Using my work for advertising.

[jennifercatron]

<p>Recently I have run into issues with some of my clients not wanting me to use some of their images, or any of their images on my website for advertising. One was a maternity session where the bride felt that she didn't want her belly showing to the whole world or her husbands tattoos because he didn't have a shirt on. The other was a bride that didn't want me to use any of her wedding pictures online until after she had time to go through them all and digest them all. In my contract I make it clear that I own the right to my images and will use them for advertising purposes, but I also don't want bad blood between myself and my clients. I love belly shots and really love the ones we did. They would be very important in my advertising. As for the wedding shots, it's just a matter of patience, I know, but I like to be punctual about showing my work on my online website.. How would you guys handle this?</p>

[tonybynum]

It's rather simple, don't do it . . . dont do it . . . In the future have the conversation before the shoot . . .

[Matt Laur]

<p>Don't do it. Could it <em>possibly</em> be worth the bad word of mouth? Having you come across as pushy over something as intimate as maternity images will travel, social-media-wise.<br /><br />Regardless, do you have a signed release from the subjects, waiving their privacy rights? Their likenesses, used to promote your business, aren't a copyright issue. Owning the copyrights has no impact on the model release issue.</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>1. Delaying posting images wont cost you anything and they wont suddenly degrade while the client is looking through them. Patience is a virtue.<br>

2. As for those clients who don't want a personal time in their lives used for advertising - respect their wishes. It really doesn't matter what your contract says - the kind of unhappiness this sort of issue causes will translate into bad word of mouth. Even if they love the images there will always be a "great, but she....."<br>

3. As Matt pointed out - you need a signed model release to use an image in advertising. You do own the copyright on the images but that doesn't negate an individuals right to control the commercial use of their image. Just having a contract that says you own the images/have the right to use them isn't enough. You can't claim image rights they have to be granted. That means everyone in an image must sign a release.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>This is not about litigating with pesky clients and whipping them into shape. This is about getting along with the people you photography and getting more work/referrals. The traditional view was that a photographer could put his work on a table in his place of work, or on the wall. or in the store window to help let people know what kind of work he does. These old laws never had to deal with the Internet. There is, it seems to me, a vast difference in public perception between the vastness of the Internet and a small store window. Your love of belly shots and tats and being "punctual" about showing your work is not business. This is simply being a fussbudget. Without clients you have nothing. Try to accomodate them, and talk to them.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>As others have said - you may have the right to use the images in your portfolio, but is it worth annoying the clients and possibly getting bad publicity and word of mouth? </p>

<p>In my experience it is not worth it. I did a maternity shoot for a family in my neighborhood a few years ago. The photos where awesome - the family loved them, I posted two images in my on-line portfolio and one on my fb page... plus had 50 postcards printed with the image. One little problem, they did not like neighbors coming up to them complimenting them on the photos. They wanted their privacy. When they called and demanded I remove the photos and get the cards that had been distributed back, I did. We had talked before hand about the usage and they were okay at the time, but once they started getting comments from other neighbors they pulled back. </p>

<p>My lesson learned is that 1) BE VERY CLEAR ON USAGE UP FRONT. If there is a pause or hesitation or doubt - Don't use the photos. 2) People accept things differently - there is no one size fits all for clients. I've had clients ask why I didn't use their photos (in most cases it is because I was already onto the next client and just didn't have time to post). 3) Word of mouth is very powerful... I have not gotten another client from my neighborhood since that. I don't know what was / or is being said - but I know the numbers. </p>

<p>If I had it to do all over again - I would not have printed the cards or posted the images until the client said I could do it in writing. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>You don't have the right to use the images for any commercial purpose- including promoting your own services- without a signed model release. Once you have persuaded your clients to sign such releases then you are likely to be clear legally, but not till then and there are a few exceptions.<br>

But as others point out, being legally clear is only a small part of the issue here. Even if you have a signed release, when a client tells you they don't want you to do it , what are you going to do? Tell them you have a release, so get over it? Depending on the nature of your business you might regret that.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>David Henderson - that is 100% incorrect. It depends upon which state you are in. And yes, I got that from a lawyer in MN. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[danmarchant]

<p>The phrase "any commercial use" is certainly confusing at best. You are legally allowed to sell images of a person in a photo book, display them as prints (for sale) in a gallery or sell them for use in editorial - all without a model release.</p>

<p>When the law relating to image rights refers to "commercial use" it mean the <strong>use</strong> in advertising/marketing/promotion of a company, product or service. It is the company or individual using the image for advertising that requires the release.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't have the right to use the images for any commercial purpose- including promoting your own services- without a signed model release.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sample of work exceptions are likely to be recognized in many jurisdictions as well as non-endorsement type uses.</p>

[ron_erwin1]

<p>I would anticipate reluctance from those in maternity sessions and just be happy when anyone does agree for you to use their pictures. And as for the bride, don't overwhelm her by saying that you want the right to show all of the photos. Just pick a handful and tell her how much it would mean to you to use those. Many times, they will give you permission when you handle it in that manner.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Personally I don't even question client's wishes on this subject. They don't want me to use it, that's fine with me.<br>

Only about 2% of my clients ask me not to use it, so it doesn't impact my marketing at all.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>One was a maternity session where the bride felt that she didn't want her belly showing to the whole world or her husbands tattoos because he didn't have a shirt on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jenny, you find it odd people are modest? I would hang a picture of me without a shirt on in my bedroom but I wouldn't want such a picture circulating around for random people in my community to see. I have a professional reputation to protect.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The other was a bride that didn't want me to use any of her wedding pictures online until after she had time to go through them all and digest them all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So delay. What's the problem? She probably doesn't want a picture of her with her mouth half open full of cake on her wedding day circulating around. Chill and give her some time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>In my contract</strong> I make it clear that I own the right to my images and will use them for advertising purposes, but I also don't want bad blood between myself and my clients.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well I personally applaud you for having a contract. But the contract is a firewall for legal woes. It is not something that factors into marketing decisions. You say you want to use the pictures for marketing. Let me ask you a question. What do you think running roughshod over your clients' wishes regarding their pregnancy and wedding will do for your word of mouth marketing?</p>

<p>As another poster said these two people represent a TINY portion of your clientele. In business you have to factor in a certain amount of slippage/loss/etc. The customer is always right. You don't go to war over small stuff like this. Even if you win the legal battle you will most assuredly lose the marketing battle.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>"the contract is a firewall for legal woes. It is not something that factors into marketing decisions."</em></p>

<p>Excellent point worth emphasizing. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I don't know if I would have printed the Post cards. A website OK, but a Post card just seems to me like invasion of privacy without their consent.</p>

[ian_campbell1]

<p>One ad, versus one very unhappy, and likely noisy, ex-customer: result will be bad word of mouth that in the end could kill you rather than expand you. But, if that's what you want... I'm sure your competition will be grateful. The oldest rule is the best one to follow, though: is this what you'd want someone to do to you?</p>

[JohnElderRobison]

<p>I think you have confused copyright and the property interest people have in images. When you take a photo you own the copyright to that (unless it's work for hire, for your job) but you do not have the right to use an image of a person for advertising without the permission of the person.<br>

To do that, you need a specific release that allows you to use that person's likeness in an ad. A line in a photo shoot contract is not going to accomplish that, if someone takes you to task over it. <br>

This issue is seen most often with celebrities but the fact is, it applies to anyone. You cannot use someone's image to advertise a product of service without their express permission. Look at all the trouble Facebook has faced in recent months over essentially the same thing.</p>

<p> </p>