Wedding couple doesn't allow to publish their photos

[paul_ericcson]

<p>Hi there!</p>

<p>Need your advice guys. Not so long ago I was just starting out and didn't sign a contract with my wedding couple. Now after the wedding and after they've received all the pictures they say they don't want their pictures to be used on my website or anywhere else. The thing is I was doing this wedding for my portfolio only.</p>

<p>So here's what I have: no contract and the client that disagrees to allow me to use the pictures on my website.</p>

<p>The question is: can I publish the photos in my online portfolio considering the client doesn't want me to and I have no contract?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[william-porter]

<p>I'd say no. Sorry.</p>

<p>This is just one more in a never-ending line of posts here describing problems that arise from a lack of a contract, and often from the lack of any sort of verbal agreements beforehand. I'm not talking about the legal angle here. I'm talking about the <em>personal</em> angle. Whether it's a valid contract or simply a "letter of understanding," a photographer shooting a wedding needs to have it. </p>

<p>Will</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's not about the photos. It's about the faces. Showing them on your web site in a promotional capacity essentially says that they are endorsing you and your business. And they may indeed be very happy with what you did for them, just not happy to be used as faces in an advertisement. Unless they sign a release waiving their rights to privacy in this regard, no - you don't want to open yourself up to a suit.<br /><br />Ask them if they wouldn't mind being used in a NON-public portfolio that you show to prospects in person when talking about your work.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Here you are wrong sayng: "<em>The thing is I was doing this wedding for my portfolio only</em>"</p>

<p>If so, your intentiones were dishonest, and you did not tell them about it.</p>

<p>You were doing this for the customer, paid or not.<br>

Wedding is always for the marrying couple.</p>

<p> </p>

[savagesax]

I've photographed a few stars here in Los Angeles, several police officers, and 1 FBI personb/couple.

 

It's very simple - Respect their wishes.

 

Can you put some candids in, the cake pictures without the couple in the photo, a long view in which there is no way to see the faces, such as the back of the church, temple, wherever, perhaps an empty reception room shot before the people arrived, pretty much any shots that don't include faces. Maybe the rings? Well this could be a good start.

 

Get a contract made up. You can get all sorts of contracts off the internet and if needed just change it to meet your needs. If someone doesn't want to sign it, let them know it's for their protection as well as yours. I've never had a person refuse to sign one.

[william-porter]

<p>Frank, I think you're being a tad harsh in your interpretation of the OP's comment. We all understand that the photographer takes photos <em>for the couple.</em> That goes without saying. Otherwise, we'd be paying the couples rather than vice versa. The way I heard him, the OP was simply saying that he agreed to photograph the wedding for free with the understanding that he'd use the photos in his portfolio. Nothing more.</p>

<p>The problem is, he kept this understanding — his motive for shooting the wedding — to himself. It would have been a good idea to have shared it with the couple ahead of time and gotten them to agree. Most of us do this in our contracts.</p>

<p>Now, to be honest, I think the couple are being a bit, um, uncooperative. Why did <em>they</em> think the OP was willing to shoot their wedding — for the exercise? Personally I am inclined to think that any time anybody permits me to take their picture, they're permitting me to post the pic on the Internet, because it's just understood these days that that's what photographers do with their photos. (Selling the photo is a separate question.) So I'm not quite sure what the <em>legal</em> aspects of the couple's refusal of permission might be. And of course I don't know why they are denying him permission to post. Maybe they feel they don't look their best in the photos. Maybe they're very touchy about their privacy. </p>

<p>But not every issue rises to the level of requiring a legal analysis. Simply as a matter of business and personal relations, if the client asks you not to post, you don't post. </p>

<p>The OP takes this as a lesson learned and moves on.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Paul, chuck it up for experience (or inexperience) and go on. Get some models and stage a wedding...or pseudo type...create a nice 'folio....and have a contract next time...you certainly don't need legalities connected to this.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If they object and you don't have a contract I would not use the pictures. Whether you could or not legally, it's not worth the trouble.<br /><br />Since you say you shot this wedding "for my portfolio only" that sounds like you did it for free. Was there an understanding up front that you were doing this for your portfolio and that you would be showing the photos to prospective paying clients in the future? If so, why has has couple gone back on that understanding? Do they not like the pictures? <br /><br /></p>

[e_rin]

<p>Respect your clients wishes and move on.. stuff like this happens. If someone doesn't want you sharing their images with the world, you need to respect that. The last thing you want is a bad review from a client just because you chose to go against their request to keep their images private.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Learn and move on.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“<em>[the bride and groom]</em> say they don't want their pictures to be used on my website or anywhere else. . .<br>

The question is: can I publish the photos in my online portfolio considering the client doesn't want me to and I have no contract?’’</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your fledgling business seems to have an happy pair of Clients. <br>

A better question to ask yourself is - “why would I ever want to upset happy Clients, even if I had a contract signed to say I could use their images for the advertising of my business?”</p>

<p>WW</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>You can publish the photos anywhere you want. And unless you have a signed release from the B&G, they can sue you. </p>

<p>As others have stated in this thread, the answer is no, you cannot use their photos to publicize your business in any way without a signed release. This is why contracts are essential. </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Since there's no contract, can OP ask them not to publish those pics or take prints too? I mean, doesn't this work both ways considering he took those photos on his camera?</p>

<p>Hypothetical question here out of curiosity. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Here you are wrong sayng: "<em>The thing is I was doing this wedding for my portfolio only</em>"<br>

If so, your intentiones were dishonest, and you did not tell them about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The quote doesn't indicate whether intentions were dishonest or not. We weren't told if the couple were informed before hand. Even if they were not told, it doesn't indicate dishonesty. It merely indicates that the photographer wanted to use the images for promotion. If you have evidence that the photographer led the couple to believe that it would not be used, then the remark is appropriate. Otherwise you owe this poster an apology. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Since there's no contract, can OP ask them not to publish those pics or take prints too? I mean, doesn't this work both ways considering he took those photos on his camera?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Misappropriation concerns using one's likeness for advertising/endorsement uses, not using photos per se. You are discussing use of photos. We're talking about using likenesses of other people that happen to be visible in photos. Two completely different and separate issues. </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Hey John,</p>

<p>There was a recent thread where a bride said her father-in-law, who took her wedding photos, using her camera, has prevented her from posting them or printing them. I was wondering how he was able to do that to her, when the OP cannot do that to his clients?</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>There was a recent thread where a bride said her father-in-law, who took her wedding photos, using her camera, has prevented her from posting them or printing them. I was wondering how he was able to do that to her, when the OP cannot do that to his clients?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

As I just explained, rights over photos are treated differently and separately than rights to control use of one's likeness that happens to be seen in a photo. The other thread concerns whether the bride can use photos that someone else owns. Regardless of what is seen in the photos. A copyright issue. This thread concerns whether a photographer, who owns the copyright to the photos, can display the photos with recognizable people in them for promotional purposes. A likeness appropriation issue. The other thread is about photos. This thread is about people.<br>

<br>

</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Yes, I got that. But if the OP informs the clients that if they won't permit him to use these photos in his portfolio, then as the copyright owner, he will ask them not to use or print those pics in any way, then that may lead to a compromise between OP and his clients. </p>

[katrin_d.]

<p>Contract in writing is not what matters - what matters is consideration. There might as well have been a verbal agreement in that the clients agreed to let the photographer use the photos for portfolio building in lieu of payment. No judge would agree with the couple that the photographer shot for FREE and couldn't use the photos - there's no consideration. In any case, all legal aspects aside - why not talk to them and get to the bottom of why they don't want them published.<br>

<br />I've had some private clients who just didn't like the idea, some law enforcement [DEA] whose privacy I respect ... bottom line - they all had a good reason. Maybe your couple has as well. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>It is generally a poor business strategy to 'get a reason' for a simple request to what appears to be an happy Client who is simply requesting something which is well within the means of the Vendor. More so now, that the job I done.</p>

<p>Intrinsic to 'getting a reason' is implied deliberation, judgement and a counter action or debate of that reason.</p>

<p>'Negotiation' is, of course integral to any business - and life generally.</p>

<p>The situation as outlined by the OP is <strong>the job is done</strong>; and (assumed) the Customers are happy. . . but they have a request which can easily be filled by the OP simply by doing nothing, except saying "sure, no problem I'll post none on my website at all" . . . maybe adding "I'd really like to print these seven so I can put them in my Wedding Samples Album and they will ONLY be shown in person by me to prospective Clients as a sample of my work, would that be OK?" . . . and then shut up and go with what the Client says.</p>

<p>WW<br /> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Drop it and move on. Don't use the photos in your portfolio or to show others your work. </p>

<p>Lesson: Get their permission beforehand and in writing. If you are doing a wedding on the cheap to build a portfolio TELL THE CLIENT THAT UPFRONT. Don't wait until you've shot the wedding and delivered the photos. </p>

<p>Lesson: Some client's don't want their personal life plastered all over the web. Learn to deal with it. For every client who doesn't want photos of their wedding on the web, there's five that won't mind it. </p>

<p>I had a wedding last year - during the consultation they (couple) demanded to see photos of other weddings - including a complete wedding. I obliged and we start talking contract. They look over the contract and redline (delete) the section regarding me being able to use the photos in a portfolio, to show other couples as a sample, and the part about me keeping a backup copy of their photos for 3 years. They replace it with: Once photographer has finished editing, and delivers final accepted images to us, he shall immediately delete all copies of all images of our wedding and not retain any copy for any reason. </p>

<p>When they got the images, they called and said - go ahead and delete. I did. I have a copy of that contract filed away, so if they ever call or write asking for copies of their images, I can hold that up and say - don't have them, per the agreement. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>if the OP informs the clients that if they won't permit him to use these photos in his portfolio, then as the copyright owner, he will ask them not to use or print those pics in any way, then that may lead to a compromise between OP and his clients.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doubtful. Considering that the client can easily cause trouble for the photographer while the photographer having to literally make a federal case out of it and will encounter further bad publicity. Even if he spent all sorts of money and effort to go to court, probably lose due to an implied license, what will be gained? Nothing. Its one shoot. Its not a make or break issue. Even sending DMCA notices to Facebook or whoever will cause net negative result.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"No judge would agree with the couple that the photographer shot for FREE and couldn't use the photos - there's no consideration."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Misappropriation has nothing to do with whether a photographer is paid or given other value unless the value obtained includes the permission to use the likenesses for promotional purposes. If consideration, per se, were an element of misappropriation, photographers could use any likeness they shot by request (where they did't receive payment or other value) and then use the image for all manner of commercial/endorsement uses. That's just nonsense.<br /><br />If they are in a jurisdiction that treats portfolio images as mere work samples rather than endorsements, promotional uses or the like, then there will be no misappropriation at all and they are free to use the likenesses forportfolio sample use. The wrath of the couple being the main problem..<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Paul, I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from all of this - the value of a worthwhile Contract and the value of communication. Since you have no Contract is very difficult for you to define what has or has not been agreed. However I would be very surprised indeed if you had agreed to shoot this wedding for free (if that were the case) and had not mentioned portfolio use to the clients. If so, then you have embarked upon a largely pointless exercise, apart from getting some practice.</p>

<p>It appears to me that you have two options. You can accept their decision and leave it at that, or else you could have a polite and very friendly chat with the clients, with the aim of resolving the matter. There is nothing wrong with talking to your clients about this, providing you go about it the right way and provided you are not visibly defensive. I would start by asking, out of interest, why they should wish that the images are kept private. It may be that their concerns are based upon misunderstandings and can easily be allayed. I would also put it to them that it is standard practice that the photographer retains the right to use their photographs to promote their business, since without examples of recent work it can be difficult to get new customers. You could perhaps negotiate the different usages which would be acceptable to the client. Most people are reasonable, and if you put it to them in the right way it is quite possible your clients will understand where you're coming from. If you photograph a wedding for free then it is only fair you should get something in return, but that does need to be specified in writing before you do anything.</p>