Cost to Purchase Photographic Rights

[suzanne_taylor1]

<p>I shot a wedding in the summer and the pictures were some of the best I have ever taken. The bride signed my contract allowing me to use any of the pictures from the day on my website. <br>

She and her fiance agreed and signed the contract (prior to the wedding of course) and now she is asking that I take them down off my site because she felt they were too "private" to use. <br>

I am curious to know what an acceptable amount would be to charge her to purchase the rights to the pictures as they were given a disk with all the pictures on it. As they are asking me to no longer use the pictures for any purpose, I feel that their only option is to actually purchase the photo's themselves and then I will delete them from my hard drive. <br>

I am really interested in knowing what people charge for the rights to the pictures. They ended up with around 450 and only paid me $1000.00 as I wanted the experience and photo's for advertizing. <br>

Thanks<br>

Suzie<br>

[picturesque]

<p>I hope you read the thread just below yours. You realize your clients can find this thread by searching.</p>

<p>As for charging them for the rights--I wouldn't do that. I would negotiate being able to use the images in print in your physical portfolio if you agree to take them down from your site. I would show them exactly which images you want to use and get permission for each. If there are some that you might want to use for a print ad, get permission for specific images. Get it in writing. I would never sell my copyright to my images.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>If they've requested that they be taken off the site I would suggest that you just quietly do so and respect their wishes. You can still use the printed images in your folio to show potential customers. Did they object to all the photos or just a few? I've seen several images here on the forum of a bride in the getting ready phase prior to hair, make-up, dress, etc...that I would consider too private and some just unflattering and wonder what the photographer is thinking in publishing them or sharing them on the web. BTW, since you've stated that they "only paid you $1000", I think that you're still ahead in the deal.</p>

[e._hughes]

<p>It's a bit of a tricky situation because some wedding images can be very personal, and some brides/grooms might not want them displayed for some reason. I always make a point to explain the section in my contract that allows me to my images of them in advertising, websites, etc. I also make sure to let them know that if for some reason they are not comfortable with the exhibition of any or all of their images, as a professional courtesy, I won't exhibit them. I have never had any of my couples feel uncomfortable by using a photo of them on my website or blog, most are ecstatic that they were chosen. I agree with David that you could probably still use the wedding, seeing as you feel it is your best one yet, as a sample album shown to clients in person. A lot of people get nervous about photos of themselves being on the internet because you never know who might be seeing them. Either way, I would suggest taking them off your website, and be sure to explain next time more clearly what your policy is.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>It might also be because there were some images of Uncle Jimmy,.......... who is in the witness protection program ;-)</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Suzanne....the bride signs a contract allowing you to use the photos on your site. In your contract, what does the bride get in return for you getting this permission?<br>

In a contract, each person gives something up, and each person receives a benefit. What is her benefit? Just curious, Robert</p>

[alec_myers]

<p>Robert: the photographer got $1000 and permission to use the photos she took, the bride got a photographer to shoot her wedding and lots of lovely pictures. The bride doesn't need (or deserve) extra recompense beyond what she's already received.</p>

<p>There's an argument that says that you shot the wedding for $1000, but would have shot it for (say) $2000 if you'd known up-front that you couldn't use the photographs for promotion. So the bride should pay you the extra $1000. Whether you can take that line without causing more headaches is hard to say, you may just have to smile and give in, for the sake of good customer relations. Or you can stand your ground... up to you.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>I think David has the best advice. Just take them down quietly. You can still use them in print to show potential clients.</p>

<p>Alec, I think you may have mis-interpreted Robert's post. I think he is questioning the basic validity of the original contract. Why, i have no idea.</p>

<p>Robert, bride gives photog $1,000. Photog gives bride CD of images. Sounds like a valid contract to me. Just sayin'.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>My contract states that I retain copyright and will be using the photos. If the client would like to purchase copyright my rates are double.</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Client education is important and I suspect that the majority don't read the Contract before they sign. As E Hughes has said, I run through things and I ensure they understand that a photographer has the right to use and display his/her work. That said, if any client were to object to their images appearing on my site or blog, I think the only way forward is to remove them out of personal courtesy. Certainly if a client were shown in a state of undress I would understand they may not want certain parties to see them. </p>

<p>I agree it's a shame if we're asked to remove good shots, but it's very rare and has only happened to me once. I undertook a family shoot last year for a friend, I decided not to charge and I passed over a set of files on DVD with printing rights. A few weeks later I received an e-mail demanding that I remove the shots from my site/blog. I was surprised and could certainly have maintained my right to display my work, but instead I responded to my friend politely reminding her of the agreement, but nevertheless honouring her request on the basis that I would not wish to cause discomfort to any person (although I could see no reason at all for her actions). It's all the more disappointing when the images then appear on that person's Facebook site, but as Alec has alluded, standing your ground isn't worth it from a hassle/aggravation point of view. In the OP's case, offering the purchase of full rights is an option, but not something I'd consider if the images add value to your print or album portfolio.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>In a contract, each person gives something up, and each person receives a benefit. What is her benefit?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Millions and millions of contracts feature more than one item of value on each side of the bargain. Here, the bride's payment of money and granting of a release are combined as the consideration. The bride, in return, can recieve one benefit or sixty of them. It doesn't matter how many. Whatever the number is, it will also be combined in to one bundle of consideration given to her in return. So, "her benefit" is whatever she got in the contract. Both sides exchanged value. The number of items of value given or recieved are irrelevant as long as there value on each side was exchanged.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The bride signed my contract allowing me to use any of the pictures from the day on my website.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br />Incidentally, the bride does not have authority to sign away the rights of others whose likeness appears in any of the photos in question. The release part of the contract is only enforcable against herself, those she is a legal guardian for (usually her children) or someone she is an agent for. I'll leave the question of whether there is even a need for a release, for this use, in a particular jurisdiction to other threads that have examined this at length.</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Are the presented in a tasteful manner? Does she look funny? is it an embarrassing moment? Is she fully dressed? Here's a current and interesting article: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/christian-oth-responds-to-lasuit.html</p>

<p>Sounds like you need a tighter contract or need to make it very clear that you will be using images for promotion on your website. Maybe something like... </p>

<p>Original photographic images of the wedding are property of ____ and it is illegal to reproduce any image, in any matter, without prior written permission from ____. ____ retains the rights to reproduction of any images produced in connection with this Agreement. Images produced under this contract are protected by Federal Copyright Laws, and will be fully enforced.</p>

<p>Although___ owns the copyrights from the contracted event, any sale, reproduction, publication of any image produced in connection with this Agreement, regardless of the actual ownership of the actual image, is prohibited without prior mutual consent of the parties to this Agreement. Notwithstanding, the foregoing, the parties agree that ___ may reproduce, publish, or exhibit a judicious selection of such photographs as samples of work to be shown to prospective clients, and for instructional and institutional purposes consistent with the highest standards of taste and judgement.</p>

<p>If it's really a concern, have them initial or sign in the margins of the contract, next to the paragraph. Be sure to bend the rules a bit when you want to.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >"I am really interested in knowing what people charge for the rights to the pictures."</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Answering your question:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >We still offer exclusivity to the B&G in the form of NOT using images in my Portfolio or online anywhere. I / we did not "sell them the rights to the pictures" as you put it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Double the fee sounds OK - if one has a fee structure and / or a business that requires the building a Portfolio or if it would be a cost to the business not to have access to all images to use in the Portfolio - and that is a real cost if one is web marketing IMO, because I think the website should be fresh with new Weddings ticking over the time . . . but it could be a dumb move doing it after the event IMO . . . What's the cost of a grumpy customer? I agree with the others above who make this point.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also on the point of Web marketing being fresh - that kind of makes me think if the Wedding was so long ago - what's the sweat in pulling a few images now? Will it be that detrimental?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Advice:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On the other hand there are many, many threads discussing the "rights" of the Photographer and how the Client should not get away with thinking they can demand images to be taken down from websites willy-nilly . . . that's for you to decide and perhaps with some legal advice.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My bottom line is: Our images are our images - the Studio owns them - I set it up that way - even I don't own the images the Studio does. I pretty much know the law where I work and I will not subject myself or my Business to veiled threats by Clients - or Authorities telling me what I can or cannot Photograph or can or cannot Display. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I am also in Business, and I consider each case on its merits and seek to solve each problem quickly and finally, with the least impact and cost to my Business. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I have mentioned before, the laws in the USA intrigue me - you should know what the laws are before you do anything - but irrespective of what the law actually is - IMO it would be dumb business to send an invoice to the Client for the "rights to the images". </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The conclusion and the premise upon which you base your question: </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >"I feel that their only option is to actually purchase the photo's themselves and then I will delete them from my hard drive” – </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Is a poor decision; narrow-minded and short sighted thinking – I think you would do better considering other options. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[savagesax]

Ever hear of Annie Liebovitz? Hopefully I spelled her name correctly. If you don't know who she is she's a world famous portrait photographer. Well she is having some money issues, seems like we all are.

Anyway, she has her copyrighted images valued around $25 million. She still owns the copyrights, but she was able to get a loan from a bank. I think her loan was quite high, around the value of the copyrights. So I have to ask, do you really want to sell your work? If so, pick a number between a penny and several million. No one can really put a price on the value of your work. Only you can.

 

The main reason why I don't sell the copyrights to anyone is because I've sold lots of images to magazines and books. So remember that your images may be worth something to someone besides your client.

 

"The bride signed my contract allowing me to use any of the pictures from the day on my website."

 

I'm also a bit worried here. The key word is BRIDE. Did the groom sign it or anyone else, who's photo's are on your website? This topic is often talked about, so do a search. At this point I believe only the bride has given you permission, because she is the only one that signed the contract. You maay wish to talk to an attorney.

[suzanne_taylor1]

<p>Wow! Thanks everyone for your thoughts! I was not sure if anyone would respond. <br>

The last comment is really interesting around copyrights, and yes - the bride and groom both signed the contract. Ironically, the only actual answer to my question was "double" the price of the picture. :) <br>

Many ethical issues were presented in this discussion and I really appreciate all the points of view that was expressed. The fact is that this couple was very difficult to work with all day and the bride has been rather pushy since that day. I did take down the pictures out of respect and empathy for her wishes, but it kind of irked me. <br>

The pictures were not distastful or embarassing - rather they showed a perfect bride getting ready for her day. <br>

I only do this part time and my 'other job' is one where people face consequences every day for poor decisions. I am aware that I own a business (hense my actions) but how far does a photographer have to extend themselves when they have ensured that they have covered their interestes by having the couple sign a contract? </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>There's a huge difference between selling the copyright and granting the B/G printing privileges. It really doesn't cost anything to grant them the ability to print the images unless your business model relies on reprint sales. There's no reason to give them your copyright and I doubt that they even understand the difference. In the future there will be more brides and more folio-opps.</p>

<p><em>".....but how far does a photographer have to extend themselves when they have ensured that they have covered their interests by having the couple sign a contract? </em><br>

<em></em><br>

I think if it were me, I'd be more interested in getting some closure with the couple and putting this experience behind me.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>The answer to the last question is</p>

<p>As far as is necessary to keep the client happy and the lawyers at bay.</p>

<p>As for the original question - That is one area of the contract that I make sure that the bride to be and groom to be both understand completely - that I can use their wedding as promotion material for future work. If either of them have an issue with that - we strike it from the contract - and I don't show their photos. In 5 years - I've had 1 client strike that clause and she is / was a lawyer.</p>

<p>As for the additional charge / price on the photos - it seems a little late to be renogiating terms. But for the future - I suggest doing as myself and others here have suggested and double the rate if you are not allowed to use in your portfollio.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"how far does a photographer have to extend themselves when they have ensured that they have covered their interestes by having the couple sign a contract?" </strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<em>"I consider each case on its merits and seek to solve each problem quickly and finally, with the least impact and cost to my Business."</em></p>

<p>WW</p>

[cardens]

<p>if it is in your contract dont take the pics down. dont baby people like this, they will only run with it and try and screw you later with something else.<br>

If the pics are good and you have the rights to use them, then use them. People like this who spend next to nothing expect the most service. Not fair. Stick the contract as any professional would.</p>