# Wedding client altered my contract



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

Hey all, First post-timer and working my way up in the photography world here. I recently gave a wedding client my contract that addresses standard photography protections not just for myself, but also for my clients. The client altered several changes to my contract and sent me a 'revamped' one. Some of the terms she changed included copyright and model release. Original version in black. Altered version in red. What should I do? Sounds like a client I may need to turn down. Thanks for your input.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 7, 2017)

Not a pro, but I would not sign an altered contract without adjusting the costs.  They probably don't know what copyright really is, but If they want it, it would cost them thousands of dollars per photo.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

snowbear said:


> Not a pro, but I would not sign an altered contract without adjusting the costs.  They probably don't know what copyright really is, but If they want it, it would cost them thousands of dollars per photo.


I'd figured so but then she's a financial analyst which would make it hard for me to believe.


----------



## Gary A. (Sep 7, 2017)

I'd walk.  I see nothing but heartburn with the client.  If you do walk, be nice about it.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> I'd walk.  I see nothing but heartburn with the client.  If you do walk, be nice about it.


 It seems like it. And I will treat this with professionalism off course. Thanks for your input.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 7, 2017)

Find a new client.  Posted that before I read the "contract"... is that your version?  Or the client altered version?  Either way, it's gobblety-gook!


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Find a new client.  Posted that before I read the "contract"... is that your version?  Or the client altered version?  Either way, it's gobblety-gook!


No worries. That's the client altered version that I posted above. Thank you for advice!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 7, 2017)

Okay, then my advice stands.  Find a new client.  Could we see the original for comparison?


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Okay, then my advice stands.  Find a new client.  Could we see the original for comparison?


Certainly - you'll see it on the updated post.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 7, 2017)

Your original seems well written; maybe a bit over-the-top as far as the model release portion, but not bad.  The client clearly has no concept of copyright law.  I would NOT get involved with him/her.


----------



## Light Guru (Sep 7, 2017)

Tell them if they want copyright to the images you would gladly do so but the price will be more.

If they don't like it then tell them they will need to find a new photographer. 

And next time don't send them a contract they can edit.  Ether give them a printed document or a non editable PDF.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Your original seems well written; maybe a bit over-the-top as far as the model release portion, but not bad.  The client clearly has no concept of copyright law.  I would NOT get involved with him/her.


Thanks again for your advice. I greatly appreciate it. Sadly it sounds like the client would be a headache to deal with.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 7, 2017)

Light Guru said:


> Tell them if they want copyright to the images you would gladly do so but the price will be more.
> 
> If they don't like it then tell them they will need to find a new photographer.
> 
> And next time don't send them a contract they can edit.  Ether give them a printed document or a non editable PDF.


Maybe in the future when I gather more experience I'll discuss giving copyright to clients, but for now I'll pass. That's a great idea on the PDF - I don't know why I didn't do so. Thank you.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

there are substantial areas of business in which making edits to contracts is standard practice. in fact the retail photography business is the only one i can think of offhand where certain vendors brush off the idea of editing a contract.

a pdf can be printed and marked up with a pen. don't rely on technology to solve what is ultimately a problem of local customs.

its clear that what the client wants is some form of leverage. they want some legal recourse which gives them somethign otehr than a refund in the event that you drop the ball and fail to deliver, which isn't a horrible idea. they're not going to get a chance to reshoot.

obvously you'll be told that this is an awful idea and you should just blow these losers off, but if you offered them the right to a complete cpy of your raw unedited files if AND ONLY IF you fail to deliver by such and such a date and after so and so procedures for recourse blah blah. this covers them if you drop dead before you can get the edits done, etc, and it's obviously all they're looking for.

if you wanted to get fancy you could drop a copy of the data in  escrow the morning after the wedding, and pick it up after you complete your deliverables


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 8, 2017)

Their changes to the copyright section make no sense. They want to hold copyright while you have to work on the images, but not have it once they have the digital copies! I'm sure they will freely use those digital files regardless of copyright.
They also are demanding ALL the images that alone would be enough for me to politely turn them down.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 8, 2017)

You run a business, you set your policies within the legal limits of the laws.  Your potential clients will either agree and go forward with your services or or don't agree and find someone else.   You can't walk into a bank, trying to get a loan, and alter the lending agreement and tell the bank to agree to it.   In my personal opinion, I would decline this client in a heart beat.  Your sanity is worth more than this.

1.  The copyright clause doesn't make any sense and can get you in huge mess if you go through with it.
2.  The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act
3.  I'm not an attorney and this client sounds like a big headache.


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 8, 2017)

With weddings your always wary of bridezillas or momzillas.  And this just might be a clue to just that.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 8, 2017)

I just read the first couple lines but ... Put it this way

YOU are now LIABLE for what your CLIENT deems any breach of contract or PERCEIVED breach of contract.

DON'T DO IT ... just don't do it.  WALK away as fast as you can.


----------



## Designer (Sep 8, 2017)

Jmm06 said:


> What should I do? Sounds like a client I may need to turn down.


How badly do you need the job?


----------



## Designer (Sep 8, 2017)

Jmm06 said:


> I'll discuss giving copyright to clients, ..


Actually, I don't think you can even do that.  Please consult an attorney who practices in copyright law, but in my opinion, the copyright ALWAYS belongs to the creator, who can then sell/lease publishing rights as he wishes.  

See what staying at a Holiday Inn Express can do for you?


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> there are substantial areas of business in which making edits to contracts is standard practice. in fact the retail photography business is the only one i can think of offhand where certain vendors brush off the idea of editing a contract.
> 
> a pdf can be printed and marked up with a pen. don't rely on technology to solve what is ultimately a problem of local customs.
> 
> ...



It's almost as the client has switched the power and protection of my contract to favor in theirs, leaving me exposed. Therefore making me liable for any perceived breach of contract the client deems so.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 8, 2017)

well, yes. generally when negotiating a contract one tries to make it more advantageous to oneself and, perhaps, less so to the other parties. this is normal.

this client does not seem to be aware that retail photographers don't negotiate contracts, and doesn't understand enough of the technicalities on copyright law to write anything that makes sense. their intent is clear, though.

properly their idea would be structured, probably, as making the wedding photography a "work for hire" with the copyrights to the pictures transferring to the photographer at the successful conclusion of the contracted work. there's no reason, beyond tradition, that this isn't a perfectly sensible way to do things. the end result is the same when all goes well, and the client has a little more legal leverage if things go pear shaped.

a thought experiment: what happens if you get hit by a bus after the wedding but before you do any editing?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 8, 2017)

Jmm06 said:


> Giving them all the images, I would only give them in jpg small rather than raw to protect myself. Thank you for your input.


Where in their revised contract does it allow you to do that ??

Don't think in what "you read" the contract states.  But think in what the "customer" thinks the contract states.  If it doesn't specifically states something, then it DOES NOT specifically state it. If you gave them small JPEGs then you could be in breach of contract.

I'd rather have a verbal contract than the one they provided.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> You run a business, you set your policies within the legal limits of the laws.  Your potential clients will either agree and go forward with your services or or don't agree and find someone else.   You can't walk into a bank, trying to get a loan, and alter the lending agreement and tell the bank to agree to it.   In my personal opinion, I would decline this client in a heart beat.  Your sanity is worth more than this.
> 
> 1.  The copyright clause doesn't make any sense and can get you in huge mess if you go through with it.
> 2.  The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act
> 3.  I'm not an attorney and this client sounds like a big headache.



Couldn't agree more. There were minor changes that were negotiable, but the client changing my contract without giving me a heads up the copyright and a vast majority of the model release were red flags. Thanks for your advice.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

Designer said:


> Jmm06 said:
> 
> 
> > What should I do? Sounds like a client I may need to turn down.
> ...


Not badly enough that it will give me a heartburn and a headache.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

Designer said:


> Jmm06 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll discuss giving copyright to clients, ..
> ...



That's good to know, I'll look into that. Thank you.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 8, 2017)

of course you can sell a copyright. good lord. you don't even need to sell it for consideration, you can just give it away to someone if you like.

Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

astroNikon said:


> Jmm06 said:
> 
> 
> > Giving them all the images, I would only give them in jpg small rather than raw to protect myself. Thank you for your input.
> ...


That's definitely good to know, thank you. We agreed verbally over the phone upon giving them jpgs of all the images but nothing specific on size. I should clarify on that then.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 8, 2017)

A photographer provides the final product (digital images, albums, etc.) - *not* the original Raw images, *not* JPEGS of everything, only the final product.

Usually providing 'everything' including copyright may be done for commercial work at a high price. (Didn't Charlie (Snowbear) say thousands? that's it.) Or it's work for hire, which is usually done if the photographer is an employee and his/her job is taking photos.

I don't think I'd sign your contract if I was a client (because of the perpetual, unrestricted etc. including heirs, etc. etc.). As a photographer I don't get the part about commercial use without consent - why allow a client that at all? If it's my work it's not up to a client to use my work in any other way; the photos are for their personal use, period.

But what the client expects is inappropriate. You automatically own the copyright when you take the picture; those rights can be sold or transferred but I don't see how it's even possible for a client to hold copyright to photos they don't even have yet. And then to give copyright back to the photographer after the client gets all the photos, that doesn't make sense.

You need to know more about this type thing so you can have an informed discussion with the client and be able to explain things. Get on American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA and find resources from pro photographer organizations on contracts, licensing usage, etc. etc. You need to do some 'homework' so you know this stuff. And ASMP has webinars, and work/contract samples, etc. so you don't have to totally reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> well, yes. generally when negotiating a contract one tries to make it more advantageous to oneself and, perhaps, less so to the other parties. this is normal.
> 
> this client does not seem to be aware that retail photographers don't negotiate contracts, and doesn't understand enough of the technicalities on copyright law to write anything that makes sense. their intent is clear, though.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that I would need to assure the client about the copyright laws since they don't have an understanding of it and see if we're on the same page. As for your thought experiment, although that sounds a bit dramatic, I would have my girlfriend give the clients unedited jpg photos and have a photographer friend of mine, edit and complete the task.


----------



## KmH (Sep 8, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> 2.  The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act


There is no "Fair Use Act".
US Copyright law has a Fair Use *Doctrine*.
When  a copyright owner files an infringement action, Fair Use is adjudicated on a case-by-case basis in the Federal courts.
About the Fair Use Index | U.S. Copyright Office


> Although the Fair Use Index should prove helpful in understanding what courts have to date considered to be fair or not fair, it is not a substitute for legal advice. Fair use is a judge-created doctrine dating back to the nineteenth century and codified in the 1976 Copyright Act. Both the fact patterns and the legal application have evolved over time, and you should seek legal assistance as necessary and appropriate.



Of course if the OP isn't in the US (no location info in profile) US Copyright law would not apply.
It should also be noted that _release law varies by state_ in the US.

If the OP is in the US the second line under Copyright is not needed. It's counter productive to clutter up a contract with useless language.
I wonder. Has OP's contract been reviewed by a qualified attorney?

Negotiating contract terms is not something many retail photographers do. The OP could negotiate contracts terms both could agree too.
If negotiations fail have the prospective customer seek another photographer.


----------



## Jmm06 (Sep 8, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> A photographer provides the final product (digital images, albums, etc.) - *not* the original Raw images, *not* JPEGS of everything, only the final product.
> 
> Usually providing 'everything' including copyright may be done for commercial work at a high price. (Didn't Charlie (Snowbear) say thousands? that's it.) Or it's work for hire, which is usually done if the photographer is an employee and his/her job is taking photos.
> 
> ...



Even though the client specifically requested that they would like all of the unedited photos of the wedding. Otherwise like what you've mentioned in the first sentence, in the past I've have always gave my clients the final product and only so.

I'm guessing that the client is thinking this as a work-made-for-hire relationship with the photographer. I do not think my client understands the photography copyright laws - therefore I need to inform them and see if we're on the same page.

That's why I approached ThePhotoForum for valuable advice and find a direction of where I need to go. Thank you for your help.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 8, 2017)

Like Keith said, a prospective client often needs to go find another photographer, (such as a person with a camera who will give them a CD then disappear into the night - yes, sarcasm intended! lol) if they want all the photos, unedited. 

Pro photographers don't do that because it's your reputation on the line. So when a bunch of crappy looking badly edited pictures credited to you show up online posted by a client it makes you look like a crap photographer. 

Think about other types of jobs or services - is it acceptable to give a customer half done work? no. It's like if I'm writing something, would I give someone my notes or rough draft? no. Not unless for example it's a class/job and my instructor/boss wants to see the rough draft first; I have shared my rough draft with a colleague for a project being worked on. Beyond that I'm going to send out a final typed letter/article, not what's scribbled on a piece of paper.

I agree with clarifying it because the client doesn't know copyright information.


----------



## Vtec44 (Sep 8, 2017)

KmH said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  The client usage and model release portion should be covered under the Fair Use Act
> ...



There is a Fair Use Act, but you're right it would cover under Fair Use Doctrine and not Fair Use Act of 2007.


----------

