Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

A friend in a major city in Washington state is getting married. The photographer is considered 'high end' and is charging $6,750.00. The photographer's contract has some startling provisions:

1. The couple must give the shooter an unlimited model release for images of themselves, singly or together or in groups;
2. The couple must pay the shooter's legal fees if person(s) at the wedding sue him over his use of their non-model released images (like if the person(s) is in the background, a group shoot, or a candid;
3. Photographer ... not the couple ... owns copyright.

I would appreciate your comments on these issues. What is 'normal?' Do these sound fair to you? For those of you who shoot weddings, what are your terms?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

#1 & 2 will not stand in court. One cannot give away rights of another person unless one is the legal guardian to that person. I would not worry at all on this one.
#3 is normal and accepted practice. It prevents the client from making/printing their own images and inflicting monetary damages to the photographer.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

When I did weddings, in my contract my lawyer put an item, All Images created at the wedding can be used by the photographer for his marketing efforts. Never had an issue.
Interesting first two items created by lawyer.

BebuLamar

I wouldn't sign the contract and how do the couple have the right to sign model release for the guests?

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Time to get a couple more bids. One should never make significant purchases without three bids.

For me this one is a reject on price and terms.

repleo Loc: Boston

The only reason for the first two would be if the Photographer intends to publish or sell the rights to publish, the photos of the wedding himself. If he is looking for models he should be paying the couple, not charging them.

wishaw

What does your friend get for $6750?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Absolutely ridiculous - in my humble opinion. Does he also get to spend the wedding night with the bride?

jsfphotos Loc: New York, NY

While the price is on the high side, it's not exorbitant for a "high end" wedding photographer. Photographers around here charge from $3,000 to $6,000 and up, depending on experience and reputation. As far as the legal clauses, the photographer always owns the photos and really needs to have a clause about being able to use the images in their marketing. How else can they demonstrate they've done beautiful wedding photography? That's pretty standard in any contract. The bit about not being responsible if someone ELSE sues is not something I've ever heard of. This is a lawyer trying to protect his client, but in these days of Instagram, I'd like to see someone try to sue. Don't think they'd get very far.

gmsatty Loc: Chicago IL

Get a new photographer. Paying that kind of money, you should have total control.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I would also protest and demand removal of the provision in #2 about the couple being responsible for the shooter's legal fees should a guest sue him for inappropriate and unauthorized use of a photo he took; that's an issue between he and the guest, and if he is a "professional" wedding photographer he should know what he should not photograph. The B&G definitely don't want to find a wedding photo published in one of the more risque magazines. I also like the provision mentioned in the second post that limits his use of the photos to his marketing efforts.

On the "other side of the coin" I'm surprised that he didn't ask for a restriction on anyone else taking pictures at 'his' event, but maybe he has learned that with most everyone carrying a phone/camera, it would be too hard to control and the damage to his reputation not worth the battle and costs.

BebuLamar

Still I wouldn't give away model release because he can sell the pictures for just about any purposes.

BebuLamar

Sure because if I were a guess and he uses my pictures for profit I would certainly sue him. The couple have no right to sign model release for the guess.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

For the past 50 years right up to the present my wedding photography contracts have an intrinsic clause pertaining to copyright status AND a usage release as follows:

"All images made in connection with this contract may be used by the studio for showroom or public display, advertising, sales promotion and teaching purposes"

We are careful to explain this to each client and have them initial this paragraph. Most of our clients do not object. If the do, usually as a matter of privacy, I will strike the clause. After all, we aren't news gathering or photographing folks in a public place- we are covering a private ceremony and party on their behalf and at their expense. I work in a government town, Canada's Capital. Some of our clients are police officers, military personnelle, foreign diplomats, government officials or employees or corporate folks who don't want their weddings displayed all over town- much less the Internet. We will NEVER put anythg online without specific written permission.

Any wedding photographer/business person worth his or her salt, needs to indemnify themselves against lawsuits and bad customer and public relations with accompanies adversarial relationships with clients.

As for the OP's question. I don't think the client can or SHOULD indemnify the photographer against a third party. Perhaps that photographer had an issue with a guest at a wedding? That's why wedding photographers need public liability insurance- we are working on location on private property- homes, churches, public parks, gardens and spaces, hotels and catering establishments. If we should inadvertently or accidently cause damage or have an issue with a guest, we can't expect our clients to pay the damages or legal fees. THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!

In 5+ decades, of weddings, I have never had an issue with a guest or member of a bridal party as to theses matters. I would never hold a wedding client responsible for someone else's actions or expenses- I would ask that that clause be stricken. If the have already signed up- it's too late! If something were to occur, I don't know if that clause would hold up in court- I am not a lawyer, however, if it's an agreement between two parties it may be valid. I hope the couple are never faced with such a problem. I would not advise hiring an uninsured photgraher!!

As for copyright- y'all can't blame wedding photographers for protecting their work. Even amateurs, serious workers, pros and folks in othere fields of photography don't want their work used, published, copied or reproduced withou their permission and proper remuneration. Right here on our forum there are always many conversation about this, Google and othere services using our stuff, and watermarking etc.

Fees and prices- My philosophy is simple. Each photographer knows, deep down, what his or her work is truly worth and charges accordingly. I will never attempt to put a value on someone else's products, especially if I don't know what the are producing and what is involved in any given package or contract. Nowadays- 6 grand is not disproportionate to many big wedding budgets.

PS- There is a WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY section here on the forum- y'all can go there for future opinions. There are a few experienced wedding shooter hang in down there! Click on "ALL SECTIONS" and you'll find us!

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I would not sign that model release. I would sign one that granted permission for the photographer to use the images to promote her work, including her web site. I would not give the photographer blanket permission to use the images for any purpose. While I believe that paragraph 2 may be enforceable, I would limit it to legal actions brought by a guest for the use of an image that is not part of the photographers promotional work, again including her web site. If the photographer really wants protection she should request the inclusion in the wedding program a statement that the guests agree that casual images of themselves at the wedding may be seen in the photographers promotional materials.