Restaurant wants to use all wedding photos commercially?!

[ben__evans]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm photographing a wedding with the dinner held in a particularly nice venue.<br>

I've asked if I can access additional areas, and they've come back with a contract for the areas that are being used anyway AND they want the rights to use all the images commercially.<br>

Nothing about additional payment, nor model releases for the guests. First time this has happened.<br>

My concern is that legally they'd be able to prevent the photography if I didn't agree.<br>

Thoughts?</p>

 

[william-porter]

<p>Never heard of this happening, either. I've occasionally and voluntarily offered an image or two to a venue for their use (if they want to use it) on their web site. I ask for a small credit, that's all. Seems like good business.</p>

<p>I've never before given a moment's thought to the legal questions arising from my shooting a wedding at a private venue. Their contract is with the bride, and my contract is with the bride. They know that there will be a pro photographer taking photos. There may be "reasonable restrictions" upon what the photographer can do or where the photographer can go. But to ask the photographer to sign a special contract and to grant rights to his images, that's odd.</p>

<p>This issue only arose <em>after</em> you asked for access to the "additional areas", right? What additional areas were you asking for access to?</p>

<p>Be interested to see what others have to say in response to your question. All I can think of right now is, time to drive over to the restaurant and have a friendly face-to-face with the manager. I can't help but think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Apart from any permission to use the images from you, they will need permission from the subjects if they want to use them commercially.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I've asked if I can access additional areas</strong>, and they've come back <strong>with a contract for the areas that are being used anyway</strong> AND they want the rights to use all the images commercially. . .<br>

My <strong>concern is that legally they'd be able to prevent the photography</strong> if I didn't agree.<br>

Thoughts?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My understanding of your words is:<br>

1. You asked the venue if you could use ‘other areas’.<br>

2. The venue's response ignored the request of ‘other areas’. <br>

3. The venue has presented you with a contract <strong>that concerns only the areas the B&G have already booked to use</strong></p>

<p><strong>If this is accurate</strong>: then, on the face of it, maximum leverage in this situation lays with the B&G continuing the conversation.</p>

<p>My initial response would be to inform the B&G, immediately, that the venue appears to be prohibiting / restricting photography in the areas which they have booked for their Wedding, outline the details to them and stress your concerns on the matter which at this time are beyond your control and issues which have never been presented to you before.</p>

<p>If my understanding is incorrect: then please clarify.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[william-porter]

<p>William W:</p>

<p>I almost always defer to your wisdom and experience and I hesitate to disagree with you now, since disagreeing with you always seems like a bad bet. </p>

<p>I absolutely agree with your statement that maximum leverage lies with the bride and groom. Where I disagree is on the matter of what the OP should do <em>first.</em> I don't like to burden the bride and groom with any problem that I can potentially solve myself. We're paid to deal with problems ourselves, as much as we can.</p>

<p>So while I would certainly respond to this problem "immediately" (to quote your adverb), my first and most immediate response would not be to run to the bride and groom. It would be to speak — and speak immediately — with the manager of the venue. I really think there's a misunderstanding here. I think the OP made a slightly out-of-the-ordinary request and somebody in the office at the venue completely missed the fact that OP is shooting a wedding with one of the venue's already-contracted clients.</p>

<p>I bet a personal phone call or (ideally) face to face chat will resolve the situation quickly. And if it doesn't, <em>then</em> I'd contact the client (bride and groom, father or mother of bride, whoever is appropriate). Contacting the venue quickly first in no way squanders the leverage that the bride and groom have.</p>

<p>And to the OP: When you contact the venue, I'd be <em>very nice,</em> no matter what happens. Let's say it's a worst-case situation and the manager of the venue is both stupid and hostile. I would absolutely not react to that. I hope this goes without saying to you. I say it because I don't know you personally and I do know that, now and then, it needs to be said. </p>

<p>Will</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>William P:</p>

<p>I am out of town and at present, sitting in a rural area coffee shop and I am a complete unknown to the regular patrons . . . they are looking at me very strangely as I giggle out-loud upon reading your opening line . . . very eloquent and really nice!</p>

<p>To the business at hand:<br /> Yes I agree with you – a telephone call or a F to F meeting with the Manager, such that he venue can “confirm or deny” their position is indeed the best <em>first</em>.</p>

<p>My short answer did make a few assumptions, (rightly or wrongly) and in those is kind of the assumption that, the conversation you mention has already taken place:<br /> Firstly, I had a squiz at the OP’s website and it occurs to me that he is reasonably experienced<br /> Secondly I am assuming that the venue’s response came from some authority – i.e. the manager<br /> Thirdly I assumed the situation is, as I outlined above (the three points).</p>

<p>What I would state is more important, is for clarification from the OP on all these points of detail which you and I have raised and that would bode well for a better and more detailed advice to be forthcoming about how to manage the situation.</p>

<p>ALSO:</p>

<p>When I openned up this thread, I did NOT (as I normally do), read all the responses.<br>

if I had read through carefully, I would have agreed with your last para about a F to F with the manager - and I can see now soem of the reasons why you have brought my initial response to account: and it is good that you did.<br>

<br>

IMO, the MOST important point and best advice you have mentioned is: "be nice"</p>

<p>Can we “Williams” do a deal on all of that?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>William P, I think William W's approach might be more appropriate under these circumstances and here's why:</p>

<p>Contractual relations is formed between the venue and BG as well as between the BG and photographer. It's outside the bounds of authority (and mandate) for the photographer to form further contractual relations with the venue especially when it involves the BG's consent in order to fulfill his initial contractual obligations. </p>

<p>I thought of an example on the fly: You're a contractor asked to remove a tree from a residential backyard and cut the tree into cords of wood for fireplace burning, but it's impossible to perform your mandate without trespassing on the neighbor's property so you ask for the neighbor's permission. The neighbor responds with an affirmative but demands one cord of wood in compensation. How should the contractor handle the matter?</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>I think contacting the restaurant first for clarification is the way to go. If it is a mis-understanding the photographer could look stupid in the eyes of their client by running to them for help before being sure of the situation.</p>

[william-porter]

<p><em>Michael Chang writes:</em></p>

<blockquote>Contractual relations is formed between the venue and BG as well as between the BG and photographer. It's outside the bounds of authority (and mandate) for the photographer to form further contractual relations with the venue especially when it involves the BG's consent in order to fulfill his initial contractual obligations.</blockquote>

<p>I never said anything about "form[ing] further contractual relations" with anybody. I just said, <em>figure out first if there's really a problem here.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> •</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>William W writes:</em></p>

<blockquote>IMO, the MOST important point and best advice you have mentioned is: "be nice"

<p>Can we “Williams” do a deal on all of that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> We can indeed, sir! <br>

Good luck to the OP—and if you get a sec later (maybe after the wedding) let us know how it turned out. I'm crossing my fingers for you and hoping I'm right that it's a simple misunderstanding.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[grh]

<p>Does the contract between the B&G and the photographer specify that it is the client's responsibility to secure permission, releases, etc, on behalf of the photographer, to allow him to execute his contract? If so, simply let the B&G know that their booked venue has thrown a monkey wrench into the affair, and per the contract the issue will need to be resolved by them. Bringing this up isn't whining, it's letting the bride know that someone is wrecking her plans for her special day. She's gonna want to get that worked out ASAP.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><strong>Their contract is with the bride, and my contract is with the bride.</strong><br /> Its really the responsibility of the contracting party with the venue to obtain extra access but it made some sense for the photographer. It was similar, in some ways, to one contacting clergy ahead of time to get the lay of the land. The venue might have found it usual for a photographer to call to ask permission for things, however, and a flaky response was given.<br /> <br /> <strong>My initial response would be to inform the B&G, immediately, that the venue appears to be prohibiting / restricting photograph</strong></p>

<p>I would agree ordinarily but, the response is odd and understanding what the response really was is important in general and there could be a big misunderstanding or error. Avoiding needless alarm to the client if there really will be no problems is desirable. Since Ben initiated the contact and is the recipient of their response, he is in the best position to get the clarification without passing information through other people leading to, perhaps, more misunderstandings and confusion.<br /> <br /> <strong>William P, I think William W's approach might be more appropriate under these circumstances and here's why:Contractual relations is formed between the venue and BG as well as between the BG and photographer. It's outside the bounds of authority (and mandate) for the photographer to form further contractual relations with the venue”</strong><br /> <br /> William P didn’t suggest forming any contractual relations. He suggested obtaining clarification and then bringing the information to the client if there is some concern or issue still.<br /> <br /> <strong>I thought of an example on the fly: You're a contractor asked to remove a tree from a residential backyard and cut the tree into cords of wood for fireplace burning, but it's impossible to perform your mandate without trespassing on the neighbor's property so you ask for the neighbor's permission. The neighbor responds with an affirmative but demands one cord of wood in compensation. How should the contractor handle the matter?</strong><br /> <br /> This isn’t analogous because its obvious, on its face, that there is a demand and what the demand is. Not so here where the uncertainty could lead to the client being alarmed needlessly. There’s nothing to lose going to the client afterward if the venue turns out to be making a demand in exchange for being allowed to shoot.<br /> <br /> <strong>Bringing this up isn't whining, it's letting the bride know that someone is wrecking her plans for her special day.</strong><br /> <br /> <br /> No one even remotely suggested it is whining. Nor do we have sufficient information to know that the venue actually “is wrecking her plans”. Announcing that pre-maturely will alarm the bride, make the photographer appear incompetent and introduce pointless drama and fuss.<br /> <br /> I suggest gracefully obtaining clarification. If the venue really is demanding things to shoot the event, kindly explain that the client holds the authority to handle the issue (which is true) and that the information will be passed along to them. Then do so quickly.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I would call back the venue and let them know that you are forwarding their request to the B&G. You cannot agree to this without a consultation with them anyway (by 'cannot', I of course don't mean it literally, but you are under obligation first and foremost to the B&G - having pictures of them plastered on billboards or advertisements for the venue is NOT a surprise you want them to experience - especially if the images are taken by you!). I would plan to shoot the wedding with access <em>only</em> to the areas the B&G/wedding party/guests have access to. The venue has a responsibility to to restrict access to dangerous/operational areas in an effort to minimize their own liability, but this sounds like they are trying to strongarm you.</p>

<p>Personally, I have a clause in my contract which specifies the responsibility for obtaining authorization, and access, to the shooting environment is the client's responsibility. As well, in such a situation, consideration would be due for the work to be published/used.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I agree with Marcus except that the response (and/or description of it given by Ben) is too vague to make an reliable conclusion as to whether it is placing any conditions or not which tends to make the issue pre-mature. To play Devil's Advocate to my own suggestion in light of Marcus', I suppose one can go to the client now and say that it is unknown what the venue is doing, let the client sort it out and hope that the venue is less likely to play hardball with its own client before it potentially hardens its position when communicating with the photographer.</p>

<p>On a side note, I can see a venue, for various reasons, not wanting people venturing in to other areas but demanding commercial usage of the client's and guest's likeness and altering rights management as a condition for bringing a photographer at all would be very foolish for such a business. Not only can it anger pre-existing customers, imagine the blistering reviews potential customers could read on Yelp ect. Even people not planning to bring pro photographers may react negatively.</p>

<p> </p>

[savagesax]

I need a bit more information. Will the place refer you? Can you leave a book or 2 with your images? Perhaps a large framed 24X30?

 

I suppose the place can refuse you to photograph there. However I've never seen this happen before. Actually I have seen this happen, but it had to do with insurance problems; lack of or no insurance. But this doesn't seem to be the case.

[starshooter]

<p>Asking the photographer for rights to use the photos commercially is like baying at the moon. Pretty worthless. At least in the USA. You do not own those rights. The people in the photos do. The restaurant's person obviously doesn't have a clue what (s)he is doing. I agree that you need to tell the Lucky Couple their venue reps are throwing a monkey wrench into the wedding soup.</p>

[daverhaas]

In the U.S. there typically is not a separate agreement between the venue and

photographer. The only time i have heard of this is a situation where the venue

required the photographer to prode proof of insurance. Of course, there are always

exceptions to this and every rule.

 

What strikes me as odd is that the venue seems to have ignored the request for

additional areas, and instead has come back with a request for images and permission

to photograph in the agreed areas.

 

Given that, I feel it proper to,at a minimum, inform the couple, as they may Not be

aware that the venue is imposing a separate contract on the photographer.

 

Typically, if a venue requests photos, I will provide in return for credit and

referrals. But, again, I have never had a venue make me sign a contract and demand

rights to images.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Asking the photographer for rights to use the photos commercially is like baying at the moon. Pretty worthless. At least in the USA. You do not own those rights. The people in the photos do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It looks lie the intent here is correct but the wording can cause confusion to some readers. Replacing the word "photos" with the words" likeness of the people seen in the photos" more accurately portrays the situation. The photos are subject to the copyright laws. The likenesses in the photos are subject to the invasion of privacy laws of appropriation. Two separate hurdles and analysis that a lot of people incorrectly mix together.</p>

[ellery_chua___singapore]

<p>My opinion to your last question - whether they can stop you from doing your job if you refuse; is that they can not do this to their client -the bride and groom.I had to do a wedding gig at a historical hotel they told me I could not use the foyer area and parts of the outside for some shots of the bride and groom. I spoke with the manager and that was his stand, I pointed out that their client had requested for that. His answer was this was their policy. It was interesting how fast this stand stood the minute the bride and groom questioned him what did he not understand by this was their wedding and they were a paying customer - something like 1 minute.<br>

Yes I agree we should try to sort out as much as possible by ourselves but when situations like this there is a need for the couple to be come involved. We need to know when this point is reached.</p>

[ellery_chua___singapore]

<p>My opinion to your last question - whether they can stop you from doing your job if you refuse; is that they can not do this to their client -the bride and groom.I had to do a wedding gig at a historical hotel they told me I could not use the foyer area and parts of the outside for some shots of the bride and groom. I spoke with the manager and that was his stand, I pointed out that their client had requested for that. His answer was this was their policy. It was interesting how fast this stand stood the minute the bride and groom questioned him what did he not understand by this was their wedding and they were a paying customer - something like 1 minute.<br>

Yes I agree we should try to sort out as much as possible by ourselves but when situations like this there is a need for the couple to be come involved. We need to know when this point is reached.</p>