thing to add here - there are some people, generally due to security, are not allowed to have their pictures posted publicly.

I wouldn't make this an issue unless this is one of your first few weddings and are still building your portfolio.

[noxcuses1]

Kristen-

I think is perfectly reasonable to state that "As part of the regular course of growing and advertising my creative services and business, I ocassionally use images from clients for advertising and promotion. After all, if all my clients prohibited me from showing samples of my work with them-you would have never seen my work or be interested in my services. There is a 10% surcharge for clients who do not sign the model release clause."

-Scott

THANK YOU!

[LVPhotos]

We don't discuss advertising/marketing with our clients, but our contracts state that we have the right to use any images from the event for marketing and/or advertising purposes, but will never sell their images to a 3rd party.

All our brides know we have a blog and we blog almost every bride. All our brides know that we only keep demos from the most recent events on our demo page. They have to at least assume we'd use their photos as demos or for sure on the blog.
I've never had a client even mention it, let alone have a problem with it, but if they did, I'd just cross out that line and initial next to it.

Heck in late June we did an e-session with a couple and got 2 amazing shots. We printed them poster-sized and hung them in our booth at a very large bridal show. They showed up, saw the photos and started grabbing other brides walking by and saying, "look, there's us! that was just last week!". True story.

We printed 16x20 of each of the photos and called them a week later to ask them to stop by the office, and we gave them to 'em. Talk about raving fans now!

[LVPhotos]

Just one thing to add here - there are some people, generally due to security, are not allowed to have their pictures posted publicly.


That reminds me, ONE time... we knew the guy was a cop in California. Security never came up, though. We put his photos up on our gallery for proofing and got a call, "hey can you somehow password protect those photos"?

Turns out he was undercover and most of his wedding party was, too -- and 3 of them were on the same (drug) case. So I password-protected the album and don't use their photos anywhere.

At some point there's common courtesy, too.

I do agree with a surcharge if they ask ahead of time, mainly because of a previous post, that it's a red flag of a problem client... so prepare for that, or make it worth your while with an extra charge.

[noxcuses1]

Just one thing to add here - there are some people, generally due to security, are not allowed to have their pictures posted publicly.

I wouldn't make this an issue unless this is one of your first few weddings and are still building your portfolio.

That's something I do understand.

They never contacted me with their phone number. So there is no way I can set up a meeting with them. Thanks all for your input.

[strmrdr]

If I hire a pro for my wedding next year 2 things are going to be mandatory.
Full resolution level 10 JPEG white balanced and color corrected images on DVD.
Privacy of the images, no use without permission and the proofing website if used will be password protected.

[Mark1]

Good luck on the full rez pictures!!! After reading all the threads here about NEVER giving the customer full rez, It might be hard to find one that will do it.

[Dennis_Hammer]

I believe its not reasonable to charge a surcharge. They are paying you to photograph their wedding you are not paying them to model for you. That said I like the previous idea of a small discount for a model release. And once again you need no model release for using them in your portfolio.

[photoguy6405]

I believe its not reasonable to charge a surcharge. They are paying you to photograph their wedding you are not paying them to model for you. That said I like the previous idea of a small discount for a model release. And once again you need no model release for using them in your portfolio.

Bingo!

[tim]

Good luck on the full rez pictures!!! After reading all the threads here about NEVER giving the customer full rez, It might be hard to find one that will do it.

That's interesting, I don't remember reading this recommendation often. I give customers full res files, and I would expect it from any wedding photographer I hired. If not full res then at least enough to do an 8x12 @ 300ppi.

[JWright]

When I ws shooting weddings (until I realized I wasn't masochistic enough to continue) the following clause was part of my contract:

"This agreement constitutes an order for wedding photographs. It is understoood that any and all photographs may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by the photographer."

Not once did I have a couple refuse to sign the contract because of this statement. If any had refused, they would have had to find another photographer...

[Permagrin]

When I ws shooting weddings (until I realized I wasn't masochistic enough to continue) the following clause was part of my contract:

"This agreement constitutes an order for wedding photographs. It is understoood that any and all photographs may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by the photographer."

Not once did I have a couple refuse to sign the contract because of this statement. If any had refused, they would have had to find another photographer...

I feel the same way. If the shots couldn't be used for my portfolio I'd definitely think twice about shooting the wedding. (also, as I think someone mentioned above, it would make me wonder if this was a difficult couple) I wouldn't charge a surcharge though. I think I'd just decline to shoot.

[Mark1]

I guess it depends on how much you need it for your portfolio. As I said above, I dont need every job to be included in my port. And in fact there are a few jobs Id rather not have the people in my port. Not every customer is port quality if you know what I mean. I only give it a push on very attractive customers. And then not very much. Id rather take their money and not use them for the portfolio than just turn them down. You never know what other business a customer can bring.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Once again, you do not need a model release for portfolios. Do you give copyright releases to models for theirs? Portfolio are work product and never considered commercial use hence no model release needed.

[hitmanh]

I feel the same way. If the shots couldn't be used for my portfolio I'd definitely think twice about shooting the wedding. (also, as I think someone mentioned above, it would make me wonder if this was a difficult couple) I wouldn't charge a surcharge though. I think I'd just decline to shoot.

Why, though? You're being hired to provide a service not pad out your portfolio (though there is nothing stopping you using these images as part of your portfolio). I am a little uncomfortable with the fact that so many photographers want or expect to use images shot for advertising purposes when they have already been paid for the job. I can understand giving a discount in return for the right to use images for advertising, etc, but charging extra to not do that seems over the top.

Cheers

Matt

[photoguy6405]

Why, though? You're being hired to provide a service not pad out your portfolio (though there is nothing stopping you using these images as part of your portfolio). I am a little uncomfortable with the fact that so many photographers want or expect to use images shot for advertising purposes when they have already been paid for the job. I can understand giving a discount in return for the right to use images for advertising, etc, but charging extra to not do that seems over the top.

Agreed. A common theme here is photographers railing against customers (and family and friends, etc) expecting freebies. This is the same thing, expecting a freebie.

[noxcuses1]

I guess some add in their contracts, so it seems standard practice to some.