Wedding clients who request not making images public

[-MasterChief-]

I'm with Bobby on this one. It plainly states in my contract that i own copyright for all the photos and am free to do whatever i want with them to promote my business. I am very upfront about it right up to when they need to sign on the dotted line. Is it a deal breaker for me if they want to control my copyright? Sure it is! is it a deal breaker for them? not in my experience.

[Christopher Steven b]

You post these few photos to a blog-style site rather than among your wedding galleries, is that right ?

Originally Posted by Peacefield

I've had it come up for very good reasons. For instance, one was a cop who did high-risk work and needed to ensure his privacy.

It's not about what the contract says, it's about your relationship with your clients. I enjoy including new work in my on-line portfolio after each and every wedding. If they don't want their photos used, not a big deal; I'll cool with that. But if I come back to them with just a few that I'd like to use, they're cool with that, too (for instance, a bridal portrait that didn't include the cop groom).

[bnlearle]

Originally Posted by Christopher Steven b

Just curious: why does the 'legitimacy' of the reason have bearing on whether or not you (might) charge extra for privacy if it hurts you marketing wise in the same way ?

The 'I also shoot for me' point is more relevant to me at this time than in the past. The more weddings I shoot the more the work feels like it should be public in some sense--even marketing aside. So I suppose what I'm really saying is that (short of shooting for czars 'n' stuff) I'd like to work with clients who also appreciate this perspective.

Thanks for weighing in, bobby.

The legitimacy matters because I am not being paid to keep things private. It's kind of like non-refundable retainers. I don't cancel dates off of my calendar for free. I don't turn other clients away for free. BUT if your mom is dying of cancer, you have to move the date because of that, and I'm not free for the new date, I'm going to give that retainer back. There's a legit reason there that, imo, supersedes our contractual agreement. And since I'm the one who runs my business, I get to decide when I bend my rules. And that would be an example of me bending those rules.

Same with privacy.

If someone wants to get something they aren't paying me for -- and they don't have a good reason -- then I won't give it to them for free. There is a value in having images remain public -- and there is significantly less value in having them private. If you're a police officer, like Robert just talked about, who needs that privacy, I wouldn't mind working with them. But if they simply don't like the idea of them being on my blog/site for no real reason other than personal preference, they'll have to pay for it.

So, basically, the legitimacy of the reasoning behind it might result in me giving them something they didn't pay for. Giving back a retainer in an understandable situation (like a death) or allowing someone to have privacy for free in an understandable situation (govt official, undercover cop, past abusive relationship, etc) are examples of that. Same with extra hours of photography. If the couple is awesome, I'm having a great time, and I want to do more for them because I feel they deserve it, I'll shoot for an extra hour without them paying me the $600 an extra hour would normally cost.

[rincon]

I'm with Bobby on this. I had a couple last year where he is a police officer and requested anonymity. We came to an agreement that I would not post on Facebook, or anywhere else where a name could be ascertained. They did, however, allow that I could post untitled photos in my overall gallery and that I could show prints during client interviews.

[PhotoMatte]

You can still use any images that don't clearly show their faces (or anyone's faces, really), like in the detail shots (cake, flowers, rings, etc). If they didn't sign a model release they do have the right to their privacy.

[highway0691]

Photographers owning copyright of photos of people on their wedding day, for many people a very private day full of very personal moments. This is the one part of wedding photography which I don't understand. What does this say about wedding photographers? Probably that they are very full of their own self importance and really about boosting their own egos. This expectation that we can use their photos as we like for our benefit makes us no better than the paparazzi or some other exploitative fool with a camera.

I don't know if this is a cultural thing or just plain rude. But where I live, Australians will on many, perhaps most occasions expect privacy. All that aside I believe that its just plain manners and common sense to ask permission from couples to use their photos for promotional purposes, and you dont need to be a Police Officer, there are many many reasons why people might not want their photos out there.

In fact my terms and conditions state, "**** will not use your photos for promotional purposes (website etc) without the written permission of the clients." I am sure that this makes potential clients feel very much at ease and probably assists in my bookings. If I start spraying the net with photos of Bride and Grooms and guests without their permission I'd probably have an Aussie throw a meat pie at my face.

[dho81]

show images where they aren't identifiable and use fake names. i know the feeling of wanting to show as much as possible but in the end you should be able to live with not showing every wedding. You could also see if the couples are okay with you setting up password protected galleries to show potential clients--that way it's not "out there" and you still can use the photos to market yourself to interested couples.

I personally don't feel like wedding photographers should have full reign on someone's personal photos. We're hired to provide photographic coverage of their wedding day. It's not like a TF shoot where your only compensation is use of the photos. Your payment is money, their product is photos. I personally wouldn't care if my wedding photos (if i ever get married) were used for marketing material, but i'm certainly understanding of those who want theirs to remain private. Everyone should have a right to their own privacy.

[Christopher Steven b]

@dho81: you say 'Your payment is money, their product is photos'. But isn't it up to me what kind of product I want to offer, choose what the fees are and what the conditions are ? I don't consider my only payment to be money. Other forms of payment that I get include (1) experience (2) enjoyment of the company of my clients, getting to know them (3) the knowledge that I'm performing an important task with a heavy responsibility and (4) the ability to showcase my craft my art to other people. Not everyone will be cool with the last part, and I totally understand that. I'm simply saying that for the time being, getting photos that I can show is important to me for my business and sense of artistic fulfillment. So my aim will be to work with clients who understand this.

Just in case it isn't clear from my posts, I would never share photos that someone told me they wanted to be private--even if I had the legal right to share them. I care about respecting the wishes of my clients outside of any contract that is in place. That said, there may be times when I will have to turn down a prospective client who isn't okay with sharing photos, in favor of one who does. The initial purpose of this thread was in part to see what kind of wording folks have in their contracts to make this explicit.

[Christopher Steven b]

What photos do you show prospective clients ? You must have a portfolio, no ? Are you sharing photos of 'very personal moments' ?

I don't know, it's weird. Weddings do have a feeling of intimacy about them. But they're also in a sense precisely about making things public. They're about public expressions of love and commitment--which isn't to say that everyone wants their photos to be made public, but just that most don't really care either way.

I'm nowhere near there yet (bobby is, probably), but wedding photography often is, in addition to showcasing photos of specific people, capable of working on abstract levels; wedding photography can be art. Do you think it's possible for an artist to, say, paint a painting and to want to make that public without them necessarily being a selfish wiener ? I do.

Originally Posted by highway0691

Photographers owning copyright of photos of people on their wedding day, for many people a very private day full of very personal moments. This is the one part of wedding photography which I don't understand. What does this say about wedding photographers? Probably that they are very full of their own self importance and really about boosting their own egos. This expectation that we can use their photos as we like for our benefit makes us no better than the paparazzi or some other exploitative fool with a camera.

I don't know if this is a cultural thing or just plain rude. But where I live, Australians will on many, perhaps most occasions expect privacy. All that aside I believe that its just plain manners and common sense to ask permission from couples to use their photos for promotional purposes, and you dont need to be a Police Officer, there are many many reasons why people might not want their photos out there.

In fact my terms and conditions state, "**** will not use your photos for promotional purposes (website etc) without the written permission of the clients." I am sure that this makes potential clients feel very much at ease and probably assists in my bookings. If I start spraying the net with photos of Bride and Grooms and guests without their permission I'd probably have an Aussie throw a meat pie at my face.

[dho81]

Originally Posted by Christopher Steven b

@dho81: you say 'Your payment is money, their product is photos'. But isn't it up to me what kind of product I want to offer, choose what the fees are and what the conditions are ? I don't consider my only payment to be money. Other forms of payment that I get include (1) experience (2) enjoyment of the company of my clients, getting to know them (3) the knowledge that I'm performing an important task with a heavy responsibility and (4) the ability to showcase my craft my art to other people. Not everyone will be cool with the last part, and I totally understand that. I'm simply saying that for the time being, getting photos that I can show is important to me for my business and sense of artistic fulfillment. So my aim will be to work with clients who understand this.

I totally get that experience and content (especially when you are starting out and portfolio building) are other forms of payment for a wedding photographer. In my earlier days, I told my clients they are getting a highly discounted rate because of the added benefits that I got. And they were cool with it. All I mean is that just because I am photographing their wedding shouldn't automatically entitle me to display it publicly without their consent.

Anyway, I think the majority of clients are okay with their images being used for portfolio/blog. And the more you shoot down the road the less it will matter whether or not you can show the weddings. I do think it's unfortunate that you feel that it's your best wedding to date and you can't show the images though...but you can't predict that.

[highway0691]

Originally Posted by Christopher Steven b

What photos do you show prospective clients ? You must have a portfolio, no ? Are you sharing photos of 'very personal moments' ?.

Of couse I have a portfolio and about 60 photos on my website. All with the permission of people in the photos. My point is simple. We as photographers should ask.

I've heard many reasons why people may not want their photos used for promotional purposes. Some of them are;

- I don’t want my ex to see my wedding
- I’m just a private person
- I’m a policeman, a teacher,or whatever
- I don’t want photos of my frail grandmother who may not be here this time next year
- I’m vain
- I’m pregnant
- No-one knows we’re getting married
- This could upset my children from my first marriage
- I want control over photos I’ve paid a lot of money for

[dho81]

Originally Posted by highway0691

Of couse I have a portfolio and about 60 photos on my website. All with the permission of people in the photos. My point is simple. We as photographers should ask.

This was my whole thing too. I love sharing work and I think it's great when a client wants to share their wedding with the world. My problem isn't with sharing--it's with the sense of entitlement (not referring to the OP, just saying in general).

[bnlearle]

This is getting a bit silly. This isn't ego, entitlement, or withholding info from clients. This is a conversation about business approaches. Photographers decide for themselves what will suit their business and clients better. Everyone in here does it. Including digital negatives or having them as a separate purchase or in certain packages. You choosing what images are color/black and white or letting your clients choose. The arguments being used here are literally identical to some I've heard about it being messed up that the photographer gets to decide what is color and what is black and white. I mean, after all, these are the clients' images. Are you so entitled and presumptuous to dictate your preference to your client? So egotistical? Do you even warn them that they will not be allowed to tell you which images they want in color, which in black and white, or maybe all images in both color and black and white? I mean, they paid you for them, right? Or how about them wanting all the photos? No culling. Or what if they want the RAWs? They are their photos -- not yours, right? They paid for them. You were paid to simply give them their photos, right?

So unless you give your clients every image in color and black and white, let them have all the photos you shot (no culling), and you offer them the RAW images, you are no different than the photographer who says "I only book clients who understand that I publicly post my images."

Disagreeing with this approach for your business is totally fine -- as we all do things differently. I think it's a perfectly decent position to hold (that you will only post photos if the client allows -- and that you don't mind if they don't). There is no right way here. But who in the world is advocating that you don't discuss this with your clients and that you stick it to them later when it comes up AFTER the wedding?? Who could do that and stay in business as a full time photographer?! That seems to be what you guys are talking about. And it also doesn't seem to be anything like what some of us are describing. I've only seen the exact opposite. As with anything in good business, clients having all the necessary info is of the utmost importance. Hiding this info from a client would be like not telling your client that their package doesn't include any photos on disc -- and that they'll have to drop a grand on that after the wedding.

Before I book any client, they have to read and consider my business contract. I let them know that my contract is not an iTunes TOS and that they need to actually read it to make sure we're on the same page.

Everyone reads it.

Everyone signs it.

Only ONE person in my entire career has said a word -- and after talking about it with me for, say, 45 seconds? They no longer cared either.

And I've booked weddings on 5 continents -- have worked for plenty of Aussies and Kiwis -- and every one of them has commented positively on my blog (public). Most even point out that they're thrilled they made it on the blog. Will some care? I'm sure they will. But they have every opportunity to go with someone else and I'm happy to help them find that someone else if I'm not right for them

So no one has a sense of entitlement. No one is advising that photographers not ask or discuss this with their clients. No need to make this some character assassination. This should be a discussion about completely legitimate business approaches on this matter -- nothing more.

[bnlearle]

And the cop example was a "such as" example -- not the only example Highway0691 listed plenty of completely reasonable requests (that I would gladly honor).

It's also important to note that we all book different clients. And that's a great thing! Uptight photographers tend to book uptight brides (and they prefer it that way). Casual, laid back photographers tend to book casual, laid back brides. Traditional photographers tend to book brides who want a more traditional look to their photos. Editorial photographers tend to book brides who love details and portraits. Documentary photographers tend to book brides who care most about emotional photographers.

And thank goodness they do! Wouldn't it be horrible to never get to define how you shoot because you have to shoot for anyone and everyone? One weekend you have to shoot as a pure photojournalist. The next as a fashion/editorial photographer. The next all color. The next all black and white. The next with vintage processing. The next with only cross-processing. That would be horrible for us (as photographers) but, more importantly, it would be even worse for the clients.

The more general you are with your photography and business, the more you'll be liked by the general kind of bride. The more specific and defined you are with your photography and business, the more you'll be LOVED by a specific kind of bride. Specificity and uniqueness in this industry is better for photographers. But, most importantly, it's even better for brides.

For example, because of the kind of bride I attract (and repel), it is inconceivable that I would ever hear "I don’t want photos of my frail grandmother who may not be here this time next year" from a bride. To be honest, I wouldn't shoot for someone who told me that. Not because i'm a dick or because they are horrible for wanting that. That's an overly simplistic way to look at it. If that was important to a bride, then I would want her to be with a photographer that would better suit HER. I had this exact thing happen a couple years ago. I shot a wedding in Fiji for a Kiwi family. The grandma was 91 and had cancer. Her goal was to live to make it to the wedding. She did. But she died a few weeks after. The family saw the blog post and emailed me the exact opposite -- asking if I send out the candid images of her for the funeral because they loved the ones of her (during the cutting of the cake, the grandma was bent over trying to read the writing on the cake -- as if the bride and groom weren't there :P). I hadn't finished processing the wedding, but I had culled it already. I reculled it to include EVERY photo that had her Grandma in them and emailed them immediately. They made no mention of taking them down and only commented on the blog things like "that's our Grandma " Why? Because I don't attract the kind of bride that would want that (and it would be completely decent to want that, I should add). And that's perfect because clearly there are photographers who DO prefer that bride! It's a win/win for all of us.

Believing that it's better to point a bride to a photographer who will be a better fit for HER (instead of just saying "screw it, I want her money...") is not a matter of ego or entitlement. It's looking out for the client even if it means referring her business out of your pocket and into someone else's.

[highway0691]

Certainly not about assassinating anyones character here but rather questioning in a robust manner photographers assumption that we can use peoples photos as we like rather than consulting them after they've been taken. Model release Bull***t prior to the photos being shot may be useful in the commercial model/advertising etc. world but photographing Bill & Mary - come on!! How about a nice email a few months later asking whether they mind.

This is what I send clients and 90% of couples are very happy to allow their photos to be used.

Hi ******* & ********

I hope you’re both enjoying married life, and I also hope that the photos I took of your wedding serve to remind you of that very special day.

I am in the process of promoting my wedding photography and have selected some photos that I took of you both as having excellent potential in this respect.

I am seeking your permission to use these photos on both my own website and ******** Weddings website. Prospective clients are always keen to view my photos and I would like to extend the bank of photos that I use for this purpose.

I understand that many people are private in this regard and would prefer not to have their photos displayed on the net. Should this be your preference then there’s no need to reply to this email.

On the other hand I would be very grateful should you agree to this proposal. Also I am planning on including “testimonials” i.e. A short blurb from people expressing their satisfaction of the photos, about 20-30 words. (This is optional.)

Should you wish to clarify any points please do contact me.
Looking forward to your reply.

Regards

*** ****