# HELP - ADVICE/OPINION WANTED



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

I have a wedding this Saturday that I booked almost a year ago. A young couple whom I charged a very low rate for both the 8 hour wedding and 2 hours E session.  

Yesterday I am contacted by the bride to be about her images on my blog, she wanted me to remove them. I kindly offered to change the couple's names to provide some anonymity but told her that was the best I could do. In a number of emails she basically told me that she didn't want me to link the venue and to only use images she approved of for any public portfolio use.

Now my contract is pretty clear and I have full 100% right to use but she is very upset and I have to shoot her wedding this Sat..... What am I supposed to do? If I stick to my guns I will be working with BRIDEZILLA and if I bow to her desires I am out my best wedding images. 

Options I see:

1) Ignore her. (do my best to provide my services)

2) Remove her images, don't use her images. (I am out valuable material and basically working for free)

3) Offer to sell her the copyright (I think this would only make her more angry)

4) Take everything down until after the wedding and then repost  (not very honest)



What would you do?


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 13, 2013)

I would speak to her. Tell her that you do have a contract. Ultimately, you can bet your a$$ off that if you don't cooperate, it will get around. However, I will kindly express the contract but in the effort to please her and be beneficial to you, go over which ones you think that are the most important and why. Most likely you aren't going to post the entire wedding but if someone has an inquiry or request to see an entire wedding, maybe have a private linked gallery? Your mileage may vary but that's my though process. Otherwise, it may be sticky this Saturday.

One of my old bosses used to say
" If a customer was completely satisfied, they may tell one person. If they are dissatisfied, they will tell ten people."


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

I currently have a blog post up with like 6 images from her E session and she doesn't want me to have them up, wants me to take down any where you can identify her by face and to NOT LINK to the venue. I have tried discussing with her but basically she wants to be very private and have nothing that people could see and link to her.... so basically nothing of value for me. 

I did discuss with her usage and it's importance. Of course I'd only post a few of the very best images on my blog/port but to her this isn't acceptable. Add to all this is I am paying a 2nd shooter...25% and now he can't use the images? Egads!


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 13, 2013)

Speaking from a personal level I think I would appease her for now, let her know that you will take them down for now and when all is said and done you can sit down together and discuss things again.  I can almost guarantee she is freaking out about things being perfect and trying to control everything she possibly can ( or thinks she can lol) amid the chaos leading up to the big day. 

Pushing it now may mean bridezilla as you said and I would wish that on nobody.  If you go that route you risk not getting the best out of the wedding and you WILL be working in a hostile environment.  

As long as taking them down temporarily doesn't effect your contract in any way you still maintain the right to use them after the fact if you have to go against her wishes then but having the discussion after the craziness of the wedding is done will at least give you a fighting chance at having her see your ( contract's) side of things and be ok with it.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

I think that is probably the lessor of all evils but I really despise being dishonest. 

More thoughts please!


----------



## IByte (Aug 13, 2013)

Discuss it with her advise her you will take the photos down, and concentrate on the wedding.   Just advise her that it's only temporary bases and you need to promote your work.   She's probably just stressed.

Don't let her bully you like she's going to bully her hubby.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't think it's being dishonest unless you tell her she can do what she wants, you are only giving a little time in hopes of a better outcome when you discuss this again after.

"Ok I will take them down for now and when we have the whole package together we will sit down together and go over it."

Where is the lie? She knows your position and it is unchanged IMHO.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 13, 2013)

How hard up are you for this job? 

Personally, I think if it were me, and I had a signed contract in hand stating my rights to the photos, I'd likely turn the tables and put HER feet to the fire.

"You don't want me to use any of the photos? Oh, well, okay--but since the contract clearly states I *DO* have the right to use the photos, if I agree not to use them, it will essentially be voiding the contract. I don't work without a valid contract, and I won't sign a contract where I don't retain full rights to my images, so I'm afraid that means I won't be able to shoot your wedding THIS Saturday after all.  Good luck, though!"

But then, since I'm not a pro and don't rely on that for my living, I wouldn't have to care whether I p*ssed her off or not.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

Are the bride and groom actually paying you themselves?  I think my approach would be to take the images down for now, telling her you will do this as a temporary measure and discuss things after the wedding, shoot the wedding, and at the proofing session, explain to the client that you've done her/them a large favour by taking the images down which you did not have to do, and you've potentially lost a lot of money because of this.  Explain to her that you now have one of two options:  You can either replace the images and carry on with the terms of the contract, OR, you can re-work the contract and you will have to increase the price of the finished product to account for potential lost revenue.  Hopefully, by then, she will have de-stressed and relaxed, and see reason.  You could also offer an incentive price on a one-year anniversary session as a 'sweetener'.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

did you go over the contract with her beforehand? What i mean is, did you really explain exactly what your usage rights were?
one of the things we tell every client is that we reserve the right to use any image we take for advertising. this includes all social media sites as well as blogs, websites, printed displays, or whatever. That beings said, every situation is different and requires different handling. 

in this particular case, I feel you need to take a hard line here and you and the bride and/or groom need to make some tough decisions. 
i would explain that you only gave them the price you did because of the ability to use these pictures in your portfolio, as well as the second shooters. (that was not free btw)
losing the ability to display those photos is potentially a huge hit to  your portfolio, and is usually compensated for by an increase in the wedding package price. 
Except for simply eating this one, I don't see much of any way to get around it without A: sounding like a dick. or B: being a bit deceitful. either way could end up with an unhappy camper. one just sooner rather than later. No doubt she will be checking your webpages  periodically looking for her pics on there. 

I would absolutely PASS on doing this wedding if they do not want to abide by the signed contract. Especially if you are doing it on the cheap.  I would politely tell them that you will release them from the contract and they can find another photographer that is able to meet their demands. Otherwise, chances are pretty good that this will go sour at some point.


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 13, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> I don't think it's being dishonest unless you tell her she can do what she wants, you are only giving a little time in hopes of a better outcome when you discuss this again after.
> 
> "Ok I will take them down for now and when we have the whole package together we will sit down together and go over it."
> 
> Where is the lie? She knows your position and it is unchanged IMHO.



I like this. It's acknowledging and hopefully can leadto resolution.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't have experience with it, but I think your best bet is to cancel on them. If they don't follow the contract, it's not fair to you. And if you're doing it cheaply it shouldn't be such a loss to you. 

If you're hard set on doing it, like others have said, I would appease her for now and talk to her after the wedding. After that, if she still doesn't agree, put the pictures up and don't talk to her anymore. If the contract says you can do it, then you can do it.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

How close is the wedding?


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> How close is the wedding?



This Saturday.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> PixelRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it's being dishonest unless you tell her she can do what she wants, you are only giving a little time in hopes of a better outcome when you discuss this again after.
> ...



the problem is...what does he do AFTER the wedding, when they sit down and she STILL insists on her pictures not being used in any way. 
after the fact, neither of them have much ground. he either takes a hard line and sticks to the legal contract and pisses her off....or he takes a hit on all that work he has put out to make her happy. there wont be any middle ground.  I think it may be better to just cut his losses. her mind is not likely to change. i sure wouldn't gamble on it.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > How close is the wedding?
> ...


Oops, must have missed that.  Okay, in that case I would definitely NOT bale on them; I think the potential bad press you could incur would outweigh the loss of working for free.  Their chances of getting another quality shooter on four days notice are almost zero, and you know that people will never hear YOUR side when they tell everyone how their photographer quit just because they didn't want some pictures on his website.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 13, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> > PixelRabbit said:
> ...



I still stand by doing it and talking after, as John said backing out now only a few days before with or without discussion is guaranteed 100% to give him bad press no ifs ands or buts about it, he has the same rights if he talks before or after and he has a better expectation of a reasonable outcome (her understanding) if they talk after.


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 13, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> the problem is...what does he do AFTER the wedding, when they sit down and she STILL insists on her pictures not being used in any way.
> after the fact, neither of them have much ground. he either takes a hard line and sticks to the legal contract and pisses her off....or he takes a hit on all that work he has put out to make her happy. there wont be any middle ground.  I think it may be better to just cut his losses. her mind is not likely to change. i sure wouldn't gamble on it.



This is also true. I think a good way to approach it ( after reading these posts) is mention that you have a contract that is signed and if either party is breaking the contract, its void and if she insists on not agreeing to the terms of the contract, then saying you may not be the best resource for her. Butttttt pick a way to say it very nicely. It's allowing her to make the decision. Also, mention that you are willing to work with her as much as possible but these are the terms originally agreed to. 

Yes, if it goes south, you receive bad publicly because SHE didn't agree to the terms of the contract she originally did. Since the wedding is this Saturday, it might make her think differently.

All it boils down to is unrealistic expectations. She agreed to do something, went with the resource after agreeing, and at the last minute is changing her mind. The expectations have been set. She's prob in a crazy frame of mind this last week and may feel differently after the big day is over. 

I'm at work right now so I'm sure I forgot to add something. Sorry


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

The dilemma, oh woe is me! Kinda interesting though at least. No I won't cancel on her, that is just not me but perhaps I will give her the option .. like "I will take down the images for now, until we have time to discuss this further after the wedding, even though doing so is contrary to our agreement and costing me potential revenue"

Something like that?


----------



## IByte (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> The dilemma, oh woe is me! Kinda interesting though at least. No I won't cancel on her, that is just not me but perhaps I will give her the option .. like "I will take down the images for now, until we have time to discuss this further after the wedding, even though doing so is contrary to our agreement and costing me potential revenue"
> 
> Something like that?



Yup one thing less to be stressed about.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> The dilemma, oh woe is me! Kinda interesting though at least. No I won't cancel on her, that is just not me but perhaps I will give her the option .. like "I will take down the images for now, until we have time to discuss this further after the wedding, even though doing so is contrary to our agreement and costing me potential revenue"
> 
> Something like that?


Exactly, and once the dust has all settled, she has two choices:  Pay extra for you to keep them down (a LOT extra), or the contract stands and they go back up.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 13, 2013)

Did she say _why _she doesn't want you to use them? How long have they been on your blog? What is she concerned with? I would get to the bottom of this first.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

They've been on my blog for 2 months..maybe 3. She says privacy, she doesn't even want me to link the Venue because people will see her images. Like she's so important? That is the reason, she feels her personal security is at risk.

I have already made the blog nonpublic and sent her an email stating we can relax until after the wedding and resume discussion then. At least that allows a more pleasant work environment this Sat.


----------



## Stevepwns (Aug 13, 2013)

I am in no way a pro, but having dealt with people in a customer service setting that dealt with contracts.  You honestly hold all the cards.  What you have done already is more than you have too.  After you shoot the wedding, provide the service you promised and keep your end of the bargain.  Then kindly explain to her that she signed the contract and unless she wants to buy the rights to the images, they are yours to do with what you choose. Period.   All this after you have been paid of course. After almost 2 decades in the customer service industry, I speak with a lot experience. You simply can't keep everyone happy and at some point you have to keep them honest and let them know they are simply wrong and they need to deal with it.  Not only is this a learning experience for you but it is for her as well.  That will cost you 2 cents, sir.     Good luck and let us know what comes of it.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 13, 2013)

I wouldn't have given them a cheap price in the first place, is she fat and ugly ? if not why would she not want them on show


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

Cheap is relative and that doesn't really help, but gee thanks!


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I wouldn't have given them a cheap price in the first place, is she fat and ugly ? if not why would she not want them on show



No, she is normal, no beauty queen but young and not hard to look at. She's being weird, no reason I can understand.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> They've been on my blog for 2 months..maybe 3. She says privacy, she doesn't even want me to link the Venue because people will see her images. Like she's so important? That is the reason, she feels her personal security is at risk.
> 
> I have already made the blog nonpublic and sent her an email stating we can relax until after the wedding and resume discussion then. At least that allows a more pleasant work environment this Sat.


It sounds like something else is going on here that she is not telling you.


----------



## IByte (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> No, she is normal, no beauty queen but young and not hard to look at. She's being weird, no reason I can understand.



Thermal dynamics is waaaay easier to understand in my experience lol.


----------



## IByte (Aug 13, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> It sounds like something else is going on here that she is not telling you.



Bun in the oven?


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > They've been on my blog for 2 months..maybe 3. She says privacy, she doesn't even want me to link the Venue because people will see her images. Like she's so important? That is the reason, she feels her personal security is at risk.
> ...



Hmm, I'm not getting that. I'm getting she doesn't want to be my model, have her images shared. That she wants to be private...and I CAN understand that, sure...but she should have said so months ago. Just looking at my website you can see other brides and weddings.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Maybe she didnt want to scare off your good price by making a fuss right away. 
People have learned that as a customer, often times they can complain and bully their way into getting more than they paid for.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

One thing about me, I fight fire with fire...and I am full of fire. But in this case the best for now is to give her her way until afterward...get through the job, do my best..and then plaster her images ALL over my website!  Kidding but I don't let people bully me.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> One thing about me, I fight fire with fire...and I am full of fire. But in this case the best for now is to give her her way until afterward...get through the job, do my best..and then plaster her images ALL over my website!  Kidding but I don't let people bully me.



Well, i dont want to come off as saying she IS one of those people.... But if the pics have been up for months...its possible someone else had an issue with it and convinced her there was a problem where there was none before. Communication is key obviously, just remember that once you shoot the wedding, you have committed time and resources that you should be compensated for. I would have some sort of worst case scenario plan in case she is really going to stick to the no usage thing even after the wedding. Just so you know in advance what you are or aren't willing to do. Easier to negotiate when you at least know where your own lines are drawn.


----------



## shadow3829 (Aug 13, 2013)

The timing seem right, I just seen several scare posts on FB this morning about people being able to track you by pictures posted on the internet. The story showed people being tracked by data embedded in pictures and software that cracked it. The story was relating to Smart Phones, but maybe.....


----------



## CCericola (Aug 13, 2013)

It's just one wedding. She doesn't want them up on the Internet? Fine. If your future business rests on this one wedding you have bigger problems. Relax. You can still use them in your printed album samples. You know we did survive as wedding photographers before websites


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 13, 2013)

On second thought, yeah, don't cancel. Even though she might deserve it, it's an unfair world and it will probably not work out in your favor.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Aug 13, 2013)

I'd take the photos down for now. go thru with the wedding and then decide afterwards what to do. If it were me when I took the photos down I would send a letter stating that you removed the photos per her request even though the contract she sighned stated you have full rights to use them and that you are possibly taking a loss do to having to pull the photos down.  never hurts to have a little paperwork in case you decide to post them up later and you find yourself in court.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

exactly what I've done. 

To reply to CCericola, I don't shoot too many weddings, this is only my 5th this season (one more next month) and usually my couples are not as attractive, go figure. So yes, this shoot would benefit my port tremendously, not to mention I have been honing my skills so these should be my best examples to date.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 13, 2013)

I think the girls may be onto something.  It may be a stretch of the imagination...but maybe she's got a jealous Ex or estranged relative that she is worried might crash the wedding.  So she wants to make it hard for anyone to figure out where her wedding is....thus she asks you to take down the images and any links to the venue.  

Again, as mentioned by the lovely ladies...she's probably feeling stressed to the max...as is typical right before a wedding.  

So I think that the best course of action is to take down/hide the blog posts to make her happy and shoot the wedding.  But before you turn anything over to her...have a discussion about usage rights etc.  
You do seem to hold all the cards, and you could put the pressure on her before the wedding, but I agree with you that that wouldn't be the best course of action.  But after the wedding, you will still hold all the cards and you will still have possession of the images that she will want.  So then you tell her that she can have the images (or whatever medium was agreed upon) but that you will have full rights to use them.....or she can pay you extra for the usage rights of all the images (up to you to figure a price).  Then you give her everything and wash your hands of the whole thing.  

Trying to imagine worst case scenarios...if you put the screws to her, she will likely tell a bunch of people and give you a bad rap.  But if you play nice for now, and then go back to using the images...she may complain and tell people, but then she just sounds like a whiny B....unless of course, she has a very valid reason to worry about her privacy.

So, in the grand scheme of things...will it really hurt you if you can't show these on-line anymore?  Maybe a little...but likely not much.  And keeping her quite may be in your best interest.  You don't want to just cave in to her bridezilla whims....but sometimes it's better to just keep quite, smile...and then never talk to them again.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



MY guess, based on the way some of my friends can act sometimes: She was fine with all of it when the contract was signed. But now, recently, *someone* has told her some horror story about "this person that a friend of theirs knows" who had their identity stolen, their wedding ruined, their credit cards maxed out and the icing removed from their cake, ALL because their photog posted this "perfectly innocent" photo online somewhere. And so now, she and all her little friends are saying, "You can just never be TOO careful, you know?" In fact, they're all relating these stories and admonitions to each...on Facebook!! :lmao:


----------



## KmH (Aug 13, 2013)

At this point a contract review is in order, particularly because you are in California.

California contract law and release law has more specific requirements than a lot of other states.



> Model Releases
> California requires that any contract must have some kind of consideration, or the contract is unenforceable.


----------



## CowgirlMama (Aug 13, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> I think the girls may be onto something.  It may be a stretch of the imagination...but maybe she's got a jealous Ex or estranged relative that she is worried might crash the wedding.  So she wants to make it hard for anyone to figure out where her wedding is....thus she asks you to take down the images and any links to the venue.
> 
> Again, as mentioned by the lovely ladies...she's probably feeling stressed to the max...as is typical right before a wedding.
> 
> ...



I have a couple exes who'd be happy to show up and ruin my wedding if they could. One would just show up totally drunk. The other might try to stop it. So, personally, I wouldn't want my engagement photos (with names, dates and locations) available online until the wedding and honeymoon were said and done. I have no problem having such things posted. I just wouldn't want them until I'd gotten through the excitement in peace. Of course, I would have made that request *before* the shoot.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> exactly what I've done.
> 
> To reply to CCericola, I don't shoot too many weddings, this is only my 5th this season (one more next month) and usually my couples are not as attractive, go figure. So yes, this shoot would benefit my port tremendously, not to mention I have been honing my skills so these should be my best examples to date.



I understand that you need to build your portfolio but you can still use them in your portfolio without putting them online. A web portfolio should not be your only means of showing your work.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

KmH said:


> At this point a contract review is in order, particularly because you are in California.
> 
> California contract law and release law has more specific requirements than a lot of other states.
> 
> ...




my contract is quite clear and in large easy to read English. I have a signed release from both Bride & Groom


----------



## weepete (Aug 13, 2013)

I think the way to deal with this is to be honest and upfront. Her wedding may be on Saturday but that is not your problem. I'd also be a bit concerned that should it end up in court, she may argue that by agreeing to take the images off your website your contract has now changed and you've agreed to her terms by taking the images down (implied or verbal contracts can sometimes hinge on whither one party has fullfilled all or part of the agreement). I think that you have given yorself a bit of leeway by saying that discussions can resume after the wedding, but I'd make it clear that this in no way changes your original agreement.

After thinking about it I think you should let her know your not going to bail on her and will still shoot the wedding but make it clear that you retain the rights to the images and you intend to use some for promotional purposes of your buisness. You could give her the option of buying the rights to the images but explain that it will cost a lot more (if that is something you'd consider) or give her the option of finding someone else to do the shoot. It may also be worth explaining that this is pretty much standard across the industry.

I understand why its tempting to just shoot the wedding and deal with it later but I think you may end up with a real headache after if you do, especially if you go into this with her thinking you've just agreed to her terms.


----------



## texkam (Aug 13, 2013)

Appease until after the wedding. At that point if the issue still remains, remind her that she entered into a contract and that one factor your price quote is based on is the value these images will bring to your, and even your second shooter's portfolio. Being able to use these images is important for both of your marketing and that your attractive pricing reflects the ancillary marketing value of these images. Basically if she desires privacy the contract must be reworked and pricing adjusted in order to make up for YOUR loss. At that point she can decide if her privacy is woth paying for. No different than a roofer or painter putting a sign up in your front to market to your neighbors.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Aug 13, 2013)

My price is the same for weddings that is totally private or not.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> I think the girls may be onto something.  It may be a stretch of the imagination...but maybe she's got a jealous Ex or estranged relative that she is worried might crash the wedding.  So she wants to make it hard for anyone to figure out where her wedding is....thus she asks you to take down the images and any links to the venue.
> 
> Again, as mentioned by the lovely ladies...she's probably feeling stressed to the max...as is typical right before a wedding.
> 
> ...



my only problem with this is....where do you draw the line? i mean, not being able to show them online probably wont kill his business. then again, neither would giving her an extra 50% off. or shooting it for free. terms were agreed upon and a contract was signed. now all of a sudden, she wants to change a major term of the contract without giving any sort of legitimate explanation. A term i might add, that was the deciding factor for the price they got. The benefit of which they now want to take away, leaving Trevor with nothing but a cheap wedding deal that he probably would NOT have shot at that price. not cool.  What if Trevor had gone to her less than a week before her wedding demanding more money than was agreed upon? 
personally, I would not shoot this wedding until the details were ironed out and some sort of agreement was reached. 
i know it sounds like i am taking a bit of a hard line on this, but...If I were shooting a wedding primarily for portfolio fodder, and priced it as such, I would tell the bride that the options are 
A: I use the pictures as per the contract. 
B: we work out a new contract based on a price for NOT using the pictures. 
C: she finds another photographer more inclined to acquiesce to her request.

That isn't to say that she doesn't have some absolutely fantastic reason for why she suddenly cant have the pictures online that might convince me to work something out...but as it stands? im just not convinced it isn't for selfish reasons since they got a great price. I think its a far better idea to get it all out in the open now and lay all the cards on the table before the wedding than give her the illusion that the pictures are down for good only to make her feel like she got stabbed in the back later when you tell her your putting them back up after you've already got them. 

Man...i do NOT envy your position here. whatever  you decide, I hope  you keep us in the loop on how it goes. Whatever you decide to tell her, make sure it is worded very carefully and you have it in writing.


----------



## texkam (Aug 13, 2013)

^ Very compelling argument here.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 13, 2013)

I was thinking along the same lines as Kathy, sounds like something's going on that has her feeling like she needs protection. Having had jobs working with families I know sometimes circumstances can change literally overnight - you booked this a year ago so she may not have had concerns then that she seems to have now. There could be some overreaction or there could be a possibility that you'd be putting her at risk in some way using the photos taken at that particular venue. (It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense but I doubt we know the whole story.)

You said she wanted you to 'only use images she approved' - that seems to give you an option to work it out with her what photos you could use in a *public *portfolio. That seems to be the concern. Would it be an option to agree to a revised contract? or maybe do a contract regarding usage in an online portfolio? With pictures going viral and theft of photos being rampant it's in a way not surprising if clients start reacting to allowing usage of their photos. As someone mentioned it was different when portfolios weren't online. 

If not being able to use these photos makes it a situation as you described as being out valuable material and you basically working for free then you might be at a point of needing to rethink your pricing. Even if the current contract means you're right in being able to use her photos, it might not be worth the trouble and might be best to take the photos down and see what you can work out with her after the wedding.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> My price is the same for weddings that is totally private or not.



Not helpful to this discussion, another one for future reference perhaps but no help here.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm not an uncompromising person but I don't take well to demands. At this point I've agreed to take them down temporarily if only to relieve her stress before the wedding. Thanks for all the great commentary, it's my belief that is the real purpose of this site in it's glory.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I'm not an uncompromising person but I don't take well to demands. At this point I've agreed to take them down temporarily if only to relieve her stress before the wedding. Thanks for all the great commentary, it's my belief that is the real purpose of this site in it's glory.



no problem man! 
keep us updated on how things go. 
and post some wedding pics!


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 13, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > I think the girls may be onto something.  It may be a stretch of the imagination...but maybe she's got a jealous Ex or estranged relative that she is worried might crash the wedding.  So she wants to make it hard for anyone to figure out where her wedding is....thus she asks you to take down the images and any links to the venue.
> ...



Lots of good points, and I don't disagree.  But as somebody pointed out...if they are satisfied, they tell one person...but if they are dissatisfied, they tell 10 people.  
We all know that Trever would be fully in the right and all that good stuff...but that won't matter to the 10 people she complains to, because he won't be there to argue his side of things.  

A good reputation can take years to build and only minutes to knock down.  So I just put forth the question...is it going to be worth it, in the long run?  Is this hill worth dying on?

Of course, it's a slippery slope and you don't (can't) be the type of business that lets clients walk all over them.  But it's just one wedding, in what may be many hundreds of weddings.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Mike said:
> ...



no, I agree on the reputation thing. 
and it IS a slippery slope...on both aspects. 
its a tough situation regardless of the thought process. 
only one wedding though? next time its only two weddings. then only three weddings. 
And the wedding they referred to you? They told them that you will waffle if they just put on a little pressure. 
i know i know..its kind of an extreme scenario but...
im just trying to look at this from the other side. what would people be saying if Trevor went to them and demanded more money than what had been contractually agreed on? people would be outraged I think. but that's exactly what they are doing to Trevor. Im sure we dont have all the information, but it is kinda sounding like they want to have their cake and eat it too. time will tell I guess. Trevor's a real pro so i have no doubt he will handle this thing with everybody coming out smelling like roses. 
this might not be a hill worth dying on, but that doesn't mean he should let himself get kicked down it. 

speaking of....
we were thinking of getting some professional formal family portraits done. 
any photographers in the area that are cool with "not dying on the hill" that could work us a deal? :mrgreen:
nah...im just kidding. I jest, I jest (did I use the right font for a joke?)


seriously tho, we ARE overdue for some family photos.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

Fly me there and put me up in a hotel and I'm your photographer for a weekend


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

This just received



> Hi Bill,
> 
> Since we're apparently having problems communicating now, and even back when we signed this contact, how about we make this quick & simple and propose our best compromise that we'd be willing to accept.
> 
> ...


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

gotta tell ya man....that really looks like they are being asses about it. 
photos for US, not for WSG photography promotion...
the additional terms pretty much give you zero right to do much of anything without their express permission. 
hope you accounted for that in the wedding fee. 
whatcha gonna do?
personally, I would TOTALLY opt out of this deal. 
these people are going to be trouble. with a capital F.U.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

working on a polite response right now...this is truly sad, I was very much looking forward to this.


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm not in the photography business, but I do own my own business and much of this transfers over.

I find that, although keeping customers happy regardless of who is right is often the best solution, at some point you have to cut your losses and just accept whatever comes. Yes, they may leave poor reviews, however if you have many other happy customers then it shouldn't be much of an issue for future work.

Also, that latest response sounds entirely too complicated to actually work. There was a contract at the beginning, I would stick with that. Deviating from it can have many legal issues, and even outside of that it'll create a ton of headaches. 

View this as a learning experience, I've had many of my own that resulted in an unhappy customer. Build upon those lessons and you'll be better prepared in the future. Perhaps making specific points regarding how the photos will be used and whose property they are should be brought up at each contract signing, just to be sure.

I would think that it's fairly common knowledge that when you hire a photographer, that the photos ultimately belong to the photographer, but I guess not. Regardless, I wouldn't give yourself too much of a headache over this sort of thing, chances are it won't be a huge hit on your reputation.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

> Name, I am so sorry but I cannot agree to your terms as stated in your previous email unless you want to have me write a new contract and purchase full rights. I am willing to work up a new contract if so desired but unless you are buying all rights from me I cannot agree to your terms.
> 
> If you do want to purchase full rights, I will give you all files, never use them and delete all from any of my storage devices - but this comes at a significant additional price.
> 
> ...



that sucks


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

for what its worth, me and the wife think you made the right call on this. $5 says they had some friend or acquaintance who thinks they "know the biz" tell them they should be getting full rights to their photos even though you are the one taking them. you know, the "i paid for them, i own them" deal.  definitely sucks, but better that you cut your losses now before you get TOO tangled up with these people. 
are you going to refund them the full amount?


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

I haven't replied with the above message yet. I think I will refund all but the deposit (40%) if this is how it goes. I fail to see her logic, anyone worthwhile is already booked... well she fails to see the importance of a good photographer I suppose.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I haven't replied with the above message yet. I think I will refund all but the deposit (40%) if this is how it goes. I fail to see her logic, anyone worthwhile is already booked... well she fails to see the importance of a good photographer I suppose.



I think the above message is pretty good. you gave them the option to "purchase" their pictures in their entirety. obviously they understand they are breaking a contract since they mentioned you keeping what you think is fair from their payment. I totally agree with keeping the deposit. I think our contracts call it a "retainer fee" or "date reservation fee" or something to that effect, and not "deposit". I'll have to take a look, i cant remember offhand. the wife handles the paperwork stuff. 
I would love to see what the "friend with a camera" produces. thats a hit or miss kind of deal there. (unless your friends with a good photographer)
the could still find someone i guess. they just have to do a quick FB or Craigslist search. im sure it will turn up plenty that have this Saturday open, and more than happy to give them all the files.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > My price is the same for weddings that is totally private or not.
> ...



What I am saying is.. if someone asks me to keep it totally private, I just do it.  Some people are really private.  Or sometimes they were involved with something in past, they just dont want their face plastered all over the internet.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...



OK I understand thank you. I wasn't asked.


----------



## Dinardy (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you have done well and proceeded in this situation to the best of your abilities, politely and adequately. 
I suppose working with people like that are one of the downsides to opening a business venture. Some people enjoy privacy
There was no reason to come off blatantly rude (at least in my mind) then again women are special creatures.

Good luck with this. I could imagine it being stressful, its obvious that you care.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

CCericola said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > exactly what I've done.
> ...



I wouldn't hire the OP in the first place.  I don't understand this need of Photographers to force every client to allow tgem to put their images online.  As a customer, I'm not interested in being your free model.

The OP will probably get more negative publicity from a pissed bride, then any positive effect from keeping the images up.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



Maybe they didn't know to ask.  Just because you have 4 weddings online doesn't mean you didn't shoot 8.  Maybe they think your promotional usage is opt-in.  I would.  I wouldn't expect my commissioned work to be used to promote you.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...



except that it was in the contract that the bride and groom both signed. If they didnt bother to actually read the contract...that's their problem. 
I don't think this was a matter of them not understanding. I think this is them changing their  minds, or having someone tell them they should have control over photos they are paying for. To try and strongarm the photographer a week before the wedding, when they have had that contract to look at for months now, is ridiculous. 
The fact that they looked at other peoples engagements and weddings on his site BEFORE hiring him, should have been a clue that maybe, just maybe, if they dont want their pictures up there, they should probably say something. OR, you know....actually read that piece of paper they signed. 

you would be pretty hard pressed i think to find photographers that dont have it in their contract that they retain usage rights for self promotion. unless of course, the client READS the contract, objects to that part, and something gets worked out.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 13, 2013)

There was no 'force' that I can tell. Read and understand the contract before it is signed. Problem solved! Piece of cake!

And what Pix said.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

^^ They've had a physical copy of the contract in their possession for 11 months? Waiting until the last 5 days to totally change my entire contract?


----------



## Joeywhat (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...



As someone who isn't in the photography industry, and who has never hired a photographer for anything...I still know that it's common for photographers to own the rights to any photos taken. The fact that it's also in writing in the signed contract should really mean that they knew everything before hand...if they didn't read the contract then maybe they'll start reading things they sign from now on.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Trevor man, I would TOTALLY use ALL of their previous photos that you have on your portfolio blog, website, FB page...everything you can link up on the web. post them HERE and link it on your blog.  :mrgreen:


----------



## weepete (Aug 13, 2013)

Yep. The details were in the contract and its pretty standard for photographers to display their lastest work, its not nearly about getting free models. 

Tbh I think its probably for the best, take a fee off to cover the work you've done and refund the rest. Maybe they have a genuine reason or at least a fear that seems real enough for them, I can't think why else any normal person would cancel at such short notice knowing they might not find another photographer. Either way the op has done his best to work with them.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

Joeywhat said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...




Now, I didn't say they didn't own the rights.  I was referring to commercial usage of clients' likenesses.  And as I said, I wouldn't hire someone who wants to use me for free advertising.  And perhaps these people didnt know better at the time.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

"Now my contract is pretty clear and I have full 100% right to use"

Lets see the wording, btw.  And include the model release section as well.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> ...Now, I didn't say they didn't own the rights. I was referring to commercial usage of clients' likenesses. And as I said, I wouldn't hire someone who wants to use me for free advertising. And perhaps these people didnt know better at the time.


While I am by no means an expert on US IP law, I don't believe that a photographer's use of his work to advertise his services counts as commercial use, but rather as 'self promotion'.  Just out of curiosity (because I think you've taken this position in other discussions) if a photographer isn't permitted to use previous work, then how is he supposed to demonstrate his skill and style to clients?  

If you want to hire me to photograph your event, are you going to accept my word that I will do a good job, or are you going to want to see examples of my work?


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Joeywhat said:
> 
> 
> > orljustin said:
> ...



Im not sure whether your are in the photography business or not, but just you know...we don't use people as "free advertising". 
heres the breakdown. you see, what happens is, if you want "full" rights to your photos (whereas the photographer does not use them), thats perfectly fine. I have no problem with that at all. 
that comes at a price though. like many luxury items, some people are willing to pay for it. now, suppose you want a discount, and you say "hey Jason, how
can I get my wedding photographed by you a little cheaper?" and I say, "no problem, I got just the thing. you let me use your photos in my portfolio as advertising, and I will discount your wedding/portrait package by XX amount". The client either thinks that is a grand idea and saves some money, OR, they want their photos kept private and they pay a premium amount.  whichever way it goes, it gets typed up into the contract as per what the client wants. typically, the client READS the contract, AGREES with what is on it, (or they say something and we work it out) and they SIGN it. everyone's happy. 

so you see, you are NOT "free" advertising for me. I give you a discounted rate in exchange for advertising rights, or you pay full price and retain the photos yourself.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

hope that works for you.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Aug 13, 2013)

It sounds like they cant print either.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

They can with my provided print release.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> It sounds like they cant print either.



well, if your trying to listen to print...that MIGHT be where your issue is...
(thats supposed to by funny BTW....LAUGH!)


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> View attachment 52582
> 
> hope that works for you.



very clear. very concise. nothing to get overly confusing if you are wondering if the photographer can use your pics on their website. 
assuming of course, that someone actually READS what they are signing. 
cause seriously, that really is unmistakeable.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 52582
> ...


Agreed - simple and straight-forward.


----------



## paigew (Aug 13, 2013)

I haven't read other responses, but I would tell her that she was given a reduced rate with the understanding the images would be used in your portfolio. If she is not comfortable with that then she can pay $xxxx (your full fee) and you will be happy to remove them.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> View attachment 52582
> 
> hope that works for you.



Well it isn't bad.  However 'the photographer shall only make reproductions', may not necessarily translate into digital use online.  It reads as if you are only talking about print uses.  I would say they may have a case based on terminology.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 52582
> ...



actually, no. because it clearly states the photographer owns the copyrights. so...no.

in fact, I submit that the clients have already looked into this and come up goose-eggs. 
they told Trevor in the email that he could keep whatever amount of their money he felt was fair. (they were paid up in full)
you don't just do that if you think you can have your cake AND eat it too. 
my guess is they have already had someone look at the contract, and were told THEY had to eat it.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

'actually, no. because it clearly states the photographer owns the copyrights. so...no.'

Actually no, holding the copyright has nothing to do with releasing a likeness for commercial use.


----------



## MOREGONE (Aug 13, 2013)

Google her name, scope out her Facebook, show her how public her life already is and that she is already behind the curve. She will probably be surprised and may be put in her place a little. I would do all of this after the wedding and comply for the remainder of the week.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> 'actually, no. because it clearly states the photographer owns the copyrights. so...no.'
> 
> Actually no, holding the copyright has nothing to do with releasing a likeness for commercial use.



actually, what do you THINK reproduction of a digital photo is?  duh
if anything, he would have rights to digital reproduction, and need permission for physical prints.

so, the wording of reproduction...meaning a reproduction of a digital file...which is what? a copy of that digital file. 
is perfectly worded for use of those pictures on his websites.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 13, 2013)

"if anything, he would have rights to digital reproduction, and need permission for physical prints."

Why if anything?  Printing a digital image is a reproduction, and all the applications sound like they refer to printing.  Anyways, it doesn't jump out that the OP wants to use them online and you're dealing with someone who has signed a photo contract once in her life.  I've never referred to online publishing as a 'reproduction'.  So, it isn't that obvious.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> "if anything, he would have rights to digital reproduction, and need permission for physical prints."
> 
> Why if anything? Printing a digital image is a reproduction, and all the applications sound like they refer to printing. Anyways, it doesn't jump out that the OP wants to use them online. *I've never referred to online publishing as a 'reproduction'. So, it isn't that obvious*.


I would submit that simply because you've never done it doesn't mean that it is not obvious.  Reproduction is reproduction.  Whether it's running a second sheet through the printer or pressing <Ctrl>+'C'.  The medium is irrelevant; as far as I can see, the OP has covered all of the bases he needs to.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 13, 2013)

orljustin said:


> "if anything, he would have rights to digital reproduction, and need permission for physical prints."
> 
> Why if anything?  Printing a digital image is a reproduction, and all the applications sound like they refer to printing.  Anyways, it doesn't jump out that the OP wants to use them online.  I've never referred to online publishing as a 'reproduction'.  So, it isn't that obvious.



your just splitting hairs now. the issue was not even about whether he could print the files or use them on his web site. did you read the list of the clients demands? it was about ANY use without THEIR express permission. WHAT to use, and WHERE to use it. 
AFTER they already signed a contract. The fact is, if they had any leg to stand on, they would NOT have  admitted to forfeiting the entire wedding fee. in writing. 
(of which Trevor is graciously refunding most of)
whether you agree with the usage rights or not, the fact of the matter is, there was a valid contract in place, and they had a problem with it 11 months AFTER they signed it. not 11 hours, not 11 days...not even 11 weeks. 11 months. 

If you cannot be bothered to read what you are signing. tough. 
if you read it, dont understand it, but sign it anyway....tough
I have no doubts whatsoever that if they had asked ANY questions about their photos usage, Trevor would have explained it until they completely understood. 
Not to mention all the news lately about photographers rights...it seems the courts are very much siding with the photographers lately. 
I would expect that Trevors contract would hold up perfectly fine in court. and the clients knew it.

i mean really...if you dont want your photos used...just say so, and find a photographer willing to accommodate.  
but theres no sense in bitching about what is probably the single most common practice among working photographers. ever.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 13, 2013)

On a more mod-erly note, the OP never actually (as far as I recall) asked for comments on his contract, the question related to suggestions for dealing with a bride that didn't want images of her displayed.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

The contract is good, no doubts. It was not written by me. 

Thanks again for all the responses. 7 pages, wow.


----------



## manicmike (Aug 13, 2013)

I read through all 7 pages of this.

Please let us know how it turns out in the end.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 13, 2013)

Now she's sent me another email stating she does not want out of the contract...


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Now she's sent me another email stating she does not want out of the contract...



Weird. 
Had you sent your reply from the first email yet? 
Wonder if they were just testing the waters? 
Or if they couldn't find another photographer...


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2013)

Curiouser and Curiouser. 

it kinda sounds to me like she thought she could just bully you into doing what she wanted, a little game of Wedding-Day Chicken.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Aug 14, 2013)

Yeah sounds like she probalby sent that letter, started shopping around for other photographers who responded with something along the lines of " you want me to do your wedding in 4 days? are you kidding? not a chance." and realised she would have no decent photos on her wedding day.  To be honest after her email responce about her demands come in I would have just walked, it's just going to be such a paint to have to go thru with this wedding at this point man. I feel for you.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 14, 2013)

> Now she's sent me another email stating she does not want out of the contract...


Yikes.  So does that mean that she is willing to proceed under the terms of the contract and not demand that photos not be displayed?  Or is she wanting to amend the contract and pay for full usage rights?  (Did you give her a price?)

Either way...I think we were all feeling a bit relieved for you, that you wouldn't end up shooting this wedding.  While it would probably turn out all right...there seems to be the potential for a lot more ugliness.  I mean, is she really going to give you the respect and attention required when you are trying to take photos of her?  I'm sure that you know more than most, that a good connection between photographer and subject, can make all the difference.

But if she wants to go through with it...and agree to the terms, then you can't really back out now....so yikes, good luck.

And another thing...does she realize that a very high percentage of people in the US own cell phones with cameras...and wedding guests will tend to snap many, many photos at a wedding...and that most of their photos will have GPS information attached to them?  My wife was freaking out just last night, because of some news story going around, about how people (creeps) can track someone (YOUR KIDS) because of all the Geo-coded images they take and share.  I know it's true...but it's also a big, steaming load of 'fear mongering journalism'.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2013)

Although this may be counter to what the previous x posts have said, I would consider that you are dealing with a person/couple in probably the most stressful period in their life and I would deal gently with them.

If you agree to do the shoot, I would certainly hold off any more discussions or any activity, including adding to your website, until after the wedding and then sit down to talk and work out an understanding.

Being unpleasant and seemingly unfeeling will get you as bad response a response as if the shots were crap.

Picture this situation. She has asked that the location be kept private, you post the location because you can, an ex-shows up and ruins the ceremony and then, being angry, she sues you for something. You don't want the suit, even if you were right.

I don't do weddings but I do shoot publicity shots routinely for a large charity that rehabs homes for those who can't afford the upkeep and many times the people are quite shy about revealing themselves or the situation or their location. The clients and I go over the contract paragraph by paragraph and they initial every clause and I include any stipulation about restrictions on shooting as part of the contract. 

Lew


----------



## kathyt (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> This just received
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No way in hell would I ever give a client these terms. Ever. I don't care what they are paying me. I am in control of my images and I control how they are to be used. Period. No wedding. They can have their friend do it as far as far as I am concerned. They are really not going to make your day pleasant I can guarantee that.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 14, 2013)

Negotiation by e-mail is rarely successful when we are dealing with emotional content.  So, if you can swing it, I'd try for a face-to-face meeting.  "Hi, I got your requests, but our written agreement is different from what you're now asking.  Why don't you tell me the background to your request and help me understand what the issues are for you?"  You may not fully resolve the issue, but at least you'll get some of the "between the lines" stuff that will help you decide if (and if so, by how much) to bend.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

Just to be very clear, I have been calm, pleasant and understanding of her position. I took down any images I had public of them and offered to continue discussion, in person, after the wedding. It is she that continues to communicate by email and make unrealist (to me) requests, so late in the game.

As it stands right now, I do not know whether I am shooting her wedding or not. Awaiting a response to my offer to sell her the copyrights or accept my contract as is.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 14, 2013)

A friend of mine is one of the best wedding photographers in the nation.  He has a website where he includes photos from each wedding he does.  The images stay on the website for a period of time, and at some point he pulls them down and puts up his latest work.  So, the images are in a sense "churned" on his website.

Why would that not work for you in this situation?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 14, 2013)

> Hi Bill,
> 
> Since we're apparently having problems communicating now, and even back when we signed this contact, how about we make this quick & simple and propose our best compromise that we'd be willing to accept.
> 
> ...




Just saw this. If I were you, I'd tell her to go F*** herself.


----------



## sm4him (Aug 14, 2013)

This thread is better than any soap opera I've ever watched. Okay, granted, I've only ever watched one soap opera--two, if you count the comedy, Soap, oh my goodness that show was hilarious! 

Anyway, I just can't wait to find out what happens next!! Will Bill have to shoot the wedding? Will the bride bail on him? Will Bill GET shot by the bride for posting her photos online? Will a sedative accidentally get slipped into the bride's beverage on her wedding day? All these questions and more may or may not be answered in the NEXT posting of Bill's Wedding Nightmare!

Sorry, Trev, I do feel your pain--but goodness, this is some good stuff! Drama, cliffhangers, fights, mysteries, who knows--maybe even true love. :lmao:


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Negotiation by e-mail is rarely successful when we are dealing with emotional content.  So, if you can swing it, I'd try for a face-to-face meeting.  "Hi, I got your requests, but our written agreement is different from what you're now asking.  Why don't you tell me the background to your request and help me understand what the issues are for you?"  You may not fully resolve the issue, but at least you'll get some of the "between the lines" stuff that will help you decide if (and if so, by how much) to bend.



This, and send her some suggested times that she can reach you.
Explain that, for both your sake, you need to get some clarity and agreement now.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Negotiation by e-mail is rarely successful when we are dealing with emotional content.  So, if you can swing it, I'd try for a face-to-face meeting.  "Hi, I got your requests, but our written agreement is different from what you're now asking.  Why don't you tell me the background to your request and help me understand what the issues are for you?"  You may not fully resolve the issue, but at least you'll get some of the "between the lines" stuff that will help you decide if (and if so, by how much) to bend.


Pgriz is like our "Mr. Rogers" of TPF, and our softer side of Sears!


----------



## Stevepwns (Aug 14, 2013)

At this point, I would do what ever you are legally allowed to do.  If that is keep all the money and tell her to have a nice life...  then I would do that.   Coming after the fact and demanding things like that after signing a contract...  Unprofessional and Unacceptable,  try going back to *anywhere* and demanding a contract be re written because you didn't read it or pay attention to what you were signing.  Sorry, that sucks man.


----------



## EIngerson (Aug 14, 2013)

You can never underestimate the value of a happy customer. I think hooking her up will make you more money than having the photos on display. I say that with the assumption you already have quality work on display to draw people in. (after seeing your site, you have that covered for sure) I understand the contract, but good business is still good business.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

So it comes down to this, I have offered to:

1) perform per our original agreement

or

2) sell her copyright at a very fair price. Copyright would include both the E session and Wedding images. I haven't heard back from her since making the offer yesterday afternoon.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> So it comes down to this, I have offered to:
> 
> 1) perform per our original agreement
> 
> ...



I think you have pretty much done everything you could within reason and in a professional manner.  Just have to wait and see what their response us.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 14, 2013)

The offer that she sent earlier, sounded awfully lawyer(ish).  I'm guessing she has a friend/relative who's a lawyer and she's pestering them to formulate a response for her.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 14, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> The offer that she sent earlier, sounded awfully lawyer(ish).  I'm guessing she has a friend/relative who's a lawyer and she's pestering them to formulate a response for her.



I think Mike hit that one out of the park.


----------



## pgriz (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> So it comes down to this, I have offered to:
> 
> 1) perform per our original agreement
> 
> ...



I think you've done what could be done.  BTW, the "emotional content" was from her side - I have a hard time picturing you ranting and raving.  But if she doesn't want to meet, then I suggest you act as if the contract is in effect (which it is), and proceed accordingly.  If she says you're no longer welcome when you show up, then you've got grounds for liquidated damages.  As long as you're delivering your side of the agreement in a professional manner, she and her about-to-be husband have no reasonable recourse against you.

Now also step back for a second and consider being in the shoes of her prospective husband.  Might be an eye-opening experience.


----------



## IByte (Aug 14, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Although this may be counter to what the previous x posts have said, I would consider that you are dealing with a person/couple in probably the most stressful period in their life and I would deal gently with them.
> 
> If you agree to do the shoot, I would certainly hold off any more discussions or any activity, including adding to your website, until after the wedding and then sit down to talk and work out an understanding.
> 
> ...



I go a bit futher and have them initial after each paragraph.  Nothing like initals and signature at the end.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

I am not without compassion, or understanding. I've made a fair offer and even if she was to come back with a lower figure I'd most likely oblige with a smile, give her a hug and get to work happily.


----------



## IByte (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Just to be very clear, I have been calm, pleasant and understanding of her position. I took down any images I had public of them and offered to continue discussion, in person, after the wedding. It is she that continues to communicate by email and make unrealist (to me) requests, so late in the game.
> 
> As it stands right now, I do not know whether I am shooting her wedding or not. Awaiting a response to my offer to sell her the copyrights or accept my contract as is.



You still have those models you can play with on Saturday.  I hope things will work out for you Bill.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

Conclusion: She cancelled my services. 

Relieved and bummed. I mean we had talked so much over the last 9 months. She asked me for recommendations for music, etc. We had a lovely E session. Oh well, it's official.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> 
> Relieved and bummed. I mean we had talked so much over the last 9 months. She asked me for recommendations for music, etc. We had a lovely E session. Oh well, it's official.



Hope your at least keeping the "date reservation fee"


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

I gave them a 2 hour E session and they were very happy with the images....they are paying me for that, that's for sure


----------



## kathyt (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> 
> Relieved and bummed. I mean we had talked so much over the last 9 months. She asked me for recommendations for music, etc. We had a lovely E session. Oh well, it's official.


Are you keeping the retainer? I hope so. I promise this is going to be a good thing for you in the long run. They were going to be hard clients no matter how hard you worked! Nothing would have been good enough for them. It is just one of those things you just brush off. Did she cancel in writing? Just curious?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 14, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> ...




While not legally required, I would strongly recommend that you have your attorney put together a short and to the point "agreement to terminate contractual relationship" rider to your original contract which lays out the terms of the agreed upon termination and what each party has agreed to do and not to do.  It sounds like this chick is bat$hit crazy and if you want to protect yourself, you should memorialize in writing this **new** agreement.  Because keep in mind -- that is exactly what you have.   A new contract, and it should be signed by all parties to the original contract. Cover your a$$, man.  Got it?


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

All I have is an email chain from her, that very last email stating she is cancelling 

"we are cancelling your service for our wedding day"


----------



## Jean1234 (Aug 14, 2013)

Did you happen to find out why she decided that the pictures had to be taken down all of a sudden?  Just curious....


----------



## DGMPhotography (Aug 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> 
> Relieved and bummed. I mean we had talked so much over the last 9 months. She asked me for recommendations for music, etc. We had a lovely E session. Oh well, it's official.



She signed a contract saying you we're going to provide a service to her. You did nothing to void the contract, and maybe you bought some new equipment or opted out of a Hawaii trip with family to do this wedding. (Hypothetically) isn't there room to sue for time or something like that? Not that I would, or that I suggest it, but I'm curious because isn't that part of what the contract is for?


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 14, 2013)

Jean1234 said:


> Did you happen to find out why she decided that the pictures had to be taken down all of a sudden?  Just curious....



She just said she's a very private person and doesn't want any use of her images.



DGMPhotography said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> ...



Don't know but I wouldn't pursue it if I could. I had turned down a wedding at double the price because I was already booked, oh well.


----------



## texkam (Aug 14, 2013)

Wonder is she's prepared to police each and every guest shooting and posting snaps?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

I would forward her a copy of the contract she signed, and highlight the section where it explains what you can do with the photos. Then I would highlight her signature. It sounds like, money-wise, you're takin' it in the shorts as it is.

I don't know that a simple demand necessarily constitutes a breach of contract, seeing as she's not in a position to actually effect that demand. In fact, I think if you gave in to that demand, it could be construed that you agreed to an amendment of that portion of the contract, and that certainly wouldn't be something you'd want to do.

The fact that the wedding is this weekend works in your favor. Tell her that any alteration to your contract will require an entirely new contract (in other words, there's no "line item veto"). Odds are, she's not going to be something she wants to deal with. 

I would rather deal with Bridezilla than earn a reputation which says that any contract you sign with me can be amended by you at any time...


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

texkam said:


> Wonder is she's prepared to police each and every guest shooting and posting snaps?


Good point, because most of the weddings I shoot have images of the bride and groom on FB before I even get home from the wedding!


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I'm not an uncompromising person but I don't take well to demands.



But, really, you do: 



> At this point I've agreed to take them down...



The reason you took them down is unimportant. She demanded they be removed, and you removed them.

The more I read here, the more inclined I would be to be a strict hard-liner...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> personally, I would TOTALLY opt out of this deal. these people are going to be trouble. with a capital F.U.



No kidding.

I would reply as such:



> Dear Pain In My Ass,
> 
> I'm sorry to learn of your resolve to be in breach of the contract you originally, and willingly, signed.
> 
> ...



Seriously, the odds that these people are ever reasonable are slim to none. Bail on this now. Keep the money. Have a Coke and a smile.

Don't shoot the wedding...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> I haven't replied with the above message yet. I think I will refund all but the deposit (40%) if this is how it goes. I fail to see her logic, anyone worthwhile is already booked... well she fails to see the importance of a good photographer I suppose.



Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> The offer that she sent earlier, sounded awfully lawyer(ish). I'm guessing she has a friend/relative who's a lawyer and she's pestering them to formulate a response for her.



My impression is that it was written by someone who's not a lawyer who's trying to sound like a lawyer. 

I know a few lawyers, and I can't imagine any of them penning tripe like that. "Search engine tricks"? Yeah, no lawyer's gonna' use a term like that...


----------



## runnah (Aug 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...



Nah, on principal its a good idea but on paper its bad. You'd be out 10x the money just in legal fees.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

runnah said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...
> ...



Legal fees for what?

Would she sue me? Well, she could try but, again, there's the issue of the signed contract which she would need to overcome. Given what's been provided here, I just don't see how that's done.

I'd get the legal fees back in my counter suit...


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 15, 2013)

I swear Steve, if there ever comes a time that I need to be hard nosed and ruthless about something in going to recruit you as an advisor.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> This just received
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You know, I did miss this somehow when responding earlier.  Obviously, you're dealing with a client concerned with privacy, who doesn't deal with this sort of thing on daily basis, and was unaware of what the promotion section in the contract meant.  Of course, the owning the rights bit is silly, but...

This echos what I've said before "- keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding  pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion." .  Customers want their photos taken for them, not necessarily to be used to promote your business.  I'd say if you need portfolio fodder that badly, hire some models with a real model release, and use those for your promotion.  Or make it veeeeeery clear, big and obvious what you would like to do in the contract.  Did the OP specifically tell the client that they planned to use their photos for his promotional use, or did that just get skimmed over?  When sitting down, discussing the price, "By the way, my contract includes a release from you so that I can use the content in my business promotional works, online and in print.  Do you have any issue with that?"


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > This just received
> ...


Any wedding he shoots should be fair game for his portfolio as stated in his contract. A regular shoot is another story. If they did not read the contract that is their problem. If there was a privacy issue then if should have been addressed from the very START, not after the images have been sitting on his website for a while. The wedding is in a few days and now it's an issue? I don't think so. It doesn't work like that.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?



Well yes.  

"I also plan on displaying the work created at your event.  That is stated in the contract, and here's the section regarding that."

They don't know your agreements with others.  For all they know, you've shot 8 weddings, and had agreements to display 4 of those.



> The wedding is in a few days and now it's an issue? I don't think so. It doesn't work like that.



Well, sure it does.  In fact it just did.  Depends when people realize it.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 15, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> I swear Steve, if there ever comes a time that I need to be hard nosed and ruthless about something in going to recruit you as an advisor.



Well, sometimes things are pretty damn black and white. A contract, which two parties agree to and sign, is one of those things. 

In this case, if the bride-to-be doesn't want photos of her used online, after basically signing a contract which permits it, she needs to be overly accommodating in other areas, and she's not; not at all. Given that, I would lean on the contract that is in effect, and let _her _deal with her freely-made decision to sign it...


----------



## sm4him (Aug 15, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?
> ...



^And THAT is the reason that we now have all these silly disclaimer statements on products, like hair dryers that have to specifically state "do not use this product in water," fast-food coffee cups with the warning "Caution: Contents may be hot," or one of my favorites, on a shirt label: "Do not iron shirt while wearing it." :lmao:

Yes, people are just that stupid these days...BUT:
As a photographer, what is one to do? If he's got to be so clear as to say, "Now, look--not only have I mentioned that I use recent shoots on my website to show what I can provide, and not only is it written in the contract, but you should know that I actually PLAN to use the photos I take for you in these specific ways..."
Well, if he's gotta break it down quite that much, then he's gotta do that with the whole contract--trying to ANTICIPATE which each client may be about to skip over, misunderstand, misinterpret or choose to ignore. 

And that, folks, is a LOSING battle because as Murphy's Law states, "It's impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."

Trev, man, imo, you did everything you reasonably could. But she's a FOOL, and evidently quite determined to stay a fool. Don't waste even one second regretting any part of this--just thank your lucky stars that you aren't going to have to deal with her on her wedding day.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?
> ...


Huh? When people realize what? Their engagement pictures have been on his website, but they are just now asking him to take them down? The client cannot make changes to the contract just because they feel like it. Trever, you are entitled to at least all of the retainer, and possibly all of the money paid at this point. (Depending on state law) This is why contracts are in place, to protect both parties involved. In this case Trever would get the upper hand.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 15, 2013)

sm4him said:


> I actually PLAN to use the photos I take for you in these specific ways...



As far as a member of the general public goes, the point of hiring a photographer is to gain photos of themselves or their event.  Most people wouldn't think the photographer "plans to use the photos" taken in any way other than that.



> Trev, man, imo, you did everything you reasonably could.



Except, apparently, to make a point to actually bring up the subject during the contract signing, knowing that many people today are uncomfortable with having their images spread online when they can't control it.

I'm just trying to point out that better customer service would be to avoid this problem by covering the subject during the signing, instead of coming back and going "Well, la la la, even if you didn't realize it, you signed it, so suck it up.".


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

You are a great Devil's Advocate, point noted.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Aug 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> PixelRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > I swear Steve, if there ever comes a time that I need to be hard nosed and ruthless about something in going to recruit you as an advisor.
> ...



The way you are approaching this is a valid way within the world of business and contracts, you are correct, he has the legal right to keep that money and tell her to go pound salt because she broke the contract and if she would like to discuss it further they can do it in court.  

I guess what I don't get is why?  It's not like taking this to court will make some major statement that will discourage the next bridezilla from doing this.  Will she suddenly see the error in her ways?  Will Bill find some vindication in a ruling in his favour and his court fees reimbursed?  What about the time and energy he has to invest into this if he goes to court?  Is it worth it to take that line?  

If you say yes it would be worth it to you to be prepared to take it to court then cool, like I said it is a perfectly valid way to approach this, I mean heck if he did take your line he may get to just keep the money and carry on and not have to go to court, only hope she doesn't give him bad press.

For me it's not a line I would take, I wouldn't invest that amount of energy into what ultimately amounts to keeping a bit of money.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

It's not going to court, it would never make the docket. I really don't care much about the money, just want to be paid for services rendered and move on.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > PixelRabbit said:
> ...



if you look at the first email the bride sent Bill that he posted here, she says, "keep what you think is fair from our payment, already made in full".
Aside from her ridiculous (in my opinion) last minute demands, she obviously knows the contract is valid . I suspect she had someone who knows ( or at least thinks they know) law well enough to write out her demands in a very technical manner, and tell her that Bills contract is solid and she doesn't have any legal grounds to break it without losing her money. 

I have no idea what the brides waffling between "meet my demands or your off the wedding" to "I decided not to break the contract" to, "im firing you" is all about. 
Bill did say that he had no intention of taking this to court, and that he would refund her money MINUS his fee for their engagement session. 
personally, I think this shows Bill being the better person here. very fair indeed. More than fair even.   After all her last minute bullying and demands, I would REALLY have to force myself to give her ANY money back at all, and im not 100% sure i actually would refund her a dime. 

Kudos to  you Bill.


----------



## Tee (Aug 15, 2013)

You missed out on the physical experience of shooting a wedding which is something that matters more than your website in these early stages.  I think you could've compromised a little (respected her wish for no images displayed but maintained everything else on your contract).  I get the whole "stick to your principles" thing. It's admirable. But what have you gained from this experience except an unwillingness to compromise with a client you readily admit you enjoy and e-pats on the back for being stubborn?  This is a situation in which nobody won, and on Saturday, after the wedding would've been over, you still only have 4 weddings shot.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

Nobody won, yes agreed. 4? Where does that # come from? No, and if I had given in to her last minute whim, what would be next? Experience is great, I always learn with every click. Money is great too. Images are great too. Pick 2 of 3 and I'm happy.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

Tee said:


> You missed out on the physical experience of shooting a wedding which is something that matters more than your website in these early stages.  I think you could've compromised a little (respected her wish for no images displayed but maintained everything else on your contract).  I get the whole "stick to your principles" thing. It's admirable. But what have you gained from this experience except an unwillingness to compromise with a client you readily admit you enjoy and e-pats on the back for being stubborn?  This is a situation in which nobody won, and on Saturday, after the wedding would've been over, you still only have 4 weddings shot.


I would not want to work with these clients any longer. There is more trouble brewing if he were to shoot this wedding. Would you want to work with these demands? A wedding photographer needs a strong relationship with his bride and groom. Weddings last up to 13 hours for the photographer. That is going to be one long ass day if there is tension and animosity. Since the relationship is already strained then I would run, not walk, to the next assignment and call it a day.


----------



## IByte (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> It's not going to court, it would never make the docket. I really don't care much about the money, just want to be paid for services rendered and move on.




It must be all of that fresh Northern Cali air and weather Bill. Damn I lost my train of thought...I wanna go back to Napa!!


----------



## Tee (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Nobody won, yes agreed. 4? Where does that # come from?



You mentioned earlier that this would be your 5th wedding this season.


----------



## Tee (Aug 15, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I would not want to work with these clients any longer. There is more trouble brewing if he were to shoot this wedding. Would you want to work with these demands? A wedding photographer needs a strong relationship with his bride and groom. Weddings last up to 13 hours for the photographer. That is going to be one long ass day if there is tension and animosity. Since the relationship is already strained then I would run, not walk, to the next assignment and call it a day.



Well, naturally it wouldn't be prudent to photograph the wedding now that various emails of demand have taken place.  I was merely referring to initial action.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

Initially I took down her images of the E session and offered to sit down with her after the wedding to discuss it all.


----------



## IByte (Aug 15, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > The offer that she sent earlier, sounded awfully lawyer(ish). I'm guessing she has a friend/relative who's a lawyer and she's pestering them to formulate a response for her.
> ...



"Write Like a Lawyer Before Lunch" only $19.95, 1 million copies already sold!!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2013)

Tee said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody won, yes agreed. 4? Where does that # come from?
> ...



he said it was his fifth wedding this season. not fifth wedding in his whole career.


----------



## IByte (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Conclusion: She cancelled my services.
> 
> Relieved and bummed. I mean we had talked so much over the last 9 months. She asked me for recommendations for music, etc. We had a lovely E session. Oh well, it's official.



Lots of beer and good friends can turn that frown upside down, weeeeeekend bender!!!!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > You missed out on the physical experience of shooting a wedding which is something that matters more than your website in these early stages.  I think you could've compromised a little (respected her wish for no images displayed but maintained everything else on your contract).  I get the whole "stick to your principles" thing. It's admirable. But what have you gained from this experience except an unwillingness to compromise with a client you readily admit you enjoy and e-pats on the back for being stubborn?  This is a situation in which nobody won, and on Saturday, after the wedding would've been over, you still only have 4 weddings shot.
> ...



I absolutely agree with Kathy here. 
the clients made absolutely unreasonable demands (on threat of firing Bill btw)  4 DAYS before the wedding.  Bill made a reasonable effort to compromise with them, to which the clients response was "meet our demands or dont come to the wedding". 
sure, bill missed a wedding. there will be other weddings. 
what did Bill gain? valuable experience dealing with people like that. 
Bill was willing to compromise. he offered them what they wanted, but not at their previously discounted price. they wanted their demands met AND the cheaper price. who was the one not willing to compromise here?
it was not Bill unwilling to compromise. I see no stubbornness on bills part, just an unreasonable client that Bill was much better off NOT dealing with. 
I can only imagine what demands COULD have come AFTER Bill had already committed resources to that wedding.


----------



## Tee (Aug 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> he said it was his fifth wedding this season. not fifth wedding in his whole career.



Based on the few wedding images in his portfolio and his need for more portfolio work, I assumed he was still getting his feet wet.  

Bill, I apologize for assuming this was only your 5th wedding.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 15, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> Initially I took down her images of the E session and offered to sit down with her after the wedding to discuss it all.



Once again, clear and straight to the point.  I guess this was not good enough for some.  Sheeeeesh!!!!!
Shame on you Bill for not bending over and taking it like a man.  You Jerk.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2013)

166 posts!
congratulations Bill!
this might be your highest rated thread on TPF!
not as nice to look at as your girly shoots....
but maybe just as entertaining!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 15, 2013)

orljustin said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > This just received
> ...



I keep hearing the same old tune, with some people trying to push the "I paid for the photos, I own them" agenda,. and the "big bad  photographer taking advantage of some poor little clients that don't know any better with his wicked legalese" crap.
which is fine. get a contract made however YOU like it when YOU get work done. 
But for MOST working photographers, part OR full time, it seems that retaining portfolio usage of all photos is extremely common practice. 
this is not a new concept, by any means. And I would venture to say that pretty much any studio you walk into has that built into their contracts as well, unless otherwise noted and changed per an agreement between photographer and client. Even portrait studios in wal-mart and Sears (before they went under) retained usage rights for all images they took. 
the issue you seem to ignore here, is that all of your points MIGHT ALMOST make some semblance of sense...IF the clients had not waited 11 months to bring up this issue.  let me say that again. 11 months. with their photos up on bills blog. with a signed contract in hand that they could have gone over with a lawyer of their own. 
but no.... 4 days before the wedding is when they have issues.  just a privacy issue? im not buying it. Not 4 days before the wedding.

now, this also totally discounts the fact that not only did they want major terms of a contract changed last minute....they DEMANDED it. on threat of firing Bill no less. 
in writing! you meet our terms or you don't show up to the wedding. Period. 
"we have a contract, but if you want to shoot our wedding, you better change the terms...by tonight..or else"
then they changed their mind. TWICE!
dont sit there and tell me they did not "understand" the terms of the contract, because the bride clearly states to Bill in the email that he can keep whatever portion of her money that he feels is fair. SHE KNOWS `its all legal. she knew what the deal was, and for whatever reason does not want to tell Bill who put the bug in her ear about "owning her photos". Bill was more than fair with them. whether he "needed" portfolio work or not is totally irrelevant to this situation. THEY hired him, THEY signed a contract (which they were fine with for 11 months) and then THEY wanted to break it, or force Bill to change the terms with zero compensation to him. These were adults he was dealing with. not children.


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 15, 2013)

Definitely something fishy with the B&G....if she was really just worried about privacy, then why not just choose to purchase the rights to the photos when he offered it to her?  It would have been a done deal and she would have got what she wanted, including having her photographer of choice, shooting her wedding.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 15, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> Definitely something fishy with the B&G...



Her cousin, Jake, from Portland, just got a DSLR and offered to shoot the wedding for $250 plus a case of Milwaukee's Best Light.   :mrgreen:


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 15, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely something fishy with the B&G...
> ...



^ made me snort!


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Mike said:
> ...


Me too!


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 15, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...



Haaa, perhaps a KC thing?


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


I think so....I do it all the time especially when I am really tired and can't stop laughing.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 15, 2013)

Here's some home video I shot of Kat over the past weekend....


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...


Remember when I first found out you were from KC, and I was trying to think of the name of a BBQ place I used to go to all the time with live music? This is what I was trying to think of. Best Kansas City BBQ | B.B.'s Lawnside BBQ It is awesome, and so much fun. Not fancy at all, and the food is sooooo good!

This is on topic right?


----------



## kathyt (Aug 15, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> Here's some home video I shot of Kat over the past weekend....


That is too funny! Yes, that would be all of us nurses at the end of a shift!


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 15, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> 166 posts!
> congratulations Bill!
> this might be your highest rated thread on TPF!
> not as nice to look at as your girly shoots....
> but maybe just as entertaining!




Actually this is my longest running and still current thread here ----> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photo-themes/236373-abstract-minimalist-thread.html


----------



## texkam (Aug 16, 2013)

> Good point, because most of the weddings I shoot have images of the bride and groom on FB before I even get home from the wedding!


Well, that's right. There's likely going to be all kinds of images floating around; many of which could be awkward and unflattering.


----------



## JacaRanda (Aug 16, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...



Oh man, right back down memory lane.  I need to go home for a few!


----------

