Request by bride to not display any photos...

IMHO, there's much more to business than "holding your ground" on a point that costs no one any money. It could be a red flag however, like someone else noted.

I believe our clients have every right to request privacy with their photos. I cannot believe the audacity and ego of some photographers.

1st, I would explain to the client that your prices already provided assume the ability to show your client work to the public to expand your business. After all-she would not have booked you if she never saw your images. I would offer a 20% price premium for not using the images in portfolio, and let the client make the decision.

There are many valid reasons why people may not want their photos on the WORLD WIDE web.

Firstly wedding photos are to some intimate moments full of emotion and many people are private in this regard. Photos may one day contain images of deceased people. People may not want photos of their children for the world to see. It may not be their first marriage, who wants an ex and their family looking at photos of their wedding? Some people may just be plain private and that’s good enough for me!

As wedding photographers we are privileged to be so close to people and families on such an important day. And the decision as to whether the B&G are willing to let you use their photos for whatever purpose I believe should be at their discretion.

My terms and conditions state that “ ***** will not use your photos for promotional purposes (website etc) without the written permission of the clients.” I’m sure I would lose business if I was to demand control of how the photos were to be used without at least consulting the people in them.

I would just agree to it. No problem. I can understand someone wanting that level or privacy.

nicksan wrote in post #13552735
I would just agree to it.

Me too... although ironically the one couple who did ask for this I should have avoided.

Also guys don't forget there may be reason such as personal safety, e.g. not wanting an ex to see or something like that. Some people are private, let them be so.

My contracts include model releases... if people don't want it in... I don't have an issue removing them.

Asking for a premium from someone who wants to keep THEIR special day private is rude in my opinion. Is not having shots from one wedding really going to hurt you that much? If it is you are either not shooting many weddings or all your existing portfolio sucks.

sandpiper wrote in post #13550877
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.

The minute someone else controls YOUR images, they have in effect removed control of your copyright.

Now we can get around that with all types of odd reasoning, but if you do not have total control over your copyright (the right to use and display them as you see fit), then you have lost your copyright.

I may of course be misunderstanding copyright...

But if you have copyright, it is yours to do with as you wish...


And in the OPs situation, I would agree and take the job and accept I am handing over control of those images to the client.

mtimber wrote in post #13553304
The minute someone else controls YOUR images, they have in effect removed control of your copyright.

Now we can get around that with all types of odd reasoning, but if you do not have total control over your copyright (the right to use and display them as you see fit), then you have lost your copyright.

I may of course be misunderstanding copyright...

But if you have copyright, it is yours to do with as you wish...


And in the OPs situation, I would agree and take the job and accept I am handing over control of those images to the client.

But they DON'T control the images. They can't do anything with them that isn't approved by the photographer, they still have to go to (and pay) the photographer to get reprints, or permission to post the image online. The only control they have is that the photographer cannot use the images to display in public.

Many clients do NOT wish to have their personal and private events splashed around on the internet, or displayed in the high street for all their neighbours to see. Weddings can be emotional, and some people like to keep those outbursts of emotion private. Some shoots can be of a very intimate nature, how can you not see that a photographer should heed his clients wishes, if they want privacy.

Now, as to copyright. It is the right to control the use others may make of your images. Whilst you have the right to use the image yourself in many ways, it does NOT give, carte blanche, "the right to use and display them as you see fit". You cannot use an image of a person in a commercial manner without a release (which straight away means that putting them on your website to advertise your services is out, even without the privacy clause) or in a defamatory manner. Why do you think getting a model release is so vital before using an image commercially? No image agency will accept an image of a person without a release for it's use having been issued to the photographer.

Even using a distinctive property in an image (primarily in the US) should involve getting a property release before using it commercially, if it is the key subject, although that is more of a grey area.

All the privacy clause does is extend the restrictions already in place, by adding that private moments, which you have been hired to capture for a clients personal purposes, should not be shared with the world. Your copyright is still in place, you still get to sell images to the clients, you still get to say where they can or cannot display them, you still have the rights to insist they do not alter them in any way. THOSE points are what your copyright covers.

Try reading the copyright and patents act 1988 sometime, it gives all the stipulations. It is what grants you the right to use and control your images, it also specifies the limitations on such use, and is where you will find the privacy clause as a caveat to what you can do with your copyright. So, no, you are not handing over any of your copyright by agreeing not to display such personal images. Your copyright never included the right to use them in the first place, so how are you handing over all your copyright? You are complaining about handing over rights that you do not have. They have the right to control public display by YOU, by copyright law, equally you have the right to control usage by THEM, by the same copyright law, which grants YOU the copyright.

The only part of your post which is correct, is this part: "I may of course be misunderstanding copyright... "

Now, out of interest, I searched the US copyright law and could NOT find an equivalent to our privacy clause, which would suggest that you can display the images in public without permission. However, such use would still have to be non-commercial, and using them to advertise your services (website, shop window etc) would still be ruled out that way.

However, I am not well versed in US copyright law, so do not take my word for it (or indeed any legal advice from anyone who IS NOT IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION).

At the end of the day, regardless of laws, if somebody wants their private life documenting and keeping private, they have that right. They can ask that it be written into the contract that there will be no public display of their images by the photographer. You don't have to accept the booking if you don't wish, and they can find a photographer who will happily accept their condition. They are your CUSTOMER, they can ask for ANYTHING they want before deciding on a photographer. You don't have to work for them, if you don't like the conditions.

mtimber wrote in post #13550650
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?

The inherent danger of the internet when looking for legal advice.

Lack of knowledge does not seem to prevent people giving it.

sandpiper wrote in post #13553478
But they DON'T control the images. They can't do anything with them that isn't approved by the photographer, they still have to go to (and pay) the photographer to get reprints, or permission to post the image online. The only control they have is that the photographer cannot use the images to display in public.

Many clients do NOT wish to have their personal and private events splashed around on the internet, or displayed in the high street for all their neighbours to see. Weddings can be emotional, and some people like to keep those outbursts of emotion private. Some shoots can be of a very intimate nature, how can you not see that a photographer should heed his clients wishes, if they want privacy.

Now, as to copyright. It is the right to control the use others may make of your images. Whilst you have the right to use the image yourself in many ways, it does NOT give, carte blanche, "the right to use and display them as you see fit". You cannot use an image of a person in a commercial manner without a release (which straight away means that putting them on your website to advertise your services is out, even without the privacy clause) or in a defamatory manner. Why do you think getting a model release is so vital before using an image commercially? No image agency will accept an image of a person without a release for it's use having been issued to the photographer.

Even using a distinctive property in an image (primarily in the US) should involve getting a property release before using it commercially, if it is the key subject, although that is more of a grey area.

All the privacy clause does is extend the restrictions already in place, by adding that private moments, which you have been hired to capture for a clients personal purposes, should not be shared with the world. Your copyright is still in place, you still get to sell images to the clients, you still get to say where they can or cannot display them, you still have the rights to insist they do not alter them in any way. THOSE points are what your copyright covers.

Try reading the copyright and patents act 1988 sometime, it gives all the stipulations. It is what grants you the right to use and control your images, it also specifies the limitations on such use, and is where you will find the privacy clause as a caveat to what you can do with your copyright. So, no, you are not handing over any of your copyright by agreeing not to display such personal images. Your copyright never included the right to use them in the first place, so how are you handing over all your copyright? You are complaining about handing over rights that you do not have. They have the right to control public display by YOU, by copyright law, equally you have the right to control usage by THEM, by the same copyright law, which grants YOU the copyright.

The only part of your post which is correct, is this part: "I may of course be misunderstanding copyright... "

Now, out of interest, I searched the US copyright law and could NOT find an equivalent to our privacy clause, which would suggest that you can display the images in public without permission. However, such use would still have to be non-commercial, and using them to advertise your services (website, shop window etc) would still be ruled out that way.

However, I am not well versed in US copyright law, so do not take my word for it (or indeed any legal advice from anyone who IS NOT IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION).

At the end of the day, regardless of laws, if somebody wants their private life documenting and keeping private, they have that right. They can ask that it be written into the contract that there will be no public display of their images by the photographer. You don't have to accept the booking if you don't wish, and they can find a photographer who will happily accept their condition. They are your CUSTOMER, they can ask for ANYTHING they want before deciding on a photographer. You don't have to work for them, if you don't like the conditions.

That sort of makes sense, if I look at my monitor from a funny angle and squint.

I would query though the idea that you have to have a model release to put an image on your website or use it in your portfolio.

Because if that is the case, every wedding photographer out there, that has a an image of a family member in the image needs a model release for each and everyone one of them.

In fact every person in the image if they want to use that image in a portfolio.

I suspect there are shades of "interpretation" here.


I reserve the right to be wrong of course...

mtimber wrote in post #13553677
I would query though the idea that you have to have a model release to put an image on your website or use it in your portfolio.

Because if that is the case, every wedding photographer out there, that has a an image of a family member in the image needs a model release for each and everyone one of them.

In fact every person in the image if they want to use that image in a portfolio.

I suspect there are shades of "interpretation" here.


I reserve the right to be wrong of course...

Actually, you make a good point there.

I imagine that the signed agreement from the couple is, in general, sufficient to cover you for use to promote your own work with their wedding images. The commercial use issue is down to the fact that it implies that the subject endorses the product. Guests at a wedding would probably not be viewed as endorsing the photographer, they were simply guests. The couple could be seen as endorsing the photographer, as the clients (even if somebody else actually paid) but you would have their signed agreement.

It would be interesting if a guest objected to their image being used in such a manner, I suspect the lawyers would thrash that one out if it ever got that far. I have never heard of a photographer being sued by a wedding guest though, for using the image. If I was asked by a guest not to use an image of them though, I would respect that and take it down.

The privacy clause wouldn't cover it either, that only covers the commissioners, and joint commissioners, of the work.

I suspect that it would come under the fact that the wedding guests are there by invitation of the commissioners, and by being present in the knowledge that photographs are being taken, and may be used in that manner, they have implicitly agreed to it unless making it known that they don't (some guests do ask that they aren't photographed). The same reasoning comes into play at events, with an event photographer. In essence, you are using images of an event to promote yourself, rather than a specific person (even if only one guest is in the shot). In which case, you just need agreement from the event organiser, in this case, the couple, as it is they who are seen to be endorsing your service.

It would only cover use to promote yourself (so don't try using a photo of a guest drinking a can of pepsi, to advertise pepsi) and I suspect that a release might still be useful (not that any wedding photographer would go around asking every guest for one).

As you say though, shades of interpretation.

sandpiper wrote in post #13553806
Actually, you make a good point there.

I imagine that the signed agreement from the couple is, in general, sufficient to cover you for use to promote your own work with their wedding images. The commercial use issue is down to the fact that it implies that the subject endorses the product. Guests at a wedding would probably not be viewed as endorsing the photographer, they were simply guests. The couple could be seen as endorsing the photographer, as the clients (even if somebody else actually paid) but you would have their signed agreement.

It would be interesting if a guest objected to their image being used in such a manner, I suspect the lawyers would thrash that one out if it ever got that far. I have never heard of a photographer being sued by a wedding guest though, for using the image. If I was asked by a guest not to use an image of them though, I would respect that and take it down.

The privacy clause wouldn't cover it either, that only covers the commissioners, and joint commissioners, of the work.

I suspect that it would come under the fact that the wedding guests are there by invitation of the commissioners, and by being present in the knowledge that photographs are being taken, and may be used in that manner, they have implicitly agreed to it unless making it known that they don't (some guests do ask that they aren't photographed). The same reasoning comes into play at events, with an event photographer. In essence, you are using images of an event to promote yourself, rather than a specific person (even if only one guest is in the shot). In which case, you just need agreement from the event organiser, in this case, the couple, as it is they who are seen to be endorsing your service.

It would only cover use to promote yourself (so don't try using a photo of a guest drinking a can of pepsi, to advertise pepsi) and I suspect that a release might still be useful (not that any wedding photographer would go around asking every guest for one).

As you say though, shades of interpretation.

I am an antique dealer in my other life.

And occassionaly the film crews turn up to shoot some programme or another.

What is interesting, is that everyone in the audience, by attendance, is consenting to be filmed (notice on the wall etc).

But if you are filmed bidding on an item being auctioned and win, the film crew will ask you to sign a release.

I should imagine this is something similar in action?

mtimber wrote in post #13553820
I am an antique dealer in my other life.

And occassionaly the film crews turn up to shoot some programme or another.

What is interesting, is that everyone in the audience, by attendance, is consenting to be filmed (notice on the wall etc).

But if you actually bid on an item being auctioned and win, the film crew will ask you to sign a release.

I should imagine this is something similar in action?

Yeah, same principle.

So, have I seen you on Bargain Hunt or Flog It, etc. ?

sandpiper wrote in post #13553829
Yeah, same principle.

So, have I seen you on Bargain Hunt or Flog It, etc. ?

You may well have seen me amidst the sea of faces.

I have often had friends come up to me and say: "I saw you on Telly the other day"...

mtimber wrote in post #13553854
You may well have seen me amidst the sea of faces.

I have often had friends come up to me and say: "I saw you on Telly the other day"...

I probably have then. I watch most of those types of programmes as I dabble a bit myself. Nearest I came to being on one though was selling Lorne Spicer a Border Fine Arts figurine at an antiques fair they were filming a programme at. That was for her personal collection though, nothing to do with the programme she was presenting.

Oh well, we don't want to drag the thread off topic.