Photographer Contract

This kind of bothers me. Mine does not have this. I own 100% rights to my photos. I don't plan on wanting to change anything but what if I wanted to post something on Instagram where it crops the photo a little bit? Would you not be able to do that? I would talk to them about it. Especially if you love the photographer. I'm paying a lot of money for our photographer and would feel weird if they have an issue with a photo being cropped or putting a filter on it if I really wanted to.

All our contract says is that the copyright will be owned jointly by us and the photographer.

It was also a deal breaker for me. One photographer wanted to charge me $1000 extra so I could have the rights. Shouldn't I anyways? Anyways, we went with another photographer and we are more than happy.

Instagram and cropping is not a factor, that inherently happens. We know this I think a lot of people don't understand the difference between shared usage rights and ownership. It works both ways. I wouldn't work for a couple who was more interested in ruining the photos I put work into than value them. I don't get why this is an issue, once it's understood and communicated. As always, it's good to discuss it and understand contracts. There are no dumb questions.

Very rarely do you own %100 of the rights to your photography, but as Jay said, there are no dumb questions.

I have a kinda similar clause in my contract; while the script is couple driven, I have the right to refuse to say things that are hurtful, abusive or in any way inappropriate for a wedding ceremony. This has only happened once, but it was a doozy, and the groom's desired edits were completely not for prime time. We came to an easy peace (the bride was terrified by his edits) and all went on as planned, but I was prepared to step away from the whole thing.

I think the only problem would be if you wanted to make a canvas or a larger print and the picture wasn't the right size and you had to crop one side. Like if you were printing a square canvas, the picture may get cut because it didn't start out a sqiare

I agree with Matt, those pictures will be made at our wedding with ourself, our friends and relatives, photograher has no copyright for them

Dianna, very few photographers actually give up full rights to their photos so their clients OWN them and not the photographer. That is rare and usually comes with a huge price tag. So, honestly, you are either mistaken about what you are getting and you're actually just getting print / usage rights, or your photographer just doesn't know any better.

@Kristeen uh the photographer has all the copyright.

My contract definitely did not have that. That's a bit over the top.

@nicole my contract also has a part about no other photographer (anyone using pro equipment) but it's just during the time we are taking the pictures away from the guest so it didn't bother me

Thanks for all your input! And for those that asked she did tell me once I asked that cropping isn't what she is worried about.

So glad that @Jay Farrell Photography and @Kathleen Smith Photography weighed in here!

@Danielle - I totally understand how that clause surprised you when you read it, but it seems like when you asked your photographer specific questions you guys are on the same page!

I wish I could find the exact article, but there's a phenomenal example somewhere out there of a client totally distorting their photographer's work. Basically they took the finished picture, and added a ton of edits and filters, made the picture heart shaped and mirror reflected and added a ton of additional weird color in and then posted that picture on facebook and tagged their photographer. The photographer was justifiably upset - because that is not a representation of their work. Of course this is something that most people won't do, but always keep in mind when reading contracts - each additional weird clause is probably there because of an interaction with a past client

@wwLynnie yeah the more I think about it the more it makes sense to me.

Contract language sometimes make things sound like a bigger deal than what they really are. My contract contains a clause saying that if the client fails to finalize a draft before a certain time then I have the right to determine 100% of the ceremony's composition. That doesn't mean that I'm going to turn it into a song and dance routine with clowns and a llama if they email me one day too late. It just means that my services require planning and if the client fails to be engaged in the process then I reserve the right to make necessary decisions so that I can still provide services.

And why do I have a clause like this in my contract? Because, like 90% of other stipulations in contracts, it happened once before and it became a problem.

This is in my contract. For how much I'm paying for these pictures I BETTER NOT need to put a damn filter on it!

@nicole my contract also has a part about no other photographer (anyone using pro equipment) but it's just during the time we are taking the pictures away from the guest so it didn't bother me

I have this in my contract template as well. But not just "pro" equipment but any photos. There are three reasons for this:

1. When a photographer choses a scene, posing, and lighting, the scene basically becomes that photographers creative design. Someone else sticking their camera into the scene and poaching a shot didn't really have creative intent and design. a case could be made that it should not be Uncle Bob's copyright.

2. if a flash fires while I'm setting up a group portrait, it could affect the metering and/or flash exposure of my shot. I don't like to "chimp" my photos (double check my work by looking at the histogram and preview on the back of the camera) so if I don't notice a flash we could have Uncle Bob ruining an otherwise perfect shot.

3. If Uncle Bob is standing just over my shoulder, thinking he's "out of my way," its inevitable that someone in the photo will look at the camera he's holding. So now you've got 4 out of 5 in a photo looking at my camera, where they should be, and one subject appearing to stare off into outer space.

@echoes yeah that part of the contract made complete sense to me, I'm paying her to photograph the wedding so it makes sense that it should only be her and not someone following around snapping pictures of her shots