Do you let your assitance use their photos in their portfolio?

Okay, I've worked with several wedding photographers as an assitance or secondary shooter and they

have all let me use the photos I take to add to my portfolio. I also shoot smaller weddings on the side.

 

I just got a pretty consistant job offer to be a secondary shooter from a new photographer that just

moved in from Cali to FL. And was basically told I would have no rights to use my photos in any sharp

of form.

 

I understand the logic that you can't have two of the same photos floatering around two different

companies websites and such. And I told the company I would only use the photos to show clients in

person, but I still was denied. How I'm I suppose to promote myself if I can't even show what I do? Do

you think it's worth $225 a gig? Well I shoot for 3 different companies so I guess I'll survive. But I would

hate it if I got the shoot of the lifetime and couldn't use it.

It's pretty common to restrict use of an assistant's images, but I don't. I let them use their photos to promote themselves any way they see fit, and I even secure a release from the bride & groom for them. I'm a nice guy, huh?

 

"How I'm I suppose to promote myself if I can't even show what I do?" - I think that's the point, Paul. He doesn't want you to promote yourself. He doesn't want the competition. What's in it for him?

 

What you have to do is ask yourself if $225 is worth your time, because you're not going to get anything more from him. Fortunately you have other sources for your portfolio. Do you really need more than you have?

We let them! If they took the shots then they should be able to use them. We are not concerned about competition. Lots of weddings to go around.

Yes.

most definitely. My assistant just created his own website using all the photos he took at

my weddings...http://www.paulorigonphotography.com

 

His prices are very high, but that's suppose to be a joke. He's not marketing himself right

now. He still works for me but will eventually break away.

 

I think it's the right thing to do, to let them use "their" photos to build their business.

Yep! Why not it's their shot. The only thing we ask is that they don't give or sell it to the B&G and or family.

 

we also will not use their shots on our web site...or any of our advertising. Just misleading.

 

It's worth the money as long as your not going into your own business some day. If you are or thinking about it...then it's not.

 

You have to watch contracts....they may have the rights to use it...but that doesn't mean they can take credit for it either.

 

Dave

This is more of a legal issue, than a photographic one. An assistant hasn't any contract with our clients. And therefore could use the pix to slander or libel, or simply show our clients in an unsavory or embarrassing light. Talk to your attorney before granting any one rights to use someone's likeness.

Since it is work for hire, absolutely not.

If it's work for hire, it's true they're not really yours anymore. It sounds like many hiring

photographers will gladly licence you to use your photos to promote yourself, but still, they

officially own the copyright unless they give it back to you.

 

Your own copyright on your own photos is one of the most valuable things you can own as a

photographer. For that reason many photographers will not do "work for hire", nor will they

sell their copyright on any photo.

That is why all the Nobel Prize winner have a good TA. The TA doesn't get a credit for their works.

This is a very common combination of messy issues. Some of the issues are:

 

- You don't have a release from the clients to use their images. Even if you hold the copyright, you can't use them for any form of advertising, including promoting yourself, with out a release. For all practical intent, it doesn?t even matter if you signed a work-for-hire agreement, because there isn?t much you can do with the pictures anyway.

 

- Photographers/studios (P/S) do not want a potential confusing situation as to who was hired to shoot the wedding. P/S are hired not just on the basis of their photographs, but also on other things including reputation. If you assist at an upscale wedding the P/S doen't want other potential clients to think that you booked that type of wedding when you didn't. and they did.

 

It's not at all uncommon for photographers to give assistants memory cards at the beginning of a shoot and take them back at the end of the shoot. Some photographers will let you use pictures, but require that you mark them with the name of the photographer/studio that you shot for. You have to decide if it's worth it to shot for this photographer even if you don't get any extra benefits besides what they pay you for the shoot.

When I use a second shooter at a wedding I actually note, in the image file name, the name of the second shooter by initials.

 

I give any tips earmarked to the second shooter right to the second shooter with a smile.

 

If asked about a certain file I will brag on my second shooter and will refer him if asked and give contact information.

 

I'd rather develop a friend out of a potential pro who will someday make referrals to me.

 

~If you're Contracted to not use the image files then just don't do it. A company can set their own standards and if you know the bottom line going in then all is well and good ... it's the american system.

I have never signed a WFH contract or even had a discussion over the images. It a waste of your time shooting a season if you are forbidden to use the images.

 

I have used the proofs of these images to gain a couple of brides in attempts to gain my own brides/portfolio material.

 

Despite some great images of some beautiful brides in gorgeous locations, they don't see them as my couples. What if they wanted to talk to them?

 

I'm upfront about the source of the images, and I would never use them online for obvious reasons. Another wedding or two and I will retire them permanently.

Only you can answer is it worth $225 a gig. It's more than I make but I only wanted the experience.

 

What is keeping you from going out on your own?

I feel very strongly that $225 is NOT reasonable compensation for you to give up you time

AND your copyright.

 

The photographer has every right to offer this, but you also have every right to refuse. If I

were you, I would refuse.

A photographer advertised for an assistant recently and I expressed my interest. She wanted an assistant on a WFH basis. I withdrew my name from consideration because of that. Money was not an issue to me as being able to keep my work for future references.

 

So what about a wedding photographer pitching themselves to potential clients as ones who keep their client's photos in highest regards and with the highest of confidence. In other words, the clients will not have to worry about their wedding photos being published anywhere not authorized by the clients. And in order to secure this, they guaranttee their clients that any one who works for them shall also follow the same strict high standards. Would this type of photography service be desireable with high-profile clients as well as everyday couples?

 

Just wanted to throw that thought out for discussion.

 

I also want to mention that it is very refressing to see many of you believe in allowing assistants to build their portfolio. To me, William said it best: "I'd rather develop a friend out of a potential pro who will someday make referrals to me." Thank-you William for those words.

It's always nice to hear both sides. I would like to thank those photographers who allow

their assistance to use their work. And I do understand and respect those who don't allow

it. I've been very fortunate as a 23-year-old to be doing photography as my living. And I

hope if anything that working with this company will build a good relationship. $250 is a

lot for me. I could pay for 2-months of health insurance or could donate it to a good

cause. So I guess, I could relex on my couch or use the money for a something worth

while. I think I'll do it.

I personally allow anyone who shoots with me to use their photos. And I'm sure that you

could find another photographer who could pay you about the same and would be willing to

let you use your own photos.

 

It seems like many of the photographers who don't allow assistants to use their own photos

are the ones that will use those photos as their own or "the company's" on their website. I

promote my business with my own personally name, so I don't see it any advantage to post

my second shooter's photos on my website. Maybe that's why I don't care if they use their

own photos.

I would...

Steve, it is in our contract, so everyone, the owners, and the hired hands, and the B&G are all covered. Very good point for those that don't have this listed in their contact.

This is how I handle it. The first year the assistant has to shoot on our cameras and cards (learning phase). Then the second year they shoot they can use their own cameras and cards. That way we get a two year commitment from people and they can still develop their portfolio.

 

Susan

When I worked as an assistant, I was always granted permission to use pictures in my portfolio.

 

However, whether or not you will take the job depends on how badly you need the money. If I were shooting for more than one company, I would probably take the gig, thinking that I could get my porfolio shots from the other gigs. On your last question, yep, that's always a possibility, but you will always have more opportunities with the other gigs, so keep that in mind.

 

 

Patrick

If I was somebody's second shooter I would never use the images taken for my own business. That is not right. That was not your wedding. Imagine if the bride and groom or the families see their picture on a photographer's website they never hired. I don't see it very professional, I see it more like an individual that is desperate to have pictures to show.

<i>I don't see it very professional, I see it more like an individual that is desperate to have pictures to show.</i><p>

 

you are of course entitled to your opinion, but imo the above speaks more to an obvious lack of experience working with or as a second shooter more than anything else. maybe you meant to say assistant? <p>

 

I occasionally work with or as a second shooter on larger weddings and/or for higher end clients. The other photographer and I work in a very loosely coordinated way regarding coverage, but our work is very much our own regardless of who initially booked the client and I can assure you neither of us are being "desperate" when we use our images in our portfolios. <p>

 

cheers

The second shooter should not have the right to use the photos. The photography studio is the one that is putting up all the money for advertising and spends all the time in the processes before and after the weddings such as the consultations, putting together wedding day schedules, the editing phase, the album design phase, etc. The Company also has to pay for insurance, accounting, and their legal counsel for contracts etc.