Photographer Contract

My contract did not have that. Maybe they're worried the filter will make their photography not look as good and they don't want it to be "false advertising" of their work. I think you should be able to, they are your photos.

Ohhh i dislike this big time.. Usually the rights & negatives are yours to do with what you like, of the photographers by me at least. I might find someone else

I decided not to go with a photographer for that very reason. I instead chose one who grants me full copyrights to all my photos and I can do whatever the hell I want with them. I just think its beyond stupid to pay so much money for something that isn't even technically mine if they maintain the copyrights.

@erin that's what I thought too, I'm paying for it what does it matter if I crop the photo or make it black and white?

That was a deal breaker for me, I had to have a photographer where I could have the rights afterwards! I feel like it'll save me money on prints and such in the long run. Plus I just want to own my pictures

@danielle if you really love this photographer you can think about asking them to amend their contract. I've gone back and forth with several vendors because their contracts were seriously lacking protections, or they were flat out ridiculous. I promise you, telling someone that their contract isn't okay with you doesn't make you look high maintenance (I mean, unless your request IS high maintenance) but if they don't agree to make the changes you want just take your business elsewhere.

Any professional photographer with any sense of value and respect for their work has that in their wedding photography contract. The photos, well....they aren't your creation, and you have shared usage rights. If you are hiring a photographer because you love their work and approach, and are passionate about their style, part of that should include how they finish their images. Would you hire a commissioned artist and then draw a mustache on the subject with spray paint? That's the basic premise of it. The biggest factor is brand protection. If someone put heavy filtering on my work and posted them, that could hurt my brand consistency and the perceived quality of the product delivered. Jennifer got that correct.

So, if you love a photographer's work so much and respect it, why would you want to do that? You can always hire someone at a lower price point who doesn't know any better, if you value that more than getting work from someone whose style is just right for you.

@Jay I see what your saying but isn't that like buying a piece of art from an artist but they have requirements about where you hang it? Once you purchase something it should be yours to do what you want. It's really interesting to read a pro's perspective!!

ETA words can be tricky

@jay I was hoping a photographer would respond! This is the only contract I've looked at so I wasn't sure if it was standard. I definitely love her style so I probably wouldn't even be inclined to add a filter thinking about it now. I was just thrown off when I saw it on the contract.

It's perfectly ok to ask what certain clauses mean. I just booked a couple, early 30's (now that I think about it, most of my couples average that age) and they had some questions, about the interference clause, etc. Well, I didn't read that as them being difficult or minutia, I'd rather they understand it, they're paying good money and wanted my approach. When we met back up to secure the deal, we all sat and bullshitted for 4 hours or more, lol. I'd rather have them know they don't have to think about the photography aspect of their wedding from that point forward. I'd rather couples hire me because I'm what they want. For example, my black and white work, it's not a quick thing or a preset. But I'm picky about my colors, and black and whites especially. A point of value to most. Really it's brand identity, not control. If clients don't buy prints from me, I most definitely advise in the process. One reason why I take care of the album as part of my packages, it's how my brand and their event get represented. When I show them samples, they see I'm picky about my print work as well. Every client in every price point are different.

The rights you have are print rights not a true copyright. The photographer retains the rights to the photos for commercial and professional use, your use however is limited to personal. If you choose to manipulate a photographer's photos you may be breaking copyright laws.

Hi Danielle. Does the contract say reprint rights or copyright release? If it's reprint rights you are buying the final image file and can print/post as is. Your photographer is protecting his/her image brand. If you are purchasing copyrights, IMO, that means you too have artistic freedom of the final image.

@kathleen it says limited copyright for personal use only. I can print and post for personal but not for profit which is fine by me I don't know how I'd use my wedding pictures for profit anyways ha

Personal use does not extend to cropping and editing things yourself. It only covers print and personal use such as posting on social media. This is why photographers use watermarks.

We haven't done our engagement pictures yet but I have used my photographer before and she gave us both a black and white and colored copy of each pose. And when we post them we just have to make sure not to crop and to give her credit

@laura my photographer does give some in black and white but more so the ones she thinks would look best that way. She did tell me I can crop them for Instagram etc

My photographer has the same clause but she did say if we wanted something in black and white or cropped differently, to please let her know and she would do that for us. Everything from our engagement session was awesome so I am not worried about wedding photos.

Our photographer said we paid for our pictures we can do what we please with them.

I did however talk to multiple photographers who in their contract stated if there was any other photographers (even guests with professional equipment) they would leave without refund.

That was a deal breaker for me. We have family members who have pro equipment and love to take pictures I'm not going to tell them no

Yeah mine has that. But she does all her own editing. And the best I can figure it is she's the artist and she's very protective of her brand. Which she spent years building. And she doesn't want someone messing with her brand. And editing goes beyond filters. For most people the use of filters is it. But there's always that person who thinks they can edit better than the professional. And then you have no control over the product. And it's her brand on that.

Being said. When she gives me. My photos the last time I got fifteen and I got multiple copies of the different edits and filters.

I had more interest in editing.

Was a complete none issue for me.

This is in my contract also, and I don't mind. I love my photographers work and wouldn't even know how to edit/filter to make a picture better than what she gave me.

If it bothers you, I think you should take to your photographer and see if a part of the contract can be amended?