Got asked to edit engagement photos taken by a different photographer.

<p>I am not sure how to respond... here is the email:</p>

<p>"My fiance and I have a photographer who did our engagement session and we're not thrilled with how our photos turned out. I was looking at your website and I really like how you edit your photos. Do you have any packages available where you would just edit photos? Or do you have any ideas on how we could get that done?"</p>

<p>How would I go about doing this, because if I were the other photographer, I would not like to see my work appear online or something all altered and different than how I delivered them. I am flattered that she asked me this, but is it legal? I do assume that unless she has complete copyrights to them, I can't touch them... and IF I were to re-edit them, they still wouldn't be my work to post for portfolio, and others would think the other photographer did them. </p>

<p>How do you recommend I respond to her?</p>

<p>thank you!</p>

<p>Offer to shoot her photos again.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>No, thank you</em>" would be a good response to editing the other photographer's images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You have a good opportunity to gain a customer, but be honest and frank in turning away her offer to edit the images she now has.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I couldn't agree more with Jerry...I had eight -- yes eight -- brides call me at the beginning of this year because their photographer took bad pictures and they wanted me to "fix" them. Definitely tell them no. If you chose to do this you could be running into more problems than you can imagine...</p>

<p>I have responded, I told her no and gave her the obvious reasons. Thank you for your help!</p>

<p>In the future you can require proof of the copyright owner's permission such as presenting the contract and/or photographer's contact data. It may result in transactions not going forward but could result in work once in a whileperhaps. Otherwise, its an educational way to say no to people. </p>

<p>I have done this for folks who had amateurs shoot their wedding. I require a letter of permission from the copyright holder, and I assume most pros wouldn't go for it. If it's just a cousin, uncle, or friend they're usually happy that someone can clean up the mess. The irony is it's time intensive work, and I charge by the hour. In all three cases where I've fixed wedding photos for people it would have cost about the same to hire me to shoot the wedding.</p>

<p>My response would have been: </p>

<p><em>I'd be happy to quote you a price on the editing work you are requesting providing that you provide me with a copy of the usage release from the photographer or their contact information so I may try to obtain the release for you. </em></p>

<p><em>Also please understand that since I am not the original photographer and I do not know the quality or condition of the images in question - I make no guarantees about my ability to duplicate the work that you see on my website. </em></p>

<p><em>All of the photos on my site were taken by myself or someone working on my behalf. If I am unable to recreate the quality / images you desire with your files, I would be very happy and willing to do a re-shoot with you and your significant other at a special rate. </em></p>

<p>That would have been my response in that situation. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and others would think the other photographer did them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who would tell? If the bride discussed the pictures with a friend, she would tell the whole story and it would be clear who did the session and who edited them. As a result I doubt the friends would go to the original photographer and you may get the business. You could even get work a sideline in retouching any photographs that their friends may want to improve.</p>

<p>Some questions from an amateur: what are the copyright issues? Why does the retoucher need permission (release) from the photographer? I agree that retouching another professional's work may seem uncomfortable but I am not sure it is illegal. The couple could edit the pictures themselves so why not farm the work out? As long as the re-toucher does not claim the pictures as theirs or use them for promotional work without permission it seems to me to be all above board. But it does rely on whether the couple have access to the RAW files (unlikely, I think given the view of many professionals on this forum).</p>

<p>I would think about the time involved in shooting/editing vs retouching. It may be that your doing a re-shoot may cost only a little more money and for that little extra they would get your 'full package' that they clearly like.</p>

<p>I like David Hass' answer and I've done the same more than once. Like some others here, I've had brides who contacted me at one point and then chose the cheap hacker after-wards. They they show up a month after the wedding with junk shots to turn into masterpieces. In one case, the "photographer" showed up at the wedding with a Powershot! (and nothing else). OMG.</p>

<p>I will do it with the clear written understanding of all involved and make it clear that they will not get what I or my assistants would have shot originally. The rate to do the work is often enough to stop them from getting it done.</p>

<p>In every case I've advised the bride to sue the photographer who provided sub standard work but most have no contract or outline of what they were supposed to get. So they are SOL. It's too bad they cut corners on the most important aspect of the big day.</p>

<p>The "editing" takes another persons copyrighted material and makes a new "work." It's a derivative work and by the law, creating derivative works is something that is an exclusive right of the copyright owner to do or authorize. It's wishful thinking that the work won't get back to the original photographer. Only takes one casual comment or negative comment, a social network site comment, etc. "My sister took the crappola pictures from her wedding and had a real photographer fix them. Look how much better they look!" Maybe someone wants a copy of an image they saw someplace and they go back to the original photographer, etc.</p>

<p>Regarding Mike Hitchen's question: yes, editing someone else's photographs without permission is (generally) infringement. Craig explains one reason: editing creates a derivative work, which only the copyright owner may authorize. </p>

<p>There's an additional, simpler reason. To edit the photos, you must copy the photos. If you don't have permission from the copyright holder to copy the photos, you don't have permission to edit them.</p>

<p> </p>