Bride does not want pics posted or used for portfolio

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

Yes it does.



Nope that's not what copyright lawyers are for. Privacy has nothing to do with copyright.

Hold up, I think our resident copyright lawyer is still in the building...

[cdifoto]

The clause in my contract is rather simple:

CDI Fotografi retains copyright ownership of all images. CDI Fotografi reserves the right to use some or all images for display or promotional purposes.

They can, of course, eliminate that line with a digit with few extra zeros behind it, made Payable to Yours Truly.

[SlowBlink]

Ya, I can see what you mean about post. That could turn into something you might not want your name attached to. I guess I'm coming from a different angle. I used to do commission work and some people asked for all reference shots sketches etc. It was work for hire and usually not my aesthetics so I rarely had a problem giving it up. Privacy Surcharge or written in to the contract seems to be the way to go.

[bnlearle]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

Careful, now...it really is not that black and white. Snapping a picture doesn't automatically give you copyrights. If the person or persons are recognizable then they have their right to privacy that can get most of us shutterbugs a trip to both Civil and Criminal courts. Posting the picture without a release can/may/will cause you some problems since it is not exactly in the fair use area...again, this is argumentative and that's why we have copyright lawyers. I understand what you mean, like I said, they have their image/likeness but it is your talent/work that produce the image, but do not forget about their privacy as well. To place them in your portfolio especially with the intent to use them as advertising, to promote your own business, that will get real touchy, that's why I recommend getting the release or like Cdi said, charge them accordingly based of your projected loss of revenue because of not using the photos from their wedding. For the 5 years I've done video for weddings, I never had anyone refuse me the right to use my images captured for my presentations, portfolio, demos, etc. But there are many sorts out there.

I believe outside some very rare or sticky situations, it does in fact give you copyright ownership. Now, in order to sell that image (if it contains identity or likeness) you have to have written consent (model release).

Either way, I believe most full time wedding photographers would agree that the client is not paying for copyright of the images (or privacy - which is the same to me). If they want that, we need to educate the client and let them know that they are asking for an additional service in wanting such privacy - and that nothing comes for free.

Honestly, I think the biggest concern is just winding up on sketchy stuff on the net. Explain that you watermark/logo your images and that you will only use the photographs for instances directly related to photography (and I explain that my site is right-click protected - which isn't fool proof but still is nice to explain) and I think that they will feel much more secure that you feel that their identity is a priority of yours. Client confidence is extremely important and they need to know that you are looking out for them. If they believe that you are sincerely concerned with this, I think they won't have an issue (and will be honored that you liked their images enough to show them off)

[bnlearle]

Originally Posted by SlowBlink

Ya, I can see what you mean about post. That could turn into something you might not want your name attached to. I guess I'm coming from a different angle. I used to do commission work and some people asked for all reference shots sketches etc. It was work for hire and usually not my aesthetics so I rarely had a problem giving it up. Privacy Surcharge or written in to the contract seems to be the way to go.

Gotcha

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

The clause in my contract is rather simple:



They can, of course, eliminate that line with a digit with few extra zeros behind it, made Payable to Yours Truly.

I just emailed her...I think she getting dinner...working late...anyway, you can write whatever you want in a contract/agreement but of course local/state/fed laws will supercede...

Here:

"While copyright protects the copyright holder's property rights in the work or intellectual creation, privacy and publicity rights protect the interests of the person(s) who may be the subject(s) of the work or intellectual creation. Issues pertaining to privacy and publicity may arise when a researcher contemplates the use of letters, diary entries, photographs or reportage in visual, audio, and print formats found in library collections. Because two or more people are often involved in the work (e.g., photographer and subject, interviewer and interviewee) and because of the ease with which various media in digital format can be reused, photographs, audio files, and motion pictures represent materials in which issues of privacy and publicity emerge with some frequency. The distinctions among privacy rights, publicity rights, and copyright are best illustrated by example, as follows: An advertiser wishes to use a photograph for a print advertisement. The advertiser approaches the photographer, who holds the copyright in the photograph, and negotiates a license to use the photograph. The advertiser also is required to determine the relationship between the photographer and the subject of the photograph. If no formal relationship (e.g., a release form signed by the subject) exists that permits the photographer to license the use of the photograph for all uses or otherwise waives the subject's, sitter's or model's rights, then the advertiser must seek permission from the subject of the photograph because the subject has retained both privacy and publicity rights in the use of their likeness. The privacy right or interest of the subject is personal in character, that the subject and his/her likeness not be cast before the public eye without his/her consent, the right to be left alone. The publicity right of the subject is that their image may not be commercially exploited without his/her consent and potentially compensation.
While copyright is a federally protected right under the United States Copyright Act, with statutorily described fair use defenses against charges of copyright infringement, neither privacy nor publicity rights are the subject of federal law. Note also that while fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, fair use is not a defense to claims of violation of privacy or publicity rights. Privacy and publicity rights are the subject of state laws. While many states have privacy and/or publicity laws, others do not recognize such rights or recognize such rights under other state laws or common law legal theories such as misappropriation and false representation. What may be permitted in one state may not be permitted in another. Note also that related causes of action may be pursued under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a), for example, for unauthorized uses of a person's identity in order to create a false endorsement."



That's from the Library of Congress. Our copyright expert is working on a big trial whose closing arguments are set for tomorrow morning in Federal Court so I haven't heard from her.




Anyway, that is what copyright lawyers are for to argue for or against your copyrights...

[cdifoto]

Did you actually read it? It says exactly what I said...copyright isn't privacy, and privacy isn't copyright. They are two distinct issues.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

Did you actually read it? It says exactly what I said...copyright isn't privacy, and privacy isn't copyright. They are two distinct issues.

Yes, but just because you have the copyrights, it doesn't give you the right to publish...The subject can refuse because of privacy reasons which can vary from state to state and other locales. I guess I kind of jump the gun a little(what i get when I multi-task), what I meant to give a caveat to is simply because you took the picture, it does not automatically give you the right to publish or include the photograph in your portfolio, because privacy rights may prevail. By the way, that copy I posted is not the letter of the law but a guide that the Library of Congress uses concerning the use of copyrighted materials and the privacy implications that may arise. In other words, even if you have obtained the copyright, you need to find out if there is a release or what the relationship between the copyright holder and the subject is.

Anyway...I don't know about you guys, I hate going to court, especially when it is my bank account that is on the hook. So my advice is to pay $250 or so to get a lawyer an hour of consultation to look over your contracts and check and make sure you have your rears covered.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by 00silvergt

Yes, but just because you have the copyrights, it doesn't give you the right to publish...The subject can refuse because of privacy reasons which can vary from state to state and other locales. I guess I kind of jump the gun a little(what i get when I multi-task), what I meant to give a caveat to is simply because you took the picture, it does not automatically give you the right to publish or include the photograph in your portfolio, because privacy rights may prevail. By the way, that copy I posted is not the letter of the law but a guide that the Library of Congress uses concerning the use of copyrighted materials and the privacy implications that may arise. In other words, even if you have obtained the copyright, you need to find out if there is a release or what the relationship between the copyright holder and the subject is.

Anyway...I don't know about you guys, I hate going to court, especially when it is my bank account that is on the hook. So my advice is to pay $250 or so to get a lawyer an hour of consultation to look over your contracts and check and make sure you have your rears covered.

Yes and that's what the contract is for, as I said previously. If the contract states that I reserve the right to use the images as I see fit, and the bride signs, then I can use the images as I see fit.

If the bride doesn't want me to use the images, and refuses to pay my surcharge, she doesn't obtain my services because no contract is signed and therefore no agreement is reached.

I'm not saying I have a god-given right to use them regardless of what she thinks or says or what the law says. I'm saying I won't shoot a wedding without a signed contract, and the contract will only be signed by both parties when an agreement is reached.

I already know my rear is covered because there is a statement in my contract saying what I reserve the right to do. Her signing the contract negates any argument she may have in court...her signature gives me the legal permission I need to use the images. If she does not want that clause in there, she is given options - Privacy Surcharge, or no services.

You cannot sign a contract, agreeing to the terms in that contract, and then later sue because you disagree with the terms.

Simple really.

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by cdifoto

Yes and that's what the contract is for, as I said previously. If the contract states that I reserve the right to use the images as I see fit, and the bride signs, then I can use the images as I see fit.

If the bride doesn't want me to use the images, and refuses to pay my surcharge, she doesn't obtain my services because no contract is signed and therefore no agreement is reached.

I'm not saying I have a god-given right to use them regardless of what she thinks or says or what the law says. I'm saying I won't shoot a wedding without a signed contract, and the contract will only be signed by both parties when an agreement is reached.

Simple really.

Yes, it is...and I think we are both in the same direction agreeing with most points. LOL. No one should do anything that involves money without some sort of signed agreement, actually, even if it doesn't involve money, such as a TFCD, etc. There should be something both parties sign...

[bnlearle]

Yay! We're on the same page

Bobby

[cdifoto]

Yup page 3. If you use the default.

Let's debate some more. I wanna go for seventeen-five tonight.

[sando]

Well, it's in my contract that I own the copyright. If they're not happy with it then fine, there are other photographers who will agree to their terms.

If she was really fat, or ugly, then I might agree as it's unlikely I would use their photos in my portfolio anyway.

[bnlearle]

Originally Posted by sando

Well, it's in my contract that I own the copyright. If they're not happy with it then fine, there are other photographers who will agree to their terms.

If she was really fat, or ugly, then I might agree as it's unlikely I would use their photos in my portfolio anyway.

You're about to get clobbered by every female here

Bobby

[00silvergt]

Originally Posted by bnlearle

You're about to get clobbered by every female here

Bobby

LOL Clobbered...