Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 15 Dec 2011 (Thursday) 14:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Request by bride to not display any photos...

 
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Dec 15, 2011 15:53 |  #16

Numenorean wrote in post #13550496 (external link)
Buying the copyrights means she could do whatever she wanted, print them however she wanted, and even sell them to others.

That's a big difference between just not wanting them displayed.

I have to disagree.

If she is asking them not to be used ever by anyone else, she is in effect asking for copyright. :-)

Although she does not realise she is asking for that I suspect.

---------------

Op, your biggest issue right now seems to be needing the cash, so be clear with your contract and take the job. :-)


"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you" (Belmondo)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Dec 15, 2011 15:55 |  #17

mtimber wrote in post #13550565 (external link)
I have to disagree.

If she is asking them not to be used ever by anyone else, she is in effect asking for copyright. :-)

Although she does not realise she is asking for that I suspect.

---------------

Op, your biggest issue right now seems to be needing the cash, so be clear with your contract and take the job. :-)

You could still word a contract to say that you won't display the work but that does not imply transferrence of copyright or permission for the client to alter, sell or display them herself other than for personal use.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Dec 15, 2011 15:57 |  #18

mtimber wrote in post #13550316 (external link)
Remember, she is talking about buying the copyright, rather than licensing the images.

Where is she talking about buying the copyright ?

She is asking for a bit of privacy in not having personal images posted where anybody can look at them. That is all.

Is she asking for the orignal files, so she can make her own copies for everybody? No, she will still have to go to the copyright holder and pay for prints etc. Is she getting the right to sell the images for publication, or use them commercially? No, she would still need the copyright holders permission for any non agreed usage.

The OP would still hold the copyright, the agreement would simply be modified to say that he doesn't get to post them in public.

I see that you are in the UK. Are you aware that there is a privacy clause in UK copyright law that guarantees this privacy she is requesting? If a client hires a photographer to do some work, the photographer can only use them for their portfolio, website, etc. with the permission of the client. That is why photographers have it written into their agreements that the client gives permission for such usage. If the images are of a personal nature it is not uncommon for people to say "no, I don't want them displayed" and ask for the agreement to be modified to allow them their statutory right to privacy (particularly with "boudoir" shots taken for husbands or partners to enjoy). It is uncommon for wedding shoots to have this request made, but (in the UK) they are quite within their rights to insist upon it.

The privacy clause does NOT hand copyright over to the client.

Now, I don't know where the OP is based as they haven't given a location (always helps when asking about these sort of matters guys, as where you are can affect the answers). I suspect from the use of "check" instead of "cheque" they are not in the UK and probably in the USA. I don't know if they have a similar privacy clause in their copyright law, they may well do.


timnosenzo wrote in post #13550372 (external link)
I've had the request in the past, and agreed to it. Not being able to display one wedding isn't going to kill me.

You need to decide how important booking the wedding is. If you refuse to agree to it, or you agree to it but jack up the price and she walks, are you OK with it? If you'd rather book the current wedding, then just agree and collect your money. :)


+1 to this.

Regardless of any privacy law, any client must surely have the right to ask that you don't place their personal photos in the public domain. This isn't like taking shots in public where there is no "expectation of privacy" and the photographer can use the images for their own purposes without any permission (so long as it isn't commercial use or defamatory). Wedding shots are taken at a private event, and you have to respect that privacy if they ask. Anybody taking photos of the couple from the street, of course, is not bound by that as they are shooting from public ground and not part of the wedding itself.

Now, the OP also has the right to decide if the loss of potential publicity use of the images makes the shoot no longer worthwhile. This would particularly be the case if it was a shoot by an inexperienced wedding photographer, working cheap in order to get some portfolio images. If that is the case, then explain that is why your prices are as low as they are and that you are doing it to build your portfolio. Without that as part of the package, you would have to ask for more money to make up for not using the images.

To be honest though, every time I have known of a client ask for images not to be used, they will just go elsewhere if you either don't agree or want to charge a higher fee. There are other photographers who have plenty of portfolio images, as they have done a lot of weddings, and it won't bother them not to be able to use shots from an occasional wedding where privacy is requested.

The OP has the option of just agreeing with the request and getting a paid booking, making their profit from it and moving on, without posting images in their portfolio. Or they can turn the booking down as they don't agree to the client's terms, or they can ask for more money and hope the client doesn't walk out the door. If they do that, they should be tactful about it and not start harping on about selling the copyright (unless also prepared to just hand over all the files after the wedding and all rights to print orders etc).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:05 |  #19

Sorry guys, but if she is controlling usage of the images, she is basically asking for "control" of the copyright.

She controls it, not the photographer.


I have to disagree, in a friendly (not too bothered) way. ;-)a


"I don't like the direction this thread is going..." (LightRules)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,004 posts
Likes: 987
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:06 |  #20

If she is placing limits on the copyright holders ability to control the image, its a copyright issue.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:07 |  #21

sandpiper wrote in post #13550593 (external link)
I see that you are in the UK. Are you aware that there is a privacy clause in UK copyright law that guarantees this privacy she is requesting? If a client hires a photographer to do some work, the photographer can only use them for their portfolio, website, etc. with the permission of the client. That is why photographers have it written into their agreements that the client gives permission for such usage. If the images are of a personal nature it is not uncommon for people to say "no, I don't want them displayed" and ask for the agreement to be modified to allow them their statutory right to privacy (particularly with "boudoir" shots taken for husbands or partners to enjoy). It is uncommon for wedding shoots to have this request made, but (in the UK) they are quite within their rights to insist upon it.

I was not aware of that, is that something that has to be agreed before in the contract by the client?

But that sounds like they have to add that clause beforehand.

Correct?


"Can't list equipment, wife checks here to see what I have bought lately" (calicokat)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:27 |  #22

mtimber wrote in post #13550650 (external link)
I was not aware of that, is that something that has to be agreed before in the contract by the client?

But that sounds like they have to add that clause beforehand.

Correct?

This is the privacy clause:

A person who commissions the making of photographs or films for private and domestic use has a right to privacy. That means that such photographs may not be issued to the public, shown in public, or communicated to the public without the permission of the person who commissioned the photograph or film. Photographs jointly commissioned entitle all the commissioners to a privacy right. The right to privacy subsists for as long as the copyright term of the work.

It doesn't have to be agreed at any time, it is part of UK copyright law so is just as binding as the fact that copyright belongs to the photographer, unless agreement is made to the contrary.

So, unless agreement is specifically made that the photographer CAN display the images, they don 't have any right to do so. This is why they put it in the contract, so the client essentially signs away their right to privacy. However, if a client doesn't want to give up that right, they are perfectly within their rights to ask for the photographer to remove the part about permission being given to show the images in public (such as on their website).

The key thing to bear in mind is that the photographer is NOT giving up copyright, heck they aren't giving up ANYTHING. They aren't signing away their right to publish, as they don't have one to start with. It is simply the client saying that they don't wish to sign away their right to privacy.

Now, I don't know how that affects the OP, as US law is not identical to UK law, They are very similar though and the US may well have a similar privacy clause in place, I am not in a position to say.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
highergr0und
Senior Member
545 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:30 |  #23

It's not really a copyright issue if the law doesn't afford him the ability to use it without a signature..... more of an issue of the photographer not getting the level of right to use he likes.

Generally, any part of a contract that requires consent is doing so because there exists precedent that requires it, ie there's no reason to put in a line about using pics online if the copyright rules grant the photographer the right do so without one.


T3i, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 1.4, 18-55 kit, 55-250, YN-565, a few books, some software, and a desire to get good.....

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:32 |  #24

sandpiper wrote in post #13550763 (external link)
This is the privacy clause:

A person who commissions the making of photographs or films for private and domestic use has a right to privacy. That means that such photographs may not be issued to the public, shown in public, or communicated to the public without the permission of the person who commissioned the photograph or film. Photographs jointly commissioned entitle all the commissioners to a privacy right. The right to privacy subsists for as long as the copyright term of the work.

It doesn't have to be agreed at any time, it is part of UK copyright law so is just as binding as the fact that copyright belongs to the photographer, unless agreement is made to the contrary.

So, unless agreement is specifically made that the photographer CAN display the images, they don 't have any right to do so. This is why they put it in the contract, so the client essentially signs away their right to privacy. However, if a client doesn't want to give up that right, they are perfectly within their rights to ask for the photographer to remove the part about permission being given to show the images in public (such as on their website).

The key thing to bear in mind is that the photographer is NOT giving up copyright, heck they aren't giving up ANYTHING. They aren't signing away their right to publish, as they don't have one to start with. It is simply the client saying that they don't wish to sign away their right to privacy.

Now, I don't know how that affects the OP, as US law is not identical to UK law, They are very similar though and the US may well have a similar privacy clause in place, I am not in a position to say.

That sounds non-sensical, but if that is the way it is then who am I to argue? :-)


"I have applied for jobs at National Geographic, Sports Illustrated and Playboy. The phone should start ringing any minute now" (Curtis N)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,170 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 48
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:46 |  #25

mtimber wrote in post #13550788 (external link)
That sounds non-sensical, but if that is the way it is then who am I to argue? :-)

I'm not sure why it is non-sensical. Not everybody wants to go and get some family pics done, and have them plastered around in public. Even more so if the images are less family oriented. Imagine if your partner went and got some raunchy boudoir shots done for your birthday, would you (or they) want such private shots posted online for anybody to see?

The law simply gives people who hire a photographer, the right to not have personal, and private, images displayed online or in a shop window on the high street. I don't see how that doesn't make sense. You might not agree with it, but that is irrelevant. I'm sure the client who wants to make their own copies of the images, without paying the copyright holder, finds copyright law non-sensical as well. In their eyes, they have already paid you, why should they pay more, simply because they want more prints?

The law isn't non-sensical simply because it doesn't play to your benefit.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,394 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 257
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
Dec 15, 2011 16:53 |  #26

I had a situation a few years ago. I priced the wedding low because I did not have much of a portfolio at all. I had expected the wedding to produce some images for my site. Well they read the part about my right to post online images and use in my portfolio and said no. I was heart broken.

So I took it from the prospective that I would gain some experience. I had a few images that I really liked from her wedding and asked her if it was ok to post those and she agreed.

A sucky situation but it is what my client wanted. I could have refused to do it but I would have lost the experience.


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
Dec 15, 2011 19:54 |  #27

Wow, I'm just discovering this thread and it's already taken quite a turn. So here's my $.02.

Who cares? She may have a good reason. I once shot a wedding where the groom was a cop who did some specialized work and he was sensitive to his image being used publically. I once had a groom who did diplomatic work and was also concerned for his privacy. I've had a few weddings where the couple were simply very private people. That's all fine; I get it.

For me, it doesn't matter because my portfolio is amply large. I can understand how it's a bigger deal for you at this early stage. But still, shooting the wedding, gaining the experience, driving the income, but not building your portfolio is much better than not shooting the wedding.

Talk to them. The language in my contract essentially allows me to do anything with their image I please. Couples that sounded very sensitve at first really turned out to be okay with my using their images in my own portfolio but the didn't want to see themselves on a billboard one day. I get that, too.

If they have been otherwise reasonable people, talk to them, understand their concerns, and find a way to address them. They came to you as a referal and you want to get more positive word of mouth from them. Possibly, they end up so delighted with your work when the see it, they just may change their mind about allowing you to include a few in your portfolio (I've had that happen, too).


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jamiewexler
Goldmember
Avatar
2,012 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Grafton, MA
     
Dec 15, 2011 20:01 |  #28

Peacefield wrote in post #13551741 (external link)
Wow, I'm just discovering this thread and it's already taken quite a turn. So here's my $.02.

Who cares? She may have a good reason. I once shot a wedding where the groom was a cop who did some specialized work and he was sensitive to his image being used publically. I once had a groom who did diplomatic work and was also concerned for his privacy. I've had a few weddings where the couple were simply very private people. That's all fine; I get it.

For me, it doesn't matter because my portfolio is amply large. I can understand how it's a bigger deal for you at this early stage. But still, shooting the wedding, gaining the experience, driving the income, but not building your portfolio is much better than not shooting the wedding.

Talk to them. The language in my contract essentially allows me to do anything with their image I please. Couples that sounded very sensitve at first really turned out to be okay with my using their images in my own portfolio but the didn't want to see themselves on a billboard one day. I get that, too.

If they have been otherwise reasonable people, talk to them, understand their concerns, and find a way to address them. They came to you as a referal and you want to get more positive word of mouth from them. Possibly, they end up so delighted with your work when the see it, they just may change their mind about allowing you to include a few in your portfolio (I've had that happen, too).

+1. Unless you are really desperate for portfolio images, shoot the wedding, give them their photos, cash the check. Put other people's wedding photos on your blog. Some people are shy. Be a nice guy, and get their referral business too.


Massachusetts Wedding Photographer (external link)
My blog (external link)
my facebook (external link)
my gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Philco
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2005
Location: SandyEggo, CA.
     
Dec 15, 2011 20:52 |  #29

+2 for what Robert + Jamie said. Some people are shy, some people (clients of mine) work for the Justice Department and don't want their likeness or names easily searchable by Google. It's about them and their comfort level for their wedding.

If you are shooting a celebrity and there is a bonafide loss of marketing opportunity, it's not unheard of to ask for a premium, but I can't imagine any typical client not tearing up my contract in horror if I tell them I'm doubling or tripling my fee to give up the right to use their likeness on my blog.


Canon 5D MKIII/Canon 5D MKII/ 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 24-70 F2.8L / 85 F1.2L II/ 35 f1.4L / 135 F2.0L / Canon 600 EX-RT X 2

[SIZE=1]r follow me on Facebook. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,928 posts
Likes: 336
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 15, 2011 21:07 |  #30

I can understand that, I probably wouldn't want my wedding photos used anywhere and everywhere without my permission either. If i'd made that request and someone told me the price would go up i'd just go to another photographer, it's not like they're hard to find.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,980 views & 0 likes for this thread
Request by bride to not display any photos...
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is RenoH
841 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.