# Client's Photo Usage?



## DGMPhotography (May 7, 2017)

I posted this in another thread, but it was a side topic so I didn't want it to get lost in all the rubble - anyway, here are my questions:

So in your opinion, when someone pays you to do a photo shoot, say $250 for portrait session, is that payment _only_ for your time and non-commercial/non-retail usage? *Would using the photos in ads or posts on social media be considered commercial?*

And what about printing? *Do your customers have the rights to print the photos if it's for non-commercial/non-retail use?* Like, a framed picture in the hall. If so, how do you justify selling prints if they can print it themselves?

*And what about altering the image, or online usage? You give them the non-watermarked photos, correct? What if the client posts a photo with an Instagram filter on it? Or do you allow your clients to only use watermarked/non-edited images? *

And then you charge extra (license) the photo(s) if it _is _for commercial or retail usage, correct?

*Would you do an exclusive license for these things (like, only the client will be able to use the photos at this time), or non exclusive?* I'm guessing it varies between clients.

I know I've got a lot of questions, but I would much appreciate you taking the time to answer them!


----------



## tirediron (May 7, 2017)

When they pay me for a portrait session, it's for what is spelled out in the agreement.  For family sessions, it's for my time only, product is extra, business portraits/headshots include two digital files without printing rights.  Commercial usage is never included (except for business portraits) unless it is agreed to and specified separately.


----------



## Designer (May 7, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> ..how do you justify selling prints if they can print it themselves?


They can't print from a file they don't have.  Don't give away your electronic files.


----------



## KmH (May 7, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> . . . how do you justify selling prints if they can print it themselves?


SALESMANSHIP.

Images destined for electronic display require different editing than images for print.
If you prepare your images for print they will lack full quality when displayed online/electronically.
If you prepare your images for online/electronic display they will lack their full quality when printed.
The Digital Print: Preparing Images in Lightroom and Photoshop for Printing

Why leave the reproduction quality _of your work_ up to someone that has little if any expertise?
Just because someone can drive a street car around town doesn't mean they can successfully drive a race car.

Then there are the boatload of technical issues relative to having a print made.
Color space, file type, print type - _chromogenic_ (paper brand & metallic, matte, B&W, lustre, or semi-gloss) _basic inkjet_ (4 ink colors), _HQ inkjet_ (Gicleé - up to 14 ink colors) paper types (and paper tooth) canvas, metal, acrylic, and more.


----------



## tirediron (May 7, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> ... how do you justify selling prints if they can print it themselves?


It starts by not even mentioning digital files (except for business clients who only want files for on-line use), and is followed by pricing.  Family clients who ask about digital files are told that they can buy them, and the prices are....  (Starting at $65).  For those that insist, the best tool I have in my arsenal is a folder it has four copies of the same print.  The first is from my lab, followed by one from Wal-mart, one from Costco, and two other similar local "labs".  That usually takes care of it.


----------



## table1349 (May 7, 2017)

Designer said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > ..how do you justify selling prints if they can print it themselves?
> ...







Designer, the sad part is you had to put it in writing.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 7, 2017)

Any chance someone could answer _all _my questions? I'm getting bits and pieces here. 

And honestly, the idea of not sharing digital jpegs seems kinda crazy to me. Most of the people I work with expect it. It's like the default.


----------



## KmH (May 7, 2017)

Which is why it is so tough today to make money doing retail photography.
Digital images are a commodity, like a bushel of corn, and no longer the luxury product they used to be.

Few of today's retail photographers have salesmanship skills because they rely on putting images online rather than doing in-person proofing.
It's tough to generate a sufficient average sale amount to keep a retail photography business going without a range of print products to sell.

The notion that you can start a going retail photography business with a minimal capital investment is a canard.

The notion that you don't have to sell prints and other products to generate a living income is also revealed as a canard if you do the basic math on the type of revenue and number of shoots a retail photography business has to produce month in and month out to survive.

The bottom line is you need an average sale between $500 and $1000 to make a living income after business expenses.


----------



## table1349 (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Any chance someone could answer _all _my questions? I'm getting bits and pieces here.
> 
> And honestly, the idea of not sharing digital jpegs seems kinda crazy to me. Most of the people I work with expect it. It's like the default.


I will answer a future question of yours, that being, "What happened to the photography business?  Where did it go?"  

A look in the mirror will give you your answer. 

It seems kind of crazy to me that giving away 1/2 to 2/3rds of a business model would make you a successful photographer.  Most people expect it because you let it happen, just as today's generations don't take time off from their jobs.  Now employers have come to expect it.  They still give the vacation knowing you won't take it.  They look good but loose nothing.  

Sadly this seems to be the fate of photography these days.




You cease to be a photographer and become a button pusher when you give away the digital files.  Your vision, your style are rendered meaningless when others complete your job their way.


----------



## ClickAddict (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Any chance someone could answer _all _my questions? I'm getting bits and pieces here.
> 
> And honestly, the idea of not sharing digital jpegs seems kinda crazy to me. Most of the people I work with expect it. It's like the default.



Sure.  The answer to all you questions is.. "it depends what's written in your contract".  What's in my contract may be different than what's in Gryphonslair99 and tirediron most likely has a different one as well.  We all most likely have a variety of contracts (or slightly different versions) to accommodate different client requests/needs.  It's like asking fellow restaurateurs what's on their menu.  It will all be different.  There are some photographers who only sell digital files, some who never do, some who do but a at a steep price...  How many photos do we offer... how long are our sessions...You need to find what works for you.


----------



## Designer (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Any chance someone could answer _all _my questions? I'm getting bits and pieces here.


News flash!  Not everyone knows everything about everything.

My response above (post #3) took care of two of your questions.  If you can't glean the appropriate answers from multiple posts, then hire somebody to sit down and write up an anthology of posts on here.  Then you can read the one-page report all at once.

Meanwhile, I will take your criticism to heart: Whenever a multi-question post appears, I will make sure I can answer every part before I embarrass myself and frustrate the OP with only a partial answer.  Thank you.


----------



## astroNikon (May 8, 2017)

I don't do much Retail Photography but I do know this ... 
you MAKE your money in doing Face-To-Face review and sale of Prints, etc.

If you give away JPEGs expect those jpegs to be everywhere, with every imaginable instagram filter added to it and not necessarily from the customer you sold them to.  There's no way you can police that unless you simple don't make those JPEGs available.  Even then people will take a snapshot with their iPhone or scan it.

It all comes down to marketing your skills and services and differentiating yourself from the services of the low-ball crowd.


----------



## pixmedic (May 8, 2017)

here we go again....

look. heres the deal. 
this is not 1954. people do not view their photos the same way that they did 30-40 years ago. 
most people want to be able to share their photos. its not even about making their own prints...maybe a few will, but the majority of clients under retirement age are not
looking for prints _*just*_ to hang on a wall or on a nightstand.  they want to post to their social media pages, share on Instagram, email to friends and family....
whatever money you lose _*not*_ selling only prints will be quickly eclipsed by the volume of consumers that have little to no desire for physical prints, and no amount of salesmanship is going
to convince them otherwise.  the short of it is...if your clients want digital copies, sell it to them. 
we charged a flat rate for the session, package deals starting at 5 photos, then a la carte prices on extra photos.  

what we charged for portraits was what we wanted to get for our shooting and processing time. prints became extra. 
when we were able to sell prints, it was gravy. when we couldn't, we were already paid what we wanted to get just from the portrait session itself. 
our print release allowed clients to print their own photos for personal and non-commercial use. I don't remember the exact wording. the file was on the same CD the finished JPG files were so whoever was doing the printing could see it. we encouraged clients to order prints off our web page which was set up to print from bayphoto. 

our contract stated that clients were not allowed to alter our photos in any way. (unless they purchased copyrights from us)
but in all reality...we didn't scour the interwebs to check all our clients FB and Instagram pages to make sure they didn't filter up one of our pics. 
i suppose if we HAD run across one we might have had to consider our options, but for the most part, I don't think we would have really cared all that much. 
do you plan to keep track of every client's social media pages? sounds too tedious for me. 

commercial usage would have been way more money, but we never did any commercial work so I couldn't really elaborate much there.


----------



## tirediron (May 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> here we go again....
> 
> look. heres the deal.
> this is not 1954. people do not view their photos the same way that they did 30-40 years ago.


True... but...  one of the problems with today's methodology is that everyone (myself included) has probably tens of thousands of digital files stored electronically that they never look at.  Providing prints forces people to actually look at them.  What I do, when requested (and it doesn't come up a lot because the majority of my client base is 60+ and they LIKE prints) is to provide complimentary social media files.  These are 800pix/72ppi files.  BUT... they only get these for the images that they purchase as prints.


----------



## pixmedic (May 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > here we go again....
> ...




the answer lies somewhere in between i think. 
as much as someone would be throwing money away by not selling prints, the same is true about neglecting the digital side. 
are you willing to _*turn down*_ clients that only want digital files? if you had clients that only wanted pictures for social media usage, would you refer them to another photographer?
I wouldnt. and didnt.  seemed silly to me. 
those that get completely stuck on antiquated methods and can not adapt to new ways products are consumed are no less doomed to failure than those that refuse to consider the old tried and true methods. 

in short, there is no "single solution" to photography sales. 
we all just have to figure out what works for ourselves, our area, and our clientele.


----------



## tirediron (May 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> ...are you willing to _*turn down*_ clients that only want digital files? if you had clients that only wanted pictures for social media usage, would you refer them to another photographer?
> I wouldnt. and didnt.  seemed silly to me.


No, no, nor would / do I.  What I do is price my digital files at a point where it makes up for the revenue lost in selling prints.  I'm not saying "Don't sell digital files!", what I am saying is, "Try and avoid it, but if you do, DO NOT give them away!".  It drives me bat-s**t crazy when I see all these facebook/Craig's List/etc "photographers" advertising "2 hour photo session with all your pictures on a CD $50".



pixmedic said:


> those that get completely stuck on antiquated methods and can not adapt to new ways products are consumed are no less doomed to failure than those that refuse to consider the old tried and true methods.
> 
> in short, there is no "single solution" to photography sales.
> we all just have to figure out what works for ourselves, our area, and our clientele.


Very true, as in all things moderation and compromise are key.  At the end of the day it comes down to having an effective business plan and  understanding sales.


----------



## pixmedic (May 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > ...are you willing to _*turn down*_ clients that only want digital files? if you had clients that only wanted pictures for social media usage, would you refer them to another photographer?
> ...




we did packages. both digital and print. 
each package had its own price and # of pictures. (starting at 5)
I think we did something like 3 packages (5, 10, 20) and everything outside of those numbers had to be purchased a la carte.  (pay for 5 picture package and order 2 additional if you want 7)
our digital files were priced out quite a bit higher than our prints because we assumed it was a one-time sale. 
our "sitting fee" was priced to basically cover what we wanted to make, and prints/digital files were just extra.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 8, 2017)

Thank you pixmedic - I believe your experience, and viewpoint, span across generations, and that is very helpful for someone like me.

Most of the successful photographers I know in my area mostly deal in digital jpegs. In fact, I asked a successful wedding photographer friend I know what she charges for prints and her answer was, "I don't know, I don't really do them. The client usually prints it themselves." She charges $2500 per wedding and at 15 weddings per year, she's doing pretty well. That's about where I want to be.


----------



## pixmedic (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Thank you pixmedic - I believe your experience, and viewpoint, span across generations, and that is very helpful for someone like me.
> 
> Most of the successful photographers I know in my area mostly deal in digital jpegs. In fact, I asked a successful wedding photographer friend I know what she charges for prints and her answer was, "I don't know, I don't really do them. The client usually prints it themselves." She charges $2500 per wedding and at 15 weddings per year, she's doing pretty well. That's about where I want to be.



I would not recommend "not doing prints". even in this digital age, there is definitely a place for prints, and not having it as an option will just be that much less you will be able to offer clients.
we used SmugMug pro, and that allowed us to sell prints directly from the website. clients chose the pictures and the amount they wanted, paid right on the website, and the prints were delivered to their door. smugmug pro let us set the prices, and what pro lab we wanted them done at. (we used bayphoto) 

while we dealt mostly in digital files, I always liked to talk up prints with every client as well. especially for formal portraits. the kind of pictures people my age remember seeing on their parents and grandparents walls or tables. sometimes the nostalgia alone was worth a few 8x10's.  Plus, i could show them the difference between a pro lab print and a costo/walmart print.  visual aids often work better than trying to explain color and paper details to a non-photographer.


----------



## table1349 (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Thank you pixmedic - I believe your experience, and viewpoint, span across generations, and that is very helpful for someone like me.
> 
> Most of the successful photographers I know in my area mostly deal in digital jpegs. In fact, I asked a successful wedding photographer friend I know what she charges for prints and her answer was, "I don't know, I don't really do them. The client usually prints it themselves." She charges $2500 per wedding and at 15 weddings per year, she's doing pretty well. That's about where I want to be.


I guess it depends on where you want to be.  A friend of mine only does weddings at a base price of $3000.  This includes the basic announcement shoot if you want one.  He's doing around 70 to 80 weddings a year, thus the reason he only shoots weddings.  On average two days shooting a week and a couple of days editing time.  Mostly a 4 day work week for him and his daughter making a nice 6 figure income.   He sells prints and albums.  He will sell digital files but they are costly.  99 % of his customers choose a print package.  He has no problem keeping busy with his one and only profession.


----------



## Designer (May 8, 2017)

This thread has given me a new direction in life.  

I can see now that I'm going to have to go into business as a professional photographer if for no other reason than to enable me to set my own prices.  

Didn't need any more to do, so thanks a lot.


----------



## pixmedic (May 8, 2017)

Designer said:


> This thread has given me a new direction in life.
> 
> I can see now that I'm going to have to go into business as a professional photographer if for no other reason than to enable me to set my own prices.
> 
> Didn't need any more to do, so thanks a lot.


*
 setting* your prices is the easy part.  *getting paid* those prices is something else altogether.


----------



## ClickAddict (May 8, 2017)

Also keep in mind various types of photography will lean more towards prints than others.  Weddings would almost always warrant albums and print packages in most markets.  If you shoot mostly glamour shots and portfolio work for models / actors, they seem to be moving more to needing to display online so I could see them being happy with just digital copies that they can send to agencies / companies across the country a lot easier than prints.


----------



## petrochemist (May 8, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Any chance someone could answer _all _my questions? I'm getting bits and pieces here.
> 
> And honestly, the idea of not sharing digital jpegs seems kinda crazy to me. Most of the people I work with expect it. It's like the default.



If the clients you have expect digital files then you have to arrange a contract to suit that. Perhaps including 5 web optimized jpegs at SVGA resolution, with rights to use on facebook etc. A small number of decent quality full resolution prints should IMO also be included (perhaps the same images but not necessarily) The digital versions of print quality images would not be given to the client unless they pay (significantly) extra for this. You should also have prices for extra images available.

If you want ALL your questions here answered, I think it can be summarized as 'Whatever YOUR contract with the client states!' 

Personally I wouldn't consider social media to be commercial use unless it's for a commercial organization.  Kids everywhere use this for keeping up with their friends (not commercial) a band using social media for publicity is probably commercial. You should be able to gauge for yourself on meeting them whether  you'd consider them commercial, and the agree the right with them based on your impression.


----------



## Light Guru (May 9, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> She charges $2500 per wedding and at 15 weddings per year, she's doing pretty well. That's about where I want to be.



You want to make 37,500 before taxes (both business and personal), insurance (both medical and business insurance) plus all other businesses expenses. Oh and let's not forget about saving for retirement. 

I'm sure you could get by if that was your take home pay but you won't if that's your gross business income. 

Besides there are 52 weeks in a year you should be shooting far more then 15 weddings. 

I've noticed that several of your posts have been related to usage rights.  Just keep this in mind. The more you fret about how your clients are using your images the less time your spending finding work. Why not up your prices a bit and just let them use the images.


----------



## KmH (May 9, 2017)

Light Guru said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > She charges $2500 per wedding and at 15 weddings per year, she's doing pretty well. That's about where I want to be.
> ...


Yep.
For a single guy the income taxes will be a rate of close to 25% for both federal & state income taxes - subtract about $9400.
You would still have to subtract business expenses, state self-employment taxes, state business taxes, business insurance (at the least, $2,000,000 in liability plus an indemnity policy). For photography gear insurance an Inland Marine rider policy usually works.

Don't forget the IRS's rules:
Business or Hobby? Answer Has Implications for Deductions


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 11, 2017)

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. You've given me a lot to think about the past few days. 

I've taken what you said and crafted it into my new copyright clause. I know you're not lawyers, but I'd be glad to hear what you think: 

6. Digital Negatives, Prints and Copyrights 

The photographs, digital negatives or prints produced by the Photographer are protected by International Copyright Law (all rights reserved) and the Photographer retains the copyright to all photos and images produced. The Client may receive a copy of the digital photographs, watermarked, in a web resolution format (up to 800x800) if it has been agreed upon as part of the Assignment Package. The Client also may choose a number of digital photographs (determined by the photographer), to receive the full resolution of, free of charge, as a courtesy. Additional digital photographs may be chosen at a rate of $75/photo. Alternatively, the Client may purchase prints directly from the photographer at a reduced rate. The Client may reproduce any digital photos they receive, without altering them, in any manner they like for non-commercial/non-retail purposes. However, the Client agrees to obtain written permission from the Photographer (subject to additional charges) prior to the Client (or its assigned agents) publishing the photos commercially, or selling the photographs for profit.


----------



## tirediron (May 11, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. You've given me a lot to think about the past few days.
> 
> I've taken what you said and crafted it into my new copyright clause. I know you're not lawyers, but I'd be glad to hear what you think:
> 
> ...


My take.  I would also add a line about using them for your own purposes; yes, you can legally, but many people don't understand that, and having it agreed to in a signed document may save some headaches down the road.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 11, 2017)

tirediron said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, everyone, for your feedback. You've given me a lot to think about the past few days.
> ...



Thanks for the tweaks, John! And as for my own usage, that's actually covered in a different section (my model release): 

7. Model Release 

The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same. The Client hereby releases the Photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs. If the shoot being conducted is boudoir, nude, or otherwise sensitive subject matter, the use of these photos will be discussed and agreed upon mutually before any public usage by either party.


----------



## Designer (May 11, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> I know you're not lawyers, but I'd be glad to hear what you think:


That's a lot of "stuff" in one little paragraph.  How much do you suppose a lawyer would charge you to "polish" it?  (Well, actually the entire contract.)


----------



## tirediron (May 11, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> ...The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium....


You might want to run that bit by a lawyer; unless laws are radically different in Iowa, one adult cannot normally grant on behalf of another (with certain exceptions relating to capacity, etc).


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 17, 2017)

tirediron said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > ...The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium....
> ...



I feel like it would be difficult to get a photo release from EVERY guest at a wedding...


----------



## tirediron (May 18, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


Indeed it would,   I would put the responsibility on the couple with a line such as, "..._the clients assume the responsibility for ensuring all guests are aware that the event will photographed and that their guests waive all rights to those images_...."  you'll need to have an IP/contract lawyer massage it, but that's the general idea.  I recently covered an event sponsored by the federal government and they had a sign at the entrance stating that photos would be taken and published and entry implied consent.


----------



## KmH (May 18, 2017)

tirediron said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > ...The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium....
> ...


Or in Virginia - where the OP is.


----------



## astroNikon (May 18, 2017)

Designer said:


> This thread has given me a new direction in life.
> 
> I can see now that I'm going to have to go into business as a professional photographer if for no other reason than to enable me to set my own prices.
> 
> Didn't need any more to do, so thanks a lot.


as soon as I figure out how to squeeze another 12 hours in to a day I'm changing direction too ...


----------



## tirediron (May 18, 2017)

KmH said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > DGMPhotography said:
> ...


Mehh... it's all the same.  Northern Mexico is Northern Mexico!


----------



## bluewanders (May 18, 2017)

tirediron said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > here we go again....
> ...


My "business" model is fairly simple, but I'm not a full time pro like you and I don't know much about your model, where I differ or don't.

I charge people up front for my time.  It isn't a deposit, it is an initial payment... that distinction is important in the contract, at least in my state... so before any photos are ever taken, they've already paid the session fee that covers my time for the shoot itself (and time spent with them selling etc).  After that, everything is a la carte.  

People want digital images... most of them don't want physical prints anymore, I've had many people straight up turn down free prints because they simply hold no interest.  People are living their lives online now... they see most of their friends online, at least the ones they interact with daily... they converse in large groups about photos with each other online... when they get together at parties and other events they show each other photo albums on their phone... they turn their images into memes, they bring them back up in the future with features like Facebook Memories... they want better pictures than their friends are posting online, pictures that are somehow more interesting.... and they generally only want a few photos at a time.  They don't want to choose from a hundred or more options... they want a curated selection of the best shots to choose from... and they rarely want more than a dozen total keepers.  

With that in mind... I do sell prints, but I don't mark them up much.  I make my money a la cart by charging a processing fee per photo selected from the group.  Those are the only photos I touch in lightroom/photoshop... and they get a digital file processed for whatever social media sites they plan on posting the images at.  They never get a full res photo... if they need one they have to contact me again... I make that clear to them.  I select a number of photos from the session show them the sooc jpg on an ipad and allow them to look at it right there while sitting down with me. They select the photos, I process them and deliver.  They know if they print one of the photos it will look bad... I show them, I can't control if they do print one of the low rest photos though... and frankly I don't care enough to police it.  There's very little money in prints, for me at least.

Since the processing fee is fairly steep per photo... I'll often pick my favorite photo from the set and have it printed for them gratis.  Sometimes this prompts them to have their favorites printed... most often I've already been to their house and seen they just don't have stuff up on the walls etc... modern minimalist living seems to be pretty prevalent.... many people seem to keep most of the decorations in their life where they use them, online.


----------



## tirediron (May 18, 2017)

That's an interesting approach.  Going that route never occurred to me, but I can see how it would work well for a lot of the retail segment, especially the <50 year old crowd.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 19, 2017)

tirediron said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



That makes sense.


----------



## tecboy (May 20, 2017)

Why can you hire a real lawyer?  On your previous thread, your contract seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing.  A lawyer helps you eliminate all your guessworks, and answers all your questions.


----------



## Light Guru (May 20, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Why can you hire a real lawyer?  On your previous thread, you contact seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing.  A lawyer helps you eliminate all you guessworks, and answers all your questions.



ALL contracts should be gone over by a lawyer! If you don't have that done you could still get screwed over because you may have a bad contract. For example the OP had another thread where his contract said that all people attending the event had given him permission to use photos of them in any way he wanted and the contract was only signed by the event host.  There is no way this would ever hold up because each person there had NOT agreed to it.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 20, 2017)

tecboy said:


> Why can you hire a real lawyer?  On your previous thread, you contact seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing.  A lawyer helps you eliminate all you guessworks, and answers all your questions.



You're assuming I haven't already.



Light Guru said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Why can you hire a real lawyer?  On your previous thread, you contact seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing.  A lawyer helps you eliminate all you guessworks, and answers all your questions.
> ...



That was this thread, btw...


----------



## Light Guru (May 20, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> You're assuming I haven't already.



No i wasn't assuming anything i was simply stating that all all contracts should be gone over by a lawyer. 



DGMPhotography said:


> That was this thread, btw



No it wasn't I was referring to this thread. 
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?


----------



## KmH (May 20, 2017)

tecboy said:


> A lawyer helps you eliminate all you [sic] guessworks [sic], and answers all your questions.


We wish.
Not all lawyers are good lawyers.
The better lawyers generally charge more than the not so good lawyers.


----------



## Designer (May 20, 2017)

KmH said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > A lawyer helps you eliminate all you [sic] guessworks [sic], and answers all your questions.
> ...


And they tend to specialize.


----------



## tecboy (May 21, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > Why can you hire a real lawyer?  On your previous thread, your contract seems confusing. You seems you don't know what you are doing.  A lawyer helps you eliminate all your guessworks, and answers all your questions.
> ...



I don't know what is going on with your lawyer, but you can't accept the answers from the members who posted this thread and other threads.  You seems confused posting thread after thread about your contract.


----------



## DGMPhotography (May 21, 2017)

Yall are clearly getting my threads mixed up. Anyway... thanks for your feedback. I think I've got it handled now.


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 22, 2017)

The contract to me seems wordy to the point of being unclear and I don't think I'd sign a contract like that. If I was contracting with a photographer to take photos of my event/wedding/whatever I don't think I'd sign something allowing the photographer to use photos of my event/guests to sell as stock, etc. 

I don't quite get what you're trying to do - what would you do with photos of a client's portrait or wedding or whatever other than for a portfolio or to promote your photography business? I'm thinking of photos for marketing purposes in sports, there wasn't really anything I could have done with photos of sponsors' signs, etc. - nobody but the team and/or sponsor would give a rat's patootie about those. If you're shooting for a client you can't necessarily use the photos for another purpose, depends on what it is, but who would want pictures of a bunch of people at a wedding that they don't know? I don't think you can expect clients to sign something to allow such extensive usage of photos of their portrait or wedding.

ASMP is doing a webinar on releases this Wednesday, I think at noon - should be on their website, you sign up and get emailed a link. If you can't listen in live they usually email out a link afterwards. They already did one on contracts earlier this spring and it doesn't look like there's much scheduled for summer, but this is just one source of info. for photographers. You'd probably benefit from continuing to research and learn this stuff.
*
As far as original questions in the OP* - yes, using photos in ads is considered commercial use; on social media it's I believe considered editorial. However I think it's necessary to read Terms & Conditions on any site being used, and to think about once photos go online control may be lost about where they may end up (and how would clients feel about that?). I think photographers often are selective about what is posted and then link back to their site.

I don't do portraits but photographers usually seem to include print rights in contracts as appropriate - yes, for personal use (to hang on the wall), not commercial or retail. How prints/albums are justified is by showing prospective clients samples of high quality photos compared to typical examples of those done thru a discount/drug store or cheapie online sites. Licensing for commercial or retail use I think may be done separately from providing digital and/or print images; unless the client wants to put their portrait or wedding photos on T shirts or mugs and sell them (which seems unlikely), I don't think this would apply. If you contract for event photography, then licensing usage for a specific time period and specific purpose would be applicable. 

Images provided are usually not watermarked, and appropriate sized (lower res, smaller size) images are often included for social media use. I'm not sure about exclusive/nonexclusive or how that comes into it. I think for exclusivity the cost is higher but you probably need to look that up.


----------



## Light Guru (May 22, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> I don't think I'd sign something allowing the photographer to use photos of my event/guests to sell as stock, etc.



Yea I know I definitely would not sign that.  Even to a non photographer that is not going to make you come off looking all that great.


----------



## Tee (Jun 16, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Thanks for the tweaks, John! And as for my own usage, that's actually covered in a different section (my model release):
> 
> 7. Model Release
> 
> The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same. The Client hereby releases the Photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs. *If the shoot being conducted is boudoir, nude, or otherwise sensitive subject matter, the use of these photos will be discussed and agreed upon mutually before any public usage by either party*.



*I bolded for emphasis

There's no way a lawyer approved this last sentence (you alluded you had it reviewed). That last sentence is swiss cheese with so many loopholes that *you *are on the losing side. 

Remember- a model release means the model is giving you permission to use their likeness. Having a vague sentence that essentially says "we'll figure it out" hurts both parties because there should be a clear expectation of what the photo shoot will entail. That is why you sign it and date it before you begin. If I was the model, there's no way I'd sign that release not knowing firsthand how my images will be displayed. 

If you are photographing something along the lines of nudity or boudoir, you can have a different release. You do not have to have a canned model release.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jun 17, 2017)

Tee said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the tweaks, John! And as for my own usage, that's actually covered in a different section (my model release):
> ...



You're right. I added that after the fact as a courtesy. But I see how that could be taken advantage of.


----------

