Does your contract say this?

I am new to the photography business and have learned a lot from the pros on here, so I thought I'd share a small tidbit that I have found.

I had and attorney-friend review my contracts...most of which I copied and pasted from several contracts found on the web.

Two things he pointed out was:

1. Have this clause (edit for your locale): This agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Michigan. The parties hereby agree that the appropriate court within the State of Michigan shall have jurisdiction over this contract.

He said, "If you have a client who moves out of state or lives out of state, this will allow you most likely to move the case back to Michigan if they sue you. It is always best to have home court advantage if you can get it."

2. "The section on limiting liability is fine to include. It is worth noting that such sections rarely truly limit liability." IE..Get insurance.

He did point out that my "model release" would only cover the bride and groom, but I knew that.

That is all. Hope it helps someone and that as I learn more I can pay back the community more.

Good clause! Did you include this?
"3. Grant of Rights.
No rights are granted to Client until Photographer has received payment in full.
Upon receipt of full payment, Photographer grants to the Client the following rights in the Work."

I think that this is a new link, for anyone interested:
Now Available – Forms for Photographers

Venue selection (e.g. "governed by the laws of .....") is a very, very good idea. If you don't include it then the person who sues gets to try to establish the venue and jurisdiction. If it's in there then that little issue is resolved up front. Defending a suit where you're not is very bad as your choice of law firm and/or attorney may not be admitted to practice there, and thus at best it makes it more expensive and at worst may deny you effective representation.

This is something that I have always included in any contract I put forward for anything I do.

NewCreation wrote in post #16828152
I am new to the photography business and have learned a lot from the pros on here, so I thought I'd share a small tidbit that I have found.

I had and attorney-friend review my contracts...most of which I copied and pasted from several contracts found on the web.

Two things he pointed out was:

1. Have this clause (edit for your locale): This agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Michigan. The parties hereby agree that the appropriate court within the State of Michigan shall have jurisdiction over this contract.

He said, "If you have a client who moves out of state or lives out of state, this will allow you most likely to move the case back to Michigan if they sue you. It is always best to have home court advantage if you can get it."

While he is right about wanting to define venue and governing law he's off as to why. If you do business with someone who's out of state when they agree to your contract they can argue that the state where they physically signed governs. Some states are better for one side or another.

By establishing that your states laws govern and establishing venue then it takes out that issue.

Also, if you need to sue them you don't have to chase them down. As a general rule you have to sue someone where they live so the scenario where they move and then sue you doesn't hold water; the contract was signed locally and you're still in that same state.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #16828214
Good clause! Did you include this?
"3. Grant of Rights.
No rights are granted to Client until Photographer has received payment in full.
Upon receipt of full payment, Photographer grants to the Client the following rights in the Work."

I think that this is a new link, for anyone interested:
Now Available – Forms for Photographers

No, I didn't have a grant of rights worded like that. Is that covering for those that do online proofs?

tickerguy wrote in post #16828244
Venue selection (e.g. "governed by the laws of .....") is a very, very good idea. If you don't include it then the person who sues gets to try to establish the venue and jurisdiction. If it's in there then that little issue is resolved up front. Defending a suit where you're not is very bad as your choice of law firm and/or attorney may not be admitted to practice there, and thus at best it makes it more expensive and at worst may deny you effective representation.

This is something that I have always included in any contract I put forward for anything I do.

Yeah, I totally get the reasoning. I just didn't have it.

Fernando wrote in post #16828546
While he is right about wanting to define venue and governing law he's off as to why. If you do business with someone who's out of state when they agree to your contract they can argue that the state where they physically signed governs. Some states are better for one side or another.

By establishing that your states laws govern and establishing venue then it takes out that issue.

Also, if you need to sue them you don't have to chase them down. As a general rule you have to sue someone where they live so the scenario where they move and then sue you doesn't hold water; the contract was signed locally and you're still in that same state.

Well, his reasons may have been couched with the knowledge of his audience...me. Either way, I found it helpful.

NewCreation wrote in post #16828667
No, I didn't have a grant of rights worded like that. Is that covering for those that do online proofs?

I don't do online proofs, so can't answer that for you.

NewCreation wrote in post #16828667
No, I didn't have a grant of rights worded like that. Is that covering for those that do online proofs?

No what it does is stop a client from using the images until they have paid for them. That may sound like it should be the norm but actually it isn't.

When you sign a contract that includes a license to use images the contract comes into effect when you sign it (or on any date specified for that purpose in the contract). When the contract comes into effect so does the license, meaning your client now has permission to use the images even if payment hasn't been made yet (payment may be due after the client has selected the images they want).

If your client then fails to pay they are in breach of contract, but the contract does not simply cease. It continues in force and you have to notify the other party of their breach and give them a reasonable time to remedy the breach (and you must also continue to meet all your obligations under the contract) - during all of which they are still legally entitled to use your images. You can sue your client for breach of contract but you can't sue them for copyright infringement as their use of the images is legal until such time as a court agrees the contract is terminated.

The above license limitation clause separates the start of the license period from the start of the contract by making the license dependent on full payment being made. Until the client pays they have no legal right to use the images and any such use would be copyright infringement.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16829509
No what it does is stop a client from using the images until they have paid for them. That may sound like it should be the norm but actually it isn't.

When you sign a contract that includes a license to use images the contract comes into effect when you sign it (or on any date specified for that purpose in the contract). When the contract comes into effect so does the license, meaning your client now has permission to use the images even if payment hasn't been made yet (payment may be due after the client has selected the images they want).

If your client then fails to pay they are in breach of contract, but the contract does not simply cease. It continues in force and you have to notify the other party of their breach and give them a reasonable time to remedy the breach (and you must also continue to meet all your obligations under the contract) - during all of which they are still legally entitled to use your images. You can sue your client for breach of contract but you can't sue them for copyright infringement as their use of the images is legal until such time as a court agrees the contract is terminated.

The above license limitation clause separates the start of the license period from the start of the contract by making the license dependent on full payment being made. Until the client pays they have no legal right to use the images and any such use would be copyright infringement.

Another thing it does is to light a fire under the bean counters. If you use that clause on the invoice as well as a contract. They don't want to be responsible for any delays in the publication of the project the photos are for.

Many times the pictures are published before the invoice is paid. The art department fully expects the payment to be made. And IME it is made a little faster since I included the payment clause on the invoice.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16829509
No what it does is stop a client from using the images until they have paid for them. That may sound like it should be the norm but actually it isn't.

When you sign a contract that includes a license to use images the contract comes into effect when you sign it (or on any date specified for that purpose in the contract). When the contract comes into effect so does the license, meaning your client now has permission to use the images even if payment hasn't been made yet (payment may be due after the client has selected the images they want).

If your client then fails to pay they are in breach of contract, but the contract does not simply cease. It continues in force and you have to notify the other party of their breach and give them a reasonable time to remedy the breach (and you must also continue to meet all your obligations under the contract) - during all of which they are still legally entitled to use your images. You can sue your client for breach of contract but you can't sue them for copyright infringement as their use of the images is legal until such time as a court agrees the contract is terminated.

The above license limitation clause separates the start of the license period from the start of the contract by making the license dependent on full payment being made. Until the client pays they have no legal right to use the images and any such use would be copyright infringement.

breal101 wrote in post #16830097
Another thing it does is to light a fire under the bean counters. If you use that clause on the invoice as well as a contract. They don't want to be responsible for any delays in the publication of the project the photos are for.

Many times the pictures are published before the invoice is paid. The art department fully expects the payment to be made. And IME it is made a little faster since I included the payment clause on the invoice.

Thanks for the explanations. Makes sense now that it's been explained.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16829509
No what it does is stop a client from using the images until they have paid for them. That may sound like it should be the norm but actually it isn't.

When you sign a contract that includes a license to use images the contract comes into effect when you sign it (or on any date specified for that purpose in the contract). When the contract comes into effect so does the license, meaning your client now has permission to use the images even if payment hasn't been made yet (payment may be due after the client has selected the images they want).

If your client then fails to pay they are in breach of contract, but the contract does not simply cease. It continues in force and you have to notify the other party of their breach and give them a reasonable time to remedy the breach (and you must also continue to meet all your obligations under the contract) - during all of which they are still legally entitled to use your images. You can sue your client for breach of contract but you can't sue them for copyright infringement as their use of the images is legal until such time as a court agrees the contract is terminated.

The above license limitation clause separates the start of the license period from the start of the contract by making the license dependent on full payment being made. Until the client pays they have no legal right to use the images and any such use would be copyright infringement.

Good post, Dan!