# Appropriate use of photos?



## awes1964 (Nov 26, 2013)

hey all, I'm new here but wanted some feedback from experienced photographers.  I had some photos taken of my son by a professional photographer for his senior year in high school.  I did not see, but in print in the contract are these statements:

_"1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints, thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer)."_

and:

_"I always post my latest work on (photographer) blog and on my Facebook. To see your images posted, become a fan on facebook! This will not only give you access to your posted images, but will also keep you in the loop with the latest shoots, promos and events! Most clients love when (photographer) tags their images on face book. If you would prefer not to be posted on Facebook, tagged, or would rather tag yourself only in your favorite images, please let me know ahead of time so I can be sensitive to your wishes."_

What are peoples thought?  this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like.  I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"?  

I'm not some artist basher - I'm an architect and work with photographers all them time and support them getting work out there - this one just seems too much to me.  Am I off base here?

Thanks


----------



## tirediron (Nov 26, 2013)

This is 100% normal.  You don't actually own the images; like software your payment is for the right to use the them, and the photographer retains ownership of them regardless.  With few exceptions (commercial use, inappropriate use (read, "Illegal"), he can do pretty much whatever he wants.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 26, 2013)

I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.

An important lesson as to why you need to read a contract before signing.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

Ok, so in the contract you signed you state this appears:



awes1964 said:


> _"I always post my latest work on (photographer) blog and on my Facebook. To see your images posted, become a fan on facebook! This will not only give you access to your posted images, but will also keep you in the loop with the latest shoots, promos and events! Most clients love when (photographer) tags their images on face book. If you would prefer not to be posted on Facebook, tagged, or would rather tag yourself only in your favorite images, please let me know ahead of time so I can be sensitive to your wishes."_


And yet you go on to state:



> this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like.



Which tells me you didn't read or understand the contract you signed. Yes, he did let you know that he was planning to post these on facebook, right there in the written agreement that you signed - a signature, I would point out, that acknowledges that you understood and agreed to the stipulations in the contract. He even mentions in this stipulation that if you have any objections to this all you have to do is let him know ahead of time and he won't post them on facebook, something I'm guessing you failed to do - and yet now you apparently wish to decry the photographer when in truth you were the one who has failed to live up to your end of the agreement.

So in answer to your question are you off base? Absolutely. Way off base. At the moment your standing in the outfield somewhere and facing the wrong direction, to continue the baseball metaphor. Now from the way he worded this agreement it sounds like this photographer is a pretty reasonable person. What I would advise you to do is contact them, politely explain that you really didn't realize that he would be posting these on face book and simply ask him nicely if he could please take the images off facebook for you. I'm guessing if you approach it that way you probably won't have a problem.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 26, 2013)

"*I did not see, but in print in the contract are these statements:*" >SNIP>

Well, my guess is that somebody told somebody everything that was to be expected, most likely before the shoot even took place. And yes, the situation as described is pretty common in this, the second decade of the 21st Century. We live in an era where social media is common, and "tagging" of images on FB allows people who might know people to see the images of said people.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

ronlane said:


> I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.
> 
> An important lesson as to why you need to read a contract before signing.



Oh ron, that reminds me.  The studio called, they wanted you to come in for a second read on that soap opera part you were up for.. the blind lawyer?  They think you'd be perfect.. lol


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2013)

Given the number of people who are surprised to learn what's in the contract, it sounds like many professional photographers are not doing a good job of going over these pretty important points up front.

Is it common to send the contract home with the client, to be returned with a signature later, or is it more usual to say "here's our standard contract, signature here, here, initial there, thanks"?

In the latter case, it behooves the contractor to take a little time to skim over the contract with the contractee, giving a rough precis of what's in it. Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards. Only a small percentage of people will in fact wade through the contract at precisely that moment, slowing things down.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 26, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on TV. But it was in the contract that I assume was signed ahead of time. The photog typically own the photos, so they can do what they wish. Sounds like he/she is being up front on the facebook thing by having it in the contract and that gives you notice before hand.
> ...



Oh sweet, I've been waiting on that call back. Left me finish this paperwork up and run my other errand and I'll be there. [now where did I put that walking stick and my braille machine.????]


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

OP I agree with the others, you've signed a contract that is standard and that gives the photographer every right to do what they have done. That said its likely that the photographer is used to people going through the same predicament that you are right now; or those who change their minds after the fact - however its set out the photographer when approached calmly and clearly should be willing to remove the photos from display. Whilst they want to promote and display their work the loss of one session shouldn't be much to them (they'll have others to promote and show). 



amolitor said:


> Is it common to send the contract home with the client, to be returned with a signature later, or is it more usual to say "here's our standard contract, signature here, here, initial there, thanks"?



For something like a portrait session the latter might be the more common simply as a matter of timing and the photographer trying to ensure a simple and well paced transaction whilst at the same time protecting themselves legally (at the same time of course). It might well lead to more rushed contract signing than is ideal; although they should aim in this day and age, to cover things like facebook and promotional display.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 26, 2013)

I have no problem with the 'this is our standard contract, sign here' approach. It's used a lot, and it works fine.

What makes it better, though, is when you build in a couple of minutes and a little canned patter of the form:

"So this section just covers what we're doing and where, it's s studio shoot so it just says we're shooting here. Here we're talking about which print package you're getting, in your case it's 1 8x10 and 15 wallet sized, blah blah. This next bit is important, it says that you're paying for the photography NOT for any rights, we retain those, and for any more prints you have to come back to us and pay the standard rates. Now this next paragraph... " etc.

It just takes a couple minutes, it protects everyone a little bit more, and it prevents unpleasantness. Best to have a standard set of answers for common questions that will arise.


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2013)

Aye and I agree and I suspect that its going to become even more critical in todays world where marketing isn't just your picture being known in the town but pretty much the world over by any online marketing. It's a fantastic tool for marketing, but at the same time comes with the baggage that not everyone really wants to be "marketed" world wide (even if 5 seconds later they are posting pics online themselves). 

It's a changing market; much like many photographers are finding that supply of digital files ready for facebook display are part of what many clients want (and if htey don't get it have the hardware if not the full know how of producing it themselves i).


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 26, 2013)

The photographer has the copyright for whatever photos they take, however I think it's up to you if you sign a contract. If the contract isn't reviewed with you so that you understand what you're signing that's probably the time to ask questions. If you didn't want to have your under 18 year old child's photos used for advertising or posted on social media sites it might have been better to find another photographer. 

I don't think it seems appropriate or necessarily professional to tell clients the only way to access their photos is thru a social media site where the photos are then under Terms & Conditions of that site, but apparently people are using their Facebook pages as an alternative to having their own site or using one that has protected galleries that can only be accessed by the clients (which is what I've known photographers to use for senior or student athlete photos). 

I usually take time to read anything I have to sign even if it takes time to do that, and in my professional work (not photography related) that's what I'd typically recommend to families. Maybe if you express your concerns you could work out something with this photographer.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards.



At the end of the day, though, that's the fault of the client, not the photographer. 

When I bought my house, I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

The last time I financed a car (some 15 years ago) I read every last word on every last page of the contract. Every. Damn. Word.

As person who was going to be forking the cash, it was in my best interest to do so. Whenever I hear someone say "I didn't see this in the contract", there is only one reason for that: They didn't read what they were signing...


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 26, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise you wind up with the contractee signing something unread, and then being surprised afterwards.
> ...



Wait.. I'm sensing a pattern here.. don't help me.. lol



> As person who was going to be forking the cash, it was in my best interest to do so. Whenever I hear someone say "I didn't see this in the contract", there is only one reason for that: They didn't read what they were signing...



Well Steve, I guess all I can add to that would be.. damn skippy.


----------



## orljustin (Nov 29, 2013)

"What are peoples thought? this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like. I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"? "

Unfirtunately, many 'pros', including a lot here, will include legal wording like that to use the images of your family, that you paid to have taken, as advertising fodder for their business.  Next time, you'll have to shop harder for a photographer that respects your desires, or negotiate those bits out of the contract.

It's not something I would do without a separate model release for advertising and a heavily discounted rate as compensation.  Totally optional.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 29, 2013)

Have you even asked them if you wouldn't mind removing the picture of your son yet?

A simple: Hey, we appreciate the picture you took and understand you want to show off _your_ work and signed a release that allowed you to do this, but we'd feel a little better if you could remove the picture you took of our son off FB. It's not you, it's me.


----------



## Tee (Nov 29, 2013)

I don't photograph minors so I'm not entirely sure about this but...if the son was 17 wouldn't the parent need to sign a model release?


----------



## KmH (Nov 29, 2013)

The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
This is a model release:



> _1. This agreement constitutes an order for portraiture services, including the taking of pictures as agreed to by both parties: (photographer) and Contracting Party (Client). Unless otherwise specified, it is understood that any and all rights to proofs, final or sample prints,__*thereof shall remain the property of (photographer) and may be used for advertising, display or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer).*_


----------



## orljustin (Nov 29, 2013)

KmH said:


> The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
> This is a model release:
> 
> 
> ...



If we're going to be particular, that specifically refers to 'prints'.  I don't see any release for digital advertising.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 29, 2013)

It really doesn't, but it doesn't help the entire thing was written grammatically incorrect.

The first sentence specifically mentions it is agreed the service is for "taking of pictures".

The second sentence says all proofs, *and* prints, are property of the photographer and may be used in advertising or display or any other purpose.

There is no definition that says a proof, final print, or sample print cannot be digital or, to that matter, what exactly a proof, final print, or sample print is.  I'd argue a proof is a digital copy of the picture.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 29, 2013)

orljustin said:


> "What are peoples thought? this photographer posted every photo they took on facebook and tagged him without letting us know they were going up or without any input from my son about photos he did not like. I know that we signed this contract - but is this contract even appropriate, and can a photograher, no matter the contract, actually claim all rights to do whatever they want whenever they want, and they are the only opinion on what's "proper"? "
> 
> Unfirtunately, many 'pros', including a lot here, will include legal wording like that to use the images of your family, that you paid to have taken, as advertising fodder for their business.  Next time, you'll have to shop harder for a photographer that respects your desires, or negotiate those bits out of the contract.
> 
> It's not something I would do without a separate model release for advertising and a heavily discounted rate as compensation.  Totally optional.



well, many photographers, including a lot here, offer different pricing depending on what level of ownership you want of the photos taken. 
I believe this has been covered before, but I will try again.  I will give you an example based on what WE do.

someone comes to us and wants portraits taken. great. 
there are two prices. one price, a more expensive option, that says we do not use their photos in any way for advertising, digital or otherwise. 
the other price, obviously cheaper, says that in exchange for this discounted rate, we get the rights to use photos of our choosing for our portfolio and advertising. 
the client then gets to choose which option they wish to go with. if they CHOOSE the cheaper option after all of this is explained to them, and sign the contract accepting the terms of that option, then they have no right to complain later. it is not about "legalese", it is about people not reading what they are signing until long after the fact, or not asking about things they dont understand. 
this is largely not the fault of the photographer, but rather, the client. 

It really is such a simple concept. 
if you do not like the terms the photographer is offering, don't use that photographer. 
But, you wont KNOW what the terms of the photographer are unless you READ the contract. 
if you don't understand something...ASK. if they wont explain it so you DO understand....don't use that photographer. 
i don't understand why people blame the photographers for a clients refusal to do even the smallest amount of reading and/or research before spending their money.


----------



## KmH (Nov 29, 2013)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The parent signed a model release that was part of the contract.
> ...


Advertising is advertising, digital or otherwise and is followed by - _* or any other purpose thought proper by (photographer)*_.


----------



## orljustin (Nov 29, 2013)

KmH said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



No, you missed the point that the contract only speaks of the use of 'prints' .  'Prints' are obviously something printed and are not digital images.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 29, 2013)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > orljustin said:
> ...



actually, YOU missed the part where it says proofs. i am pretty sure that it would not be difficult to convince any judge that a "proof" can certainly be digital. 
and according to the contract, the proofs OR prints, may be used for advertising. if the OP showed the clients their pictures as a digital file for approval, that makes the digital file "proofs", and is covered under that contract.

*PROOF* - A sample image intended to be used for the purpose of selecting a final image. this can be digital, OR physical.


----------



## Rob99 (Nov 29, 2013)

It's a pretty standard photography contract.

It's been said already but the lesson here is never sign a contract of any type useless you read and understand it first.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 30, 2013)

The only thing that I find unusual about this is that the guy tagged the people in the photos he uploaded to Facebook. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the actual identity of the person pictured adds nothing to the photographic value of the picture...


----------



## Overread (Nov 30, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> The only thing that I find unusual about this is that the guy tagged the people in the photos he uploaded to Facebook. I'll go out on a limb and guess that the actual identity of the person pictured adds nothing to the photographic value of the picture...



It's likely either:

1) Tagging is just what you do on facebook so they did it because its the norm

2) It's a social networking move - tagging them gives a prompt to the person so they are reminded of the photographers website. It also makes the company page more friendly feeling and might well help encourage more custom (because you can be certain that just as there are people who specifically do not want to be displayed - there are those who will be more than proud to be displayed on the "professional photographers website!")


----------



## Braineack (Nov 30, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Have you even asked them if you wouldn't mind removing the picture of your son yet?
> 
> A simple: Hey, we appreciate the picture you took and understand you want to show off _your_ work and signed a release that allowed you to do this, but we'd feel a little better if you could remove the picture you took of our son off FB. It's not you, it's me.



oh good idea, why not ask him nicely to remove it?


----------



## photograpix (Nov 30, 2013)

I would be flattered if he/she uses my picture(s) to advertise his/her work. And he did mentioned it that it will be posted on Facebook unless he/she uses it to posted in Facebook like "please sponsor this child"


----------

