which agreement ??

[DavidG]

I have recently shot a wedding. I have an agreement with the couple to let me use the photos for my promotional purposes. Should I wish to sell the image/s for books etc then a new agreement is required.

The wedding venue has asked for some photos to put on their brochures/website with me getting photographic credit and referrals. Since this is promotional but done by a third party do I need a further release (model release or the likes).

What are your thoughts any agreement I should have with the venue and their usage.

Thanks,

[Longshots]

Yes you would need a release for the commercial use by the wedding venue.

That's assuming that I'm guessing correctly what your agreement might be with the couple.

[DavidG]

Yes you would need a release for the commercial use by the wedding venue.

That's assuming that I'm guessing correctly what your agreement might be with the couple.

So whilst I have a promotional agreement with the couple, I need a commerical agreement with them for third party promotion?

Is it reasonable in your opinion that credit/refferal from the venue is a fair trade?

Thanks again ...

[Keith]

I think it would depend on the original agreement, you say "Should I wish to sell the image/s" but you are not selling them to the venue (or are you?).

Can I ask is this a normal thing you agree on, sounds strange (to me anyway) that you need to track them down every time you want to use the photos you took for your own promotion?

[DavidG]

I think it would depend on the original agreement, you say "Should I wish to sell the image/s" but you are not selling them to the venue (or are you?).

Can I ask is this a normal thing you agree on, sounds strange (to me anyway) that you need to track them down every time you want to use the photos you took for your own promotion?

Sorry if I was unclear .... If I'm promoting myself then I do not need a further contact with the customer - that is covered in my initial wedding contract.

If I wish to sell the images then I do. I believe this is fairly standard contract for AIPP members.

I've just haven't done this before and so am seeking advice.

Cheers,

[kiwi]

I use a sample that says :

" MODEL RELEASE. The CLIENT hereby grants to x and successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, attorneys, representatives and agents, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the CLIENT or in which the CLIENT may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising or any other purpose and in any manner or medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.
"
if that helps at all

[DavidG]

I use a sample that says :

" MODEL RELEASE. The CLIENT hereby grants to x and successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, attorneys, representatives and agents, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the CLIENT or in which the CLIENT may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising or any other purpose and in any manner or medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.
"
if that helps at all

So that bascially allows me to do as I please ??

What does " to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same " mean ??

[kiwi]

I presume that it allows you to alter any photograph and it's subequent use and to copyright any derivative. I haven't had a legal check really.

I think I got this off the AIPP smaple contracts, but, Id have to check as it was awhile ago

[DavidG]

I presume that it allows you to alter any photograph and it's subequent use and to copyright any derivative. I haven't had a legal check really.

I think I got this off the AIPP smaple contracts, but, Id have to check as it was awhile ago

yeah so free to do as you please. Sounds like something that would be good in all contracts from the photogs point of view.

[bigdazzler]

My understanding is that given the couple have commissioned you to photograph the wedding, they are sole copyright owners of the images. Most wedding contracts are drawn up in a way that the photographer can use the images for self promotion but cannot sell the images to anyone other than the client. Thats what mine says anyway (Its a pretty basic agreement), and yours sounds like its similar.

In my case I would need to get permission from the client to sell the images to the venue for use in their brochure. I suppose you could avoid this by stating in the agreement that you can sell the images, but I can only assume that most people wouldnt really like that idea.

I am only a weekend warrior so not sure how much legality is involved in all of this. I just tried to apply common sense when I drafted my contract/agreement. It may not be worth the paper its written on

[Longshots]

A very strong word of warning.


Sorry, but Kiwi's term would not hold up. Yes it might have been taken off the AIPP site, but its also completely out of context !!

And OK I'm not a "weekend warrior", I'm a working pro, but at the same time this is just my opinion based on my working experience, as a commercial advertising photographer (that does/has shot weddings).

Simply put you have to understand what is reasonable and fair.

And BigDazzler/Darren is on the right note - which is correct, to the point of the photographer having a term and condition which overides the customers rights for studios/photographers to retain their copyright - but that doesnt mean that gives the studios/photographers to onsell the images from their personal wedding to any 3rd party for commercial advertising purposes.


At the end of the day it needs to be fair to your couple. Sure, you can expect to be able to use your images in your promotion, advertising etc _if you have that term in your contract as personal photography (wedding and portrait fall into the "personal" category) is treated differenty under Australian Copyright. But you cannot - definitely not - stretch that to encompass commercial use by a 3rd party. If you did, I can guarantee you'll find yourself in a minefield that you wont want to be in.

But if you are considering selling them to someone else (remember it was their wedding, which they paid you to photograph), then you need their agreement, and Kiwi's term is a recipe to disaster.

So please dont consider that you can do with them what you like, because even if you have what you think is a good term, it could still be contested.

You definitely do need a release in this specific situation, and not just a signed release, but they ( the wedding couple, that their private wedding is now potentially going to be used for the next decade to advertise and promote a wedding venue) need something in return for their agreement. By that I mean read most model releases, as they start with "For valuable consideration........", which means something is given to them of value. Now that could be a big print or something similar. I'm pretty sure, that they would have paid full price for using the venue, so I dont think they would be too impressed to be the talent in an image that is then used to promote the place.

And btw what happens if the happy couple split up in the next few years. What then ? Lawyers, messy claims etc etc etc...

[flash]

I gotta agree with longshots, having read Kiwis terms I would not use that photographer! the photos could end up anywhere

[bigdazzler]

A very strong word of warning.


Sorry, but Kiwi's term would not hold up. Yes it might have been taken off the AIPP site, but its also completely out of context !!

And OK I'm not a "weekend warrior", I'm a working pro, but at the same time this is just my opinion based on my working experience, as a commercial advertising photographer (that does/has shot weddings).

Simply put you have to understand what is reasonable and fair.

And BigDazzler/Darren is on the right note - which is correct, to the point of the photographer having a term and condition which overides the customers rights for studios/photographers to retain their copyright - but that doesnt mean that gives the studios/photographers to onsell the images from their personal wedding to any 3rd party for commercial advertising purposes.


At the end of the day it needs to be fair to your couple. Sure, you can expect to be able to use your images in your promotion, advertising etc _if you have that term in your contract as personal photography (wedding and portrait fall into the "personal" category) is treated differenty under Australian Copyright. But you cannot - definitely not - stretch that to encompass commercial use by a 3rd party. If you did, I can guarantee you'll find yourself in a minefield that you wont want to be in.

But if you are considering selling them to someone else (remember it was their wedding, which they paid you to photograph), then you need their agreement, and Kiwi's term is a recipe to disaster.

So please dont consider that you can do with them what you like, because even if you have what you think is a good term, it could still be contested.

You definitely do need a release in this specific situation, and not just a signed release, but they ( the wedding couple, that their private wedding is now potentially going to be used for the next decade to advertise and promote a wedding venue) need something in return for their agreement. By that I mean read most model releases, as they start with "For valuable consideration........", which means something is given to them of value. Now that could be a big print or something similar. I'm pretty sure, that they would have paid full price for using the venue, so I dont think they would be too impressed to be the talent in an image that is then used to promote the place.

And btw what happens if the happy couple split up in the next few years. What then ? Lawyers, messy claims etc etc etc...

I reckon most of that is all just common sense anyway ... I wrote something in my little agreement that says something like "If its ok, I would like to use the images for my promotional material if you dont mind, but I promise you I wont sell or gain from them in any other way commerically." I think that only fair to everyone. Most couples are ok with this kind of arrangement no ??

[kiwi]

when you say out of context, it was purported to be a standard wedding contract.

[Longshots]

when you say out of context, it was purported to be a standard wedding contract.

Yeah Kiwi, but you only quote a small few words of it

So its most definitely out of context, mate.


You said this

I think I got this off the AIPP smaple contracts, but, Id have to check as it was awhile ago

After you had posted this

" MODEL RELEASE. The CLIENT hereby grants to x and successors, heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, attorneys, representatives and agents, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the CLIENT or in which the CLIENT may be included, for editorial, trade, advertising or any other purpose and in any manner or medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same.

Which btw, is not from AIPP as its an american wording (note the word "attorneys", and the american system of copyright), and it definitely does not cover weddings - as its clearly a "model release". Sure you can get this signed as well as the wedding contract, but it wont be valid if there isnt a suitable term in the wedding contract. Oh and you've left an important part of the Model Release, that part about why they would sign it - "For considerable........" - so again, out of context.
"

Here is a typical Model Release that I've used:

For valuable consideration which I have received, I grant William Long/Longshots Photography and his agents and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right and permission to use or alter any photographic images of me, or in which I may be included in any media now or hereafter known for any other purpose whatsoever.
I hereby release the Photographer and his agents and assigns from all claims and liability relating to the use of the said photographs.

Which means that they get something for signing the release.

You did say that it was from the AIPP - which its not. So if you're going to say its from AIPP, then a) you need to say exactly where from, and b) you need to include all the other parts for it to make sense I'm afraid, and c) even what you quoted does not include selling it to a 3rd party for commercial purposes.

And BTW, something else I didnt really think of, but I'm reasonably sure that this would be deemed unethical if a photographer sold on images from a wedding, for commercial (ie advertising/promotional) purposes. You might like to read the excellent AIPP wedding contract - which has been checked legally, so I'm told.

[bigdazzler]

And BTW, something else I didnt really think of, but I'm reasonably sure that this would be deemed unethical if a photographer sold on images from a wedding, for commercial (ie advertising/promotional) purposes. .

I tend to agree on this point ... and Bella has just chimed in over my shoulder and said that no way in the world would she allow that (beware the looming bride to be )

[kiwi]

Yeah Kiwi, but you only quote a small few words of it

So its most definitely out of context, mate.


You said this




After you had posted this



Which btw, is not from AIPP as its an american wording (note the word "attorneys", and the american system of copyright), and it definitely does not cover weddings - as its clearly a "model release". Sure you can get this signed as well as the wedding contract, but it wont be valid if there isnt a suitable term in the wedding contract. Oh and you've left an important part of the Model Release, that part about why they would sign it - "For considerable........" - so again, out of context.
"

Here is a typical Model Release that I've used:


Which means that they get something for signing the release.

You did say that it was from the AIPP - which its not. So if you're going to say its from AIPP, then a) you need to say exactly where from, and b) you need to include all the other parts for it to make sense I'm afraid, and c) even what you quoted does not include selling it to a 3rd party for commercial purposes.

And BTW, something else I didnt really think of, but I'm reasonably sure that this would be deemed unethical if a photographer sold on images from a wedding, for commercial (ie advertising/promotional) purposes. You might like to read the excellent AIPP wedding contract - which has been checked legally, so I'm told.

All fair enough, I said that I wasnt sure if it was the AIPP one, which I do have, but that Id check later

[maccaroneski]

I tend to agree on this point ... and Bella has just chimed in over my shoulder and said that no way in the world would she allow that (beware the looming bride to be )

What would Bella say if offered half price for the photographer to do the shoot, give you a non-exclusive rights to print and show the shots, and retain a right to onsell them to a 3rd party for that third party's non-exclusive use? What if the deal was "free"? Or the photographer paid you?

I can't see what is unethical about a commercial arrangement entered into at arms' length between a service provider and a client, assuming that both parties have equal bargaining power, understand the contract etc etc. Of course if the contract does not provide such terms....I am in full agreement.

Ultimately if the photographer presents you with a term you don't like, negotiate it out or move on.

[Longshots]

What would Bella say if offered half price for the photographer to do the shoot, give you a non-exclusive rights to print and show the shots, and retain a right to onsell them to a 3rd party for that third party's non-exclusive use? What if the deal was "free"? Or the photographer paid you?

I can't see what is unethical about a commercial arrangement entered into at arms' length between a service provider and a client, assuming that both parties have equal bargaining power, understand the contract etc etc. Of course if the contract does not provide such terms....I am in full agreement.

Ultimately if the photographer presents you with a term you don't like, negotiate it out or move on.

Now I was talking about the original question with the original information given

Of course there could be plenty of ifs and buts offered, and alternative examples considered. One could go on endlessly with alternative possibilities. But thats not the question. So if one sticks to that first question and all of the information given to date (prior to your suggestion of agreeing prior to the event - when there would be nothing physically to "sell" to the client - the wedding venue), then yes, I would maintain that without any specific addiontal agreement to sell to a 3rd party, it would be most definitely unethical based on all of that original information.

Of course it would be quite different if this was all agreed prior to the event.

But that isnt the case here.

[bigdazzler]

What would Bella say if offered half price for the photographer to do the shoot, give you a non-exclusive rights to print and show the shots, and retain a right to onsell them to a 3rd party for that third party's non-exclusive use? What if the deal was "free"? Or the photographer paid you?

I can't see what is unethical about a commercial arrangement entered into at arms' length between a service provider and a client, assuming that both parties have equal bargaining power, understand the contract etc etc. Of course if the contract does not provide such terms....I am in full agreement.

Ultimately if the photographer presents you with a term you don't like, negotiate it out or move on.

We didnt discuss variables mate .. but I dont think she would like her wedding pictures being sold on at all. She may surprise me though, ill put it to her and get back to you.