Is this a rather standard wedding contract?

[Alex]

<p>I know there are as many contract types as there are photographers and laws are different from place to place. I just came across this contract on line http://wedding-photographers-directory.com/ContractPDFs/Contract%204.pdf <br>

To me (as a client ) it looks quite selfish (as a photographer ) seems like it covers just about every problems one can run into.<br>

To those of you who do weddings in a regular basis, would this agreement look some were standard in nature or a bit overprotective on the photographers side?<br>

Also if you could link to other samples or would not mind sharing yours I'd appreciate it.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I wouldn't say that this one is particularly "overprotective" of the photographer. We have a lot of variables to deal with in wedding photography, so the contract is worded to reduce the impact of those and enable us do our job properly.</p>

<p>I prefer to avoid Legalese as much as possible and keep the language simple so that both mine and the Client's obligations are really clear from the onset. Content-wise, mine is not too different from this one.</p>

<p>On a related note, I deal with contracts of a different nature, on a regular basis and I can tell you, contracts are almost always written to protect the contractor/initiator :)</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Hiring a photographer to shoot your wedding is a business arrangement the same as hiring a caterer or the reception hall, the limo, buying a ring, etc. If you look at contracts from other vendors you will see similar language, tailored to the service they provide, of course. If you go through messages on this forum for a few months, you will see the biggest arguments between photographers and clients are in cases where details were not spelled out in the contract and there is a dispute with no clear answer. Only thing in this contract that strikes me as odd is the paragraph on harassment. Sounds to me like this is a female photographer who has been the subject of unwanted advances at previous weddings. Having it in the contract to walk out on the wedding may be a little much, but I don't know what she has encountered in the past.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Oh my. Indeed, this looks like the photographer has had some troubles in the past. I particularly like the $300/image 'usage' fee. By the terms of this contract, copying low-res files from disc to the computer is a violation, at $300/image you'd be looking at a hefty 'fee' - the only question is would copying them to the computer, then uploading them to FB be 2 uses? (and then $600/image ? ;-) ) (ironic considering that maintaining copies is the client's responsibility)</p>

<p>So yeah, I'd agree that this is a little further than <em>I'd</em> go, but I'm not them. And its up to the client who signs it to agree, or walk away. I know I've made modifications to my contract a few times to appease the worries of clients, and I consider that part of the business/negotiation side. </p>

[william-porter]

I agree with the previous responses. Doesn't look too far out of the ordinary to me, although it's not my approach.

 

There are two ways to approach business — indeed, life in general: Some people are legalists and eagerly write rules

that they hope will govern every imaginable situation. Others make rules much less eagerly and only about the things that

absolutely need to be governed by rules. I'm not a legalist. Frankly I don't think every problem can be imagined. In my

view it's much easier to deal with minor problems as they arise.

 

But if this is her contract and it works for her, I can't criticize it. As the client, before you sign, you have the right and ability

to negotiate the contract. If she says it's non-negotiable, well, there are LOTS of photographers in the world.

 

Will

[ianivey]

<p>It's not overprotective of the photographer. A few elements use vague language that could, in fact, be interpreted against the photographer. For example, "<strong>Coverage</strong> (substitutions may be made if a product becomes unavailable)," could mean either party enjoys the right to substitute available products unilaterally, and is therefore dangerously imprecise. </p>

<p>The $300-per-image "fee" is a clumsy attempt to spell out a particular business model that is otherwise perfectly legitimate. Some photographers sell usage permission as a part of a flat fee, whereas others rely on print purchases for revenue. There's no contract-related problem with either approach (though the latter is increasingly viewed as antiquated).</p>

<p>But this particular contract language is awkward because it seems to provide a $300 price per image for use. It would probably be better for the photographer simply to spell out her license fees as purchase option(s), since she mentions the license anyway. Probably she does not actually charge $300 per image for a license. This looks a lot like a penalty, rather than a fee. And strictly speaking, the fee only applies if the photographer is aware of the use. :)</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>I love it. I am going to include some of that in my contract. </p>

[markonestudios]

<p>As an aside, I prefer to call mine an Agreement. I have found this gels better with the vast majority of my clients. They understand it is a contract in intent but psychologically it somehow feels less onerous with the word "Agreement" which implies more of a mutual arrangement.</p>

<p>Some of the couples whose weddings I cover are very private, so I am willing to amend my contract to suit their privacy requests. </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>The nice thing about contracts is you can cross out the bits you don't like before both parties sign them!</p>