Brides dad is a lawyer, has questions about contract.

[DickArnold]

I probably would just incorporate their concerns. HOWEVER, this is where your judgment about intent comes into to play. In my case this is where I would really on my gut about the personalities involved. It's up to you. There is risk in everything we do. Get some liabiltiy coverage, though. It will make you feel better. BTW, if you insure your equipment, which is separate, do not rely on your homeowners. Even though I am no longer in business I still have my equipment covered on a separate policy. Good Luck. Doing weddings carries a lot of stress.

[Ian Shalapata]

Andrew, why not ask the father what he'd prefer to see in place of the clauses he objected to. Write down exactly what he says, and if you can't see it being to your detriment, then incorporate them into your contract. Free legal advice and a happy customer.

 

Ian

[doug_harhai]

After seeing the bride's letter, it appears that the father is being reasonable as to the 2 points that we discussed earlier. If you can't make it, you have somebody cover for you; and you pay for accidental damage, they pay for intentional damage (which I mentioned up above). You are half way there.

[jmarshall]

Seems to me that the first request is already covered by the Section 22 you posted in an earlier e-mail, with the removal of the word "similar" describing the fee. Sometimes, pointing that out will be suffiicient. They might want clarification that Section 22 will supercede section 2 in the event you can't make it.

 

There is ABSOLUTELY a difference between giving them the copyright (which means they own the images and decide who can do what with them) and giving them the right to make copies (in which case YOU own the rights to the images, and have granted them permission to make copies). If they own the copyright, they own the images and you must get their permission to use them. If what you mean is that they're allowed to make copies, you should IMMEDIATELY change the package description to indicate that you will grant "reproduction rights" or something like that.

 

As for the "hold harmless" -- you've got to decide what you want to do. You absolutely SHOULD have insurance to cover your equipment, but perhaps if you explain the reason for having this language in the contract (I'm assuming that you or someone you know had a bad experience with an out-of-control guest who caused a lot of damage), that might help come up with some compromise language.

 

Certainly, you should be clear on the videographer/photographer issue.

 

Again, I'm not a lawyer ... although I did spend 10 years negotiating intellectual property license agreements and reviewing M&A contracts. It's not uncommon for contracts to be drafted to favor the company that drafted them, but you should understand what items you are and are not willing to compromise on to close a sale.

 

PS -- you might want to ask one of the editors to edit your post to block out your client's name ... and cell phone number.

[marcphotography]

I realized that right after I posted it. I dont know how to get ahold of whover can change that. Could someone please block out the clients name and phone number when you get a chance? I am assuming someone that is reading this has the ability to do that. Thanks.

[john_h.1]

"My package states that they are buying the copyrights to the photos. Does this mean that I cannot use the pictures

without their permission after I give them the CD? I figured it just gave them permission to reprint the pictures and do

whatever they want with them."

 

It is impossible for anyone to know without seeing the actual language but a contract obviously can be tailored to

work anyway you and/or the client wants. Given the problems with yours, it is in dire need of review and revision.

Where did you get it?

 

As for the letter, it confirms what I surmised earlier which is that the potential client has reasonable questions and

concerns like the value of the equipment I happened to raise as a potential issue for such a client. As some have

said, you are in the best position to decide if the job feels right to you, not us. I'm glad that you don't seem to adopt

the view that a asking a few questions automatically makes the bride's father a Boogie Man out to get you. I think

this client and you asking these questions about this stuff, whether to take the job or not, can help you greatly in the

future by addressing them before its too late. You may also not scare off future clients with onerous, conflicting and

vague contratual terms.

[marcphotography]

I actaully got the contract from here a while back if I remember correctly.

[doug_harhai]

I would be careful about using somebody else's contract. It is like using somebody else's prescription medicine (literally). Both are very carefully intended for a certain person, both medicines and contracts may have contraindications for certain individuals. You may have a nice agreement but if you don't know what it says or don't know how to negotiate it, you wil run into troubles. You are a good candidate for finding an attorney that you can form a relationship with that you can go to for occasional help, maybe explain your agreement to you, or start with a new draft.

[marcphotography]

The contract actually seems to fit me pretty well. I had to change a few things but not much or not anything that was huge in terms of liability. Just things like travel costs.

 

Here is the latest e-mail I got.

 

"Hi Andrew,

Would it work if this language was in that first line of contract (where there are two blank lines to fill in): "Client is transferred all ownership to copyrights of all wedding photos, contrary to other statements herein." ? We can add some language about how you may use them on your website (and elsewhere) with permission of client. Please tell me this works. I so want to hire you! "

 

 

Honestly, I realized that I really screwed up by saying they get the copyrights in our package. What I really meant was that they get a CD with photos and they can do whatever they want with them but I still own the rights. Not that they get full copyrights. What is that called is its not purchasing the copyrights?

Also, wouldnt the line she adds in the beginning cancel out whatever is said later on about me being able to use the photos? Hence the line "to other statements herein"

[marcphotography]

By the way, thanks everyone for the overwhelming amount of responses! Is this thread featured on the homepage or something? my goodness.

 

Anyways. Could someone please tell me how I can get rid of the clients name and number in the earlier post?

[jmarshall]

You could try sending an e-mail to Josh Root re: name/phone number.

 

One thing I'd say from my experience (as a non-lawyer) dealing with contracts is that before you start making

changes to the contract, it helps to have everyone on the same page conceptually. I'd start by responding to the first

e-mail, picking up on her comment that what you intend is to give them rights to reproduce the images, not

ownership of the copyright (which you will retain). Then look at the other issues, decide what you want to do, and let

her know if you are OK with making a change or not. My experience was that if you could explain why you wouldn't

agree to something, it sometimes helped get through the negotiation. Remember: the contract should reflect your

agreement, rather than the document driving the business terms.

 

Once everyone has agreed what the contract SHOULD say, you could either draft an amendment, referencing the

specific sections that are being changed and how they are changed, or you could simply retype the entire contract,

incorporating all of the changes. It was easier for me to use amendments, so that I could see what changes had

been made for specific licensees, but it may be simpler for you to just have one completed contract without any

amendments.

 

Andrew -- I know you don't have lots of money and that the chances that there will be a problem with this client are

slim. But really, unless you are personally comfortable with and understand the implications of making changes to

your contract, you should be talking to a lawyer about this. If you can't talk to a lawyer for whatever reason, you

might want to think about whether this particular client is worth taking a chance with.

 

And yes -- the thread is on the home page.

[john_h.1]

"I actaully got the contract from here"

 

I knew it!

 

I frequently (too often some may feel) warn against using contracts from people online especially in forums. This example illustrates exactly why. It has a lot of official legal sounding language but its a ticking time bomb in so many areas. So are many others.

 

As to the copyright issue, couldn't you offer an unlimited or very flexible license to use the photos for non-commercial uses?

 

See your local lawyer and insurance agent. Worthy investments. Good luck with the business.

[craig_gillette]

Andrew, the best thing you can do to support the growth of your business is to have spent some quality time with a competent local attorney on your contracts and to have insurance.

 

The client base and referrals will go sour the first problem you have.

 

You can take the contract you have and red-line or highlight the things that people have raised concerns about and it might be pretty quick to fix. "Local" because contract law can vary from state to state and there may be some finesse required to get the desired language and result for your location.

 

Insurance because there will be venues that require it to get permits, etc. Also, little problems stay little when the insurance companies are solving them. You don't want to be the one that has to be banging on other people to get relief. "I work cheap because I don't have insurance!" isn't a great sales pitch.

 

I have two daughters. I wouldn't take you on if I was busy trying to deal with a wedding and had to somehow get riders to my coverage to add you and your business. It's just an added headache - and I wouldn't not add you to my insurance for a number of reasons. First is, small problems aren't necessarily going to stay small and some easily foreseeable things aren't necessarily preventable, cheap, nor can you be sure that fault could be identified. The event is likely to be a at couple of 3rd party venues, like church and "hall" of some sort. There may be other people and activities going on, other businesses, vendors, weddings, guests, etc. If there is a problem, I can turn it over to my insurance carrier and they work it through.

 

I'd put you on insurance because that's how you spread the risk over all of the policyholders. Hey, if I could afford to buy a couple of D3s and full kit of brand new lenses, flashes, etc., I'd already have some. I can't - so insurance comes into play. Of course, once you are (or aren't) on the insurance, etc., I'm going to submit claims to them. I'm pretty sure I'm obligated to do that anyways. If on contract to submit all claims to them, they can cancel me if I don't. They don't want to have to deal with a legal situation after all of the amateurs have fussed around and made it a whole lot worse and really gotten hostile attorneys involved. They find that fault isn't attributed to you or me or one of my covered parties? They deny it. You are back to square one. Now you are stuck trying to fight a legal battle, again, by yourself- you've got to try to come after me, asserting it was my or my guests fault, or identify the responsible party and go after them anyways.

 

OTOH, if you have insurance, they also have trained staffs, can investigate, can pay quickly then go after the other party , etc.

 

Get insurance, it's a whole lot easier for everyone involved.

[starvy]

andrew

 

you could use the situation to your advantage. thank him for the enquiries. do tell him that not being a legal person, you thought that you had a foolproof contract. however, if the gentleman (leech) sees any objection to what you have set out in the contract, please would he be kind enough to redraft a new contract for you. then, you can use his drafted contract, free of charge for all your future events. if he raises any questions in the future just smile and plead ignorance. do tell him that all you know is composition and aperture. since he is the brilliant legal mind, would he mind explaining to you what he is talking about, where necessary, in writing. always thank him for his time and do tell him that you really appreciate his time.

[markth]

So if you're getting this much scrutiny before the event, what do you think is going to happen if he doesn't like the photos? I'd

thank him very much and go find another wedding to photo. I see trouble on your horizon.

[chris_werner]

After reading John's retort to my original post (ouch!, but well done John) and in rereading my original, I find that my words didn't convey the intent or tone of my thoughts. And that reminds me of what I chastise our folks at work about regularly.

 

It's so easy to flit e-mails back and forth, and end up with a needless confrontation. When we pick up the phone or discuss things in person, we often or maybe even usually find that what seemed strident and harsh in the cold black and white of the written word, is far less so in reality. It's so easy to type away and click Send, but actually talking with people is the way to resolve issues.

 

Shame on me for not cutting to that chase the first time.

[bob_worrell]

Andrew if you don't have insurance he should not hire you, what happens if someone trips over your cords our your tripod falls on some ones head and hurts or kills a child, you need to be responsible and get insurance.

sorry about this answer but this has been a one sided post.

Thanks Bob W.

[john_h.1]

"It's so easy to type away and click Send, but actually talking with people is the way to resolve issues."

 

Agreed. While the e-mails seem cordial and designed to seek out mutual benefit, a live conversation can cover a lot

of ground that can be memorialized afterward. They don't seem too far apart. Why not talk it over? Good suggestion.

[marcphotography]

It is done. I politely declined and suggested that she find a more established photographer and that I had some recommendations if she wanted to hear them.

They may or may not have been problem clients but I didnt feel it was worth the risk at this time and the wedding is in September so I shouldnt have a problem finding another client to fill the date. I went with my gut feeling at the end.

The experience has opened my eyes to the reality of owning a business. I will be meeting with a lawyer soon to go over my contract and I will be getting insurance very soon hopefully. If anyone has a recommendation on where to get insurance from please write me.

Thanks again everyone for all of the help.

[J.W. Wall]

At least part of the negotiations of the parties are now posted online here, along with commentary, all of which may be discoverable and used in any future proceedings, should they become necessary. Contraindicated, indeed!

[jmarshall]

Andrew, I'm glad you were able to make a decision about what to do, and also that you've taken this as a positive

learning experience.<p>One other thing occurred to me last night that might help you. There's an organization called

SCORE that works in conjunction with the US Small Business Administration to help new small business owners by

providing mentoring services, seminars, etc. Most (if not all) of the services are free. It's a volunteer group staffed

mostly by retired business executives. If you connect with someone in your area, he or she might be able to provide

some sources for insurance or other services.<p>Here's a <a href="http://www.score.org">link</a> to SCORE's

website.<p>Hope this helps.

[jnpoulos]

I am a lawyer and amateur photographer. Please retain a lawyer who knows (besides general litigation, business, contract and insurance law), but laws regarding photography. There are many specific to the craft.

[jnpoulos]

You will also need a forum selection clause and choice of law provision in your conract, especially if you do weddings outside of your state!

[wade_roth]

I'm far from a pro but I noticed this link the other day. It looks like paying members of photo.net have access to this... http://www.photo.net/info/photo_insurance_specs.pdf

 

From the PDF, a high level summary would be basic liability coverage for $175/year/photographer and $15k of equipment coverage for $150/year.

 

--Wade

[jnpoulos]

here is also a great option: http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=525