ianivey Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 <p>Ed te Pas wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Why do you have a contract if you're shooting for free?</p> </blockquote> <p>You do this 1) because shooting for free does not necessarily limit your liability to $0, and 2) to help ensure that the clients clearly understand your limitations as a novice wedding shooter. The simple act of putting terms and limitations in writing and discussing that document provides an anchor should the client experience any consternation later.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Why do you have a contract if you're shooting for free?</p> </blockquote> <p>If you're shooting for free (getting nothing in return) then there cannot be a contract. There can be an agreement though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 <blockquote> <p><em>"You do this 1) because shooting for free does not necessarily limit your liability to $0, "</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Ian, if we limit the activities to a free shoot and a photographer giving images to a recipient, in what way can the photographer be liable, even if she fails to deliver the images? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuccisphotos Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Michael, if the photographer leads to any injuries of anyone from gear falling over, tripping on it, etc, he or she could be liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 <p>Vail, my question to Ian refers to the need for a contract. I don't think having a contract will protect a photographer from liability for causing injury. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianivey Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Ian, if we limit the activities to a free shoot and a photographer giving images to a recipient, in what way can the photographer be liable, even if she fails to deliver the images? ...<br> ... my question to Ian refers to the need for a contract. I don't think having a contract will protect a photographer from liability for causing injury.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, it may theoretically help limit liability for injury to some extent (e.g., injury to one of the signatories), depending on the content of the contract and the state in which the contract is executed. But no, that's not the primary issue, mainly because (as you seem to know) it is difficult to limit your liability for negligent personal or property injury to others in a contract between you and one or two people.</p> <p>Regarding your main question, Michael, you phrase it in such a way that I believe I understand your reasoning ("if we <strong>limit the activities to a free shoot"</strong>). You're limiting the fee, not the "activities." Calling a wedding "a free shoot" just confuses the elements of this exchange.</p> <p>Please correct me if I get this wrong, but if I understand you correctly, your premise, in asking how you could be liable if you don't charge a fee for your photography, is either:</p> <ol> <li>that your liability for failure to perform cannot exceed the value of your fee; or else</li> <li>that a no-fee arrangement by definition means you do not guarantee any results.</li> </ol> <p>Neither of these is a good assumption. </p> <p>1) Many photographers' contracts state that the photographer's liability for failure to deliver according to the agreement is limited to the full fee. This clause is useful precisely because in most cases liability is <em>not </em>otherwise so limited, and may extend, for example, to covering the cost of restaging of the event or of having someone more skilled edit/salvage poor-quality images. There are many possible consequences of failing to deliver according to expectations that might have measurable value in excess of whatever fee is charged.</p> <p>2) If you agree to photograph a wedding, then the client has certain expectations about what you have agreed to deliver. To over-simplify, the client probably will make some decisions in reliance on your promise to photograph the wedding. If you fail to deliver according to expectations, then the client's decisions -- to rely on you, not to hire a professional, not perhaps to take advantage of any opportunity to have back-up coverage -- will have been to her detriment. It may be that your failure to perform according to the expectations you create by promising to photograph the wedding has a high cost -- a cost that an angry client might be inclined to ask the court to try to measure.</p> <p>The OP <strong>offered</strong> to shoot the wedding <strong>in order to obtain something of value, </strong>namely, an opportunity (presumably exclusive) to gain experience as a primary and build her portfolio:</p> <blockquote> <p><em>so I thought it would be great experience and would add alot </em>[sic]<em> to my portfolio if I offered to photograph her wedding!</em> </p> </blockquote> <p>The access that a primary shooter enjoys on a wedding day (not to mention the trust) is not trivial consideration -- especially to one starting out, hoping to charge for her work one day, and in need of some evidence of capability and experience. Therefore this arguably is not a situation in which the OP is receiving nothing of value. The OP's first sentence is a statement to the contrary.</p> <p>So, then, the value of a written and signed contract in this instance is the same as it is in any for-pay situation: to establish agreement about what each party expects the other to deliver (and here, the contract would benefit a lot from including language <em>clearly articulating the photographer's <strong>inexperience, </strong>and the likely consequences of that inexperience), </em>and to set reasonable limitations on the photographer's liability in the event of a partial or total failure to deliver even what the agreement says is minimally acceptable.</p> <p>Ninety percent of the value of a contract is in managing expectations ahead of time, and the other 10% is is providing the back-end protection against crazy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_te_pas Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 <p>Does uncle Bob has a contract too? He too is shooting for himself and maybe the couple. If I should shoot for free (which I never do), there will be no contract, I am uncle Bob on that particular moment. Only when handing over the CD the couple has to sign something :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooke_renee Posted December 1, 2011 Author Share Posted December 1, 2011 Thank you everyone for your responses - I did really well if I do say so myself - thanks for everyone's help in this question and in the past questions I have asked - I will upload a photo or two soon :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuccisphotos Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Yay! Can't wait to see them Brooke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooke_renee Posted December 12, 2011 Author Share Posted December 12, 2011 <p>I have uploaded photos in my portfolio of the wedding, anyone with constructive criticism go for gold!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now