Second Shooter Images and Facebook

[heather_p1]

<p>What is your MO and rules for your second shooters and their use of their images on Facebook? Do you allow them to post?? If so, at what time? Do you allow communication if the client contacts THEM?<br>

Below is what my current second shooter contract states:</p>

<p><em>Above named contractor agrees not to solicit any customer past or present of xxx Photography, or any guest with whom they have contact during their course of the event date stated above. The contractor will NOT distribute any type of advertising or information (website, email address, phone number, etc) for themselves or other businesses except for xxx Photography to any attendee or other vendor at the wedding. Nor will the contractor attempt to contact the clients, guests or other vendors from the event via writing, email, phone or social networks (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc).</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>All images taken during the wedding on the above date will be property of xxx Photography and will remain so indefinitely. Images taken by the contracted second shooter may be used for their own business in print form immediately after the event and will only be allowed to be shown on the web (website, blog, or social media) after xxx Photography has posted final images from the event (approximately 1 month after the date of the wedding). Absolutely no tagging of clients on Facebook. Any images displayed online by the contractor must have the distinction that they were created while second shooting for xxx Photography.</em></p>

<p><em>Any violation of these terms will result in the return to xxx Photography any compensation paid to the contractor as well as forfeiture to the rights to use ANY images from the contracted event for ANY purpose.</em></p>

<p>I am very interested to know how you handle the social networking aspect of this issue.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>any compensation paid </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is your intent to only disgorge compensation from events the violating conduct is associated with or literally "any compensation paid to the contractor"?<em><br /></em></p>

[doug_levy1]

<p>When I second shoot (or hire a second shooter), it's pretty straightforward (and I've second shot for 15+ photogs in the last 2 years.)<br>

-don't post any photos online until after the primary photographer<br>

-don't sell to the primary photographer's clients<br>

-the primary can do whatever they want with the images<br>

-the second photographer is free to use the images for whatever they like - they shot them, if they wanna use them on fb, their blog, website etc., that's fine with me. </p>

<p>I actually wrote a fairly comprehensive article about this a few months back:<br>

<a href="http://tiffinbox.org/how-to-be-a-second-wedding-photographer/">http://tiffinbox.org/how-to-be-a-second-wedding-photographer/</a><br /><br /></p>

[richardsnow]

 

<p>Heather...</p>

<p>I'm curious as to where you got this contract. I have seconded on several occasions and if I had to sign this I wouldn't have done it.</p>

<p>There's too much in your contract that you can't enforce and that won't hold up in court...just keep it out.</p>

<p>And consider Doug's Article. It's full of great stuff.</p>

 

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>There's too much in your contract... ...that won't hold up in court</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which parts?</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I let my 2nd use for portfolio and blog with no mention of location or B&G - can not use at all on FB - my second shooter contract is even stiffer than this and I have had no problem with people signing it... they are work for hire and it is a privilage that I let them use the photos because they belong to me.... may be stiff but I want to protect my interests and the interests of my B&G... IMHO</p>

[rayt]

<blockquote>

<p>Images taken by the contracted second shooter may be used</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well the use of SHOOTER in the contract speaks volumes about the contract. It should instead say photographer as shooter is ambiguous because the term also applies to people that have guns and target shoot.</p>

<p>You also cannot stop your second photographer from contacting anyone after the event. In a right to work state that is unenforceable and may in fact render the entire contract worthless.</p>

<p>You also state:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>All images taken during the wedding on the above date will be property of xxx Photography and will remain so indefinitely.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>and then state:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Any images displayed online by the contractor must have the distinction that they were created while second shooting for xxx Photography.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So which is it? You state you own the images and then state you will allow the other photographer to use the images. If you own the images then your contract needs to be a work for hire. You then state that the rights to use the images can be forfeited. If you allow the other photographer to use the images and have given explicit permission then you do not own the images as the original photograher, your second, owns the images. Your contract mentions nothing about copyrights and that could be a real problem as copyright law will trump anything in your contract.</p>

<p>Your contract is full of holes regarding a second photographer. Little, if any, is enforceable. You need to get a lawyer involved to protect yourself. And remember, it is a two way street. Make your contract completely in your favor with nothing to the second photographer and you will have trouble getting an assistant.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>The parts that won't hold up in court:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Above named contractor agrees not to solicit any customer past or present of xxx Photography, or any guest with whom they have contact during their course of the event date stated above</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Nor will the contractor attempt to contact the clients, guests or other vendors from the event via writing, email, phone or social networks</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The fact is, you can't stop someone from contacting a vendor after an event...nor can you stop solicitation of future work from current clients/guests at the event. If you're going to hire a second shooter, you might as well realize they're probably in it for experience and that they're going to run in the same circles as you do.</p>

<p>That's not to say that you should have a clause about the <em>specific event</em> that was contracted for. Perhaps it should just be re-worded:</p>

<p><em>Above named contractor agrees not to solicit business from clients, guests or other vendors from the event through sale or distribution of photographs taken at the event.</em></p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>And Raymond beats me to the punch!</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>shooter is ambiguous because the term also applies to people that have guns and target shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I might not have used the term, The likelihood it could cause sufficient confusion for a court to consider any ambiguity for this scenario is very far fetched.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You also cannot stop your second photographer from contacting anyone... ...The fact is, you can't stop someone from contacting a vendor after an event...nor can you stop solicitation of future work from current clients/guests at the event... ...Perhaps it should just be re-worded:<em> Above named contractor agrees not to solicit business from clients, guests or other vendors from the event through sale or distribution of photographs taken at the event.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>State laws vary as to the scope non-compete clauses reach but where such clauses are valid, they are usually restricted in time, distance and sometimes other in other ways. Spelling out the type of contact is important too such as, attempts to solicit business ect.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you allow the other photographer to use the images and have given explicit permission then you do not own the images as the original photograher, your second, owns the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Contracts can be designed to ensure work for hire based copyright ownership while still allowing images to be licensed to the hired photographer.</p>

<p>I don't know where Heather's contract language came from (though I have suspicions) but, yes, it is poorly drafted.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_krouskop]

<p>I always let my seconds use the shots for their portfolios or websites. They don't have access to the photos until after I release them, so they can't post them before I do. My second photographers always use my cards and return them before they leave the wedding. If they do use my photos , they have agreed to mention that I was the primary photography. If they don't then I don't hire them again. They like to work for me, because I pay them better than other photographers in town so they are respectful of my requests. One photographer created her entire website with photos from my weddings, she is now out of business. I believe in helping out other photographers, but if they take advantage of me, then I back away. Time almost always weeds outs the bad ones.</p>

[david_joseph4]

<p>I give my second shooter one of my cameras ( 5d Mark II which they must be familiar with ) with a 16gb card, but I do pay them. Their contract is along the lines of the OP. As far as I am m concerned a second shooter is not "working" for "themselves" in any way but on a temporary basis an employee of my studio. It does cut down the number of applicants of course but also means , I have found, that I get the certain type of applicant I like.</p>