Reprinting Restrictions?

<p>Hello... In your wedding contract does anyone restrict wedding photos from being reprinted in albums? If so, why is the restriction there? <br /><br /><br />Thanks! </p>

<p>In the past — including the distant past — wedding photographers made much or most of their money selling prints, not so much from taking the photos. Even today, prints and printed books are where the money is. If you get paid a fixed amount for shooting and processing, you're working for an hourly wage. If that hourly wage is high, you may be able to make a living. But people who get rich don't work by the hour: they figure out how to get paid repeatedly for something they've already done (publishing novels, selling songs, royalty payments on reruns of your old movies, etc). So one reason to restrict reprinting of images is to try to get clients to come back to you for the prints — so you can make the money.</p>

<p>You can put this into your contract ("no reprinting of licensed images permitted whatsoever!!") but that's a waste of time, pretty much like prohibiting people from reposting images on their social media sites. If you're serious about limiting their ability to print, don't give them images large enough to be printed well. I have never given my clients full-res images and my contract states that clients will get "images processed and ready for web sharing". </p>

<p>But there are problems with <em>that</em>, too. Technology marches on without regard for the economic problems of photographers, and things like retina displays require higher res images to make the images look their best. You might decide to give your client images none of which is more than 1024px per longest side. But you might get complaints — and even if your client doesn't complaint, your images might not look so great on her Facebook page if somebody views it on anything other than an old smart phone.</p>

<p>All of the above is from the <em>photographer's</em> perspective. We're photographers, so that's an important perspective.</p>

<p>•</p>

<p>But there's another way to look at this, and it's perhaps even more important. Restricting printing is <em>in the client's interest. </em>There are several points to make here. First, printing matters, indeed, printing is the only way the client can be sure she'll have access to her wedding photos in 25 years. And second, if printing matters, then it ought to matter that the prints be well made. The final point — which I'm usually pretty explicit about — is that, these days, excellent photo printing services are increasingly hard to find and the client really needs the assistance of the photographer.</p>

<p>The really successful photographers get hired because they have great photos on their websites; but they succeed in business because they sell the clients on prints and books <em>before the wedding.</em> </p>

<p>Will</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the United States, it would be a violation of copyright law to reprint the pictures without a specific license to do so. The clause in the contract appears to be an attempt to put the client on notice that (s)he does NOT have a license and theoretically could be sued for doing so. Many legitimate photo houses will ask to see the license before they will reprint pictures that appear to be professional.</p>

<p>I agree with William. Don't give the files or include the files in your contract. Problem solved. The real problem is there are too many part timers and people who are supplementing their income by shooting events and do not want to be bothered with providing a full service of print products. THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM. I have nothing against part timers or enthusiast but please charge accordingly as if your livelihood depended on just photography.</p>

<p>Besides the economics it also a question about control over how your work and your art is presented.</p>

<p>If clients are allowed to put the photographers images in albums of their own design, the end result will likely not live up to the standards of the photographer who shot it. Usually the pros have access to higher quality albums, are much more aware about color profiling, sharpening for output, have access to the original high quality images and knows how to build up a good wedding story (if it's that kind of album). They wouldn't mix in low quality snaps from phones from others in the album nor would they try to make an album from images made for viewing on the web.</p>

<p>So generally the album provided by the photographer would be of much higher quality both technically and artistically than what the average consumer can make. And it would not be in the photographers best interest to have his name on an amateurish looking wedding album.</p>

<p>That being said there are of course professionals that work with graphics and design that could make a better album than most photographers and they get married too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Much of what has been said I do not agree with, however, since the restriction (barring a specific authorization) is in accordance w/ US law, it does not need to be stated implicitly. I would agree that placing a sentence in your contract might serve as a reminder, however, in practice, it's usually just there to sell ink - and meaningless. ie. If you give clients full res (or <em>any</em> printable resolution) files, they WILL print them - regardless of the law, or of your contract. That is the simple reality.</p>

<p>I do not agree that it is the client's best interest to be unable to retain copies of their imagery and to not be allowed to reprint at their will. I think the rationalization given for this conclusion is very very weak. While I would agree that having good quality prints is a great way to store and view, and have access to your photos, the bottom line is that currently it is not a necessity, and that it is not the only way to guarantee access. Further, high quality print services are readily available to anyone with a credit card, a mailing address, and internet access. Great print shops are no longer secret, and the vast majority will take anybody's money (assuming they accept the job feeling you have reprint authorization). These prints are just as good as those our clients can order through us - in fact, I'd say it's pretty likely that <em>some even come from the same shop. </em>The same goes for albums, yes, there are shops out there who will do account work only, but frankly, the client surfing the web is able to get darn near identical quality from a vendor who will take orders from them. ie. They aren't missing out on any tangible benefits. </p>

<p>However, it is pretty clearly in <em>our</em> best interest to restrict access to the files, and to restrict access to reprint authorization. Our financial incentive is pretty clear... but the industry is changing fast. For example, I have gotten several clients who solicited me after a sit down with a photog who specifically said that they would not grant reprint privileges, or provide copies of full resolution images - that any and all prints had to be ordered through them... Just to be clear, I charge more, and produce superior work (IMHO), however, I <em>am willing to sell reprint authorizations</em> (per picture or for all), and deliver high resolution images to the client. </p>

<p>The bottom line, IMO, is that <em>educated</em> young consumers are those whom have driven this shift - They know where the tech level is at, they know what they can get online, and they know what they need from us. Telling them 'NO' often simply results in them finding another photog - maybe they suffer reduced quality imagery, maybe even reduced quality prints, maybe they pay less (or more)... but they are happier <em>because they have control of some aspect of the proces</em>s - I mean, obviously this is not true of all clients, but I'd say that many feel this way. Point-Shoot-Burn Photogs cater to this of course, but they are NOT the 'REAL PROBLEM', no, I'd say the source of the problem lies with those who refuse to adapt to a changing world, leaving the door open for the bargain shooters to steal their clients, and their business...</p>

Back in the film days wedding photographers usually made more money on reprints than on the actual wedding.

Even portrait sittings. I did a family portrait sitting one time with about 30 people. A huge group shot, then I

divided them into smaller families, pretty much any combinations I could think of, during those times in the 80's

and 90's we framed the pictures, 40X60 prints were common. Long story short, for this 2 hour portrait sitting

made around $3000. $8000 for a wedding was a bit high, but $3000 to $4000 was about average.

 

Well those days are long gone. Just last week my photo partner Craig did the video portion for a backyard

wedding and we bought a drone with a video/still camera on it about 3 months ago. After some practicing Craig

felt pretty confident at the controls. Well we created a wedding package mixing the formal still photography and

video into, around, about, 1 1/2 hours of an edited blu-ray wedding. They got a lot of other stuff, but the DVD

was really cool using a few clips of the drone moving around the reception taking stills as well as video. It was in

high def and maybe about about 7 to 10 minutes of actual drone video was used in the edited dvd.

 

Needless to say we really don't offer packages. We listen to what the couples want and create a wedding for

their needs. Yes a lot, actually most of the couples want albums, but those days of selling wall size prints is

becoming less. Portrait photo sittings seem to be something from the past. With such inexpensive high quality

digital cameras people take their own family portraits, such as for the holiday cards.

 

Long story short, it's still in my contract that the images are copyrighted, but every lab in the country will print

the images. You can't stop this from happening. Walmart, Costco, they all do it!