- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
I know that some people like to have their wedding photos blogged by their photographer and are thrilled when their photographer submits their pics to wedding blogs (and I love looking at them!) However, I'm not comfortable having our wedding photos posted online - a combination of personal reasons, professional reasons and a stalkery ex.
We're going to be speaking to prospective photographers soon and I wondered how to address this issue? I'm fine with our photos being in their books offline to illustrate their talent to prospective clients, however online is another story.
Just ask them. My friend recently got married and she was the same way (for different reasons). Her photographer does so many weddings that not putting one up didn't make a world of difference.
Just be upfront. Several of our guests work in sensitive positions and are not allowed to hve their images online. We talked with our photog about it, and she was sure to not include them in any posted photos. Honestly, our photog didn't seem the least bit put off by our special requests. Heck, at one point I went bride crazy and asked if I could preview my images before she posted them. She even agreed to that, although I came down off the ledge and did not ultimately preview a thing.
I think most professional photos would be able to understand and comply with your wishes. It might be best to get it in writing, though, just in case.
My H and I were in the same boat... we didn't want our photographer to have the right to do anything and everything with our photos, for personal and professional reasons.
When we booked our photographer, we had it built into our contract that the rights to our photos belonged to us and us alone. However, you should expect some pushback from photographers on this, as showing off their work is the biggest part of their business. It ended up being OK for us because the photog we booked does so many weddings that it didn't matter.
@june42011: Thank you for sharing! I feel better knowing I'm not the only one who feels this way.
@lovekiss: I appreciate the advice. It's good to know that I won't be the first person to ever ask my photographer. I'll be sure to tell them in our intial consultation.
I've had clients do this, in the form of not signing a model release.
When you meet with them I would just ask what their normal process is for posting photos online and then explain to them that your privacy is important to you and you don't want images of the wedding posted online. You can even ask that it be put in the wording of your contract if you'd like.
It has always irked me that photographers who are paid to take photos of a wedding feel that these photos belong to them and therefore they can do whatever they want with them whenever. Yes, you took the photos, but they are of my life at a private event so I should get to say how and when they are used (particularly because I paid for it!). A wedding is personal and I really don't want it to be used as a billboard for the entire world to see. The key here is to remember that you are paying for a service--just like the other services you are paying for at your wedding--and that means you have the ability to negotiate the contract. I had it written into the contract that photos of my wedding could not be used by the photographer online. Make sure you get it in writing! Verbal or handshake agreements are not sufficient. If the photographer refuses to budge on this point, then that's not the photographer for you.
@mauve: Actually legally the images DO belong to thephotographer. That being said, if you prenegotiate that no images are posted online or used for advertising and the photographer is not ok with that, just find another photographer who is more reasonable about it.
@MrsTrue: Actually its not. See the US government's copyright page:
What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#made_for_hire
Completely understand! I don't want mine blogged either. Ilet our photog know this upfront though... as long as they are aware, they won't count on your photos for advertising purposes.
Legally, a wedding really isn't a work for hire situation, so I do keep all copyright.
I won't take a wedding where I can't blog *something* from it..but we can usually reach a compromise and I can just blog detail shots of the reception, centerpieces, the bride and groom walking away from the back, not using your names, that sort of thing. Would that be agreeable to you?
Thank you all for the advice. I'm going to be sure to discuss terms carefully with my photographer and have any special agreement put in writing. I might be willing to compromise on a few non-identifying shots, although I'll be sure the terms are explicitly written as such. If the photog wishes to put us in their offline photo book I'm fine.
@mauve: Most photographers contract will have some type of language in it that asserts that they own the rights the images produced and can do with them what they like. When you sign the contract, you sign away your right to those photos unless otherwise noted.
We went that route... I didn't sign any model releases. Our photographer's assistant didnt know and posted to their FB fanpage and I shot her a quick email and they took them down. Same thing with our videographer... We agreed that some of the shots were really gorgeous and he could use the photos that we okayed... ie, close up of hands/flowers, far away shots where it was hard to identify us but anything up close or with our faces were off limits.
Every wedding photographer I spoke too was very receptive to my privacy concerns. They said that they work with clients all the time that cannot have their pictures made public for a variety of reasons. My personal request was that my pictures simply not be linked to my real name. Our photographer agreed to use a pseudo-name, if he posts them.
Not only has my photographer agreed not to put our pictures online, we are also asking our guests to respect our privacy by not posting pictures of us from our wedding on facebook. Neither FI and I are on facebooks (I broke the habit over a year ago!) and I hate the idea of people I know from high school, college, etc. that I have no interest in having any kind of relationship with having the opportunity to see my wedding pictures. Come on, you know that's what we all do with acquaintances on facebook when they put up albums from their wedding. Knowing this already, I choose not to be a part of it!
@mauve: A work for hire would apply if the photographer you hired was your employee, or if it was specifically negotiated to be as much in your contract. Your photographer however is an independent contractor, not your employee. And for the most part few photographers are going to relinquish their copyright, especially wedding photographers. Consider the fact that the only reason you can even find a wedding photographer is because you see their images. A photographer who doesn't have permission to show his or her photos is not going to be able to book clients.
@Cappugcino: If a client approached us and had a concern such as yours we'd be happy to work with them. If you explain your situation I'm sure you'll have little trouble finding someone willing to work something out. Getting all of your guests on board will probably be a bigger challenge than the photographer.
Here's something to keep in mind: Wedding photographers live and breathe from good reviews and referrals. They are going to want to accommodate legitimate requests. We use copyright to our advantage for the sole reason of self promotion. We're not interested in using images of our clients in any other way. It's not in our interest to do things with the photos taken at your wedding that you're not comfortable with. But we also have to be able to use the images we take to keep our portfolios fresh and attract new clients, and we have to be able to make a profit to stay in business.
Privacy should always be respected by your photographer. He/she needs your permission to publish those photos (the release is usually in the contract). You can ask to renegotiate any release to publish. You should also be able to have an online album password protected if you still want guests to be able to see your photos online. Just tell the photographers. If anyone refuses, that's probably a red flag in general.
@mauve: Wedding photography is not a work for hire situation because wedding clients are not companies that hire photographers to work on their payroll. It's more like you are using my small business Whatever Name Photography and I still work for myself. Does that help explain it at all?
To the OP, more than likely if you are really uncomfortable with being shared online (blog, fb, etc) your photographer can modify his or her contract and come up with some sort of agreement between you all that works. If not, I would suggest looking for a different photographer who might be a better fit for you.
This was good to know. Because of the field my Fi works in and the fact that he is a computer geek, and can almost hack anything(funny story he played a prank on his older brother in highschool and nearly went to jail for it lol) he is very serious about his online presence and what people can find out about him. So I can imagine when we book someone that is going to be a major concern for him. I'm also kind of bummed because I love reading all the recaps on the bee and looked forward to doing one but I know he wouldn't be to thrilled to have all of our wedding posted over the net so won't be doing that 
@mauve, we are contracted artists, not "employees" of your wedding.
Here's just a little explanation of why this is a touchy subject, number one, it deals with Intellectual Property, which if you remember was all the rage a couple weeks ago with the SOPA and PIPA act.
As photographers we're in a unique position and are very much apart from other wedding "vendors" because we're creating intellectual property every time we shoot. Now, I have no doubt that there are photographers who may be okay with occasionally not blogging something because their client has serious privacy concerns, however they have every right to showcase their work regardless of even having an "exhibition" or "model release" statement in their contract, even as regards "getting ready" shots, by invitation given by the client, the photographer is no longer breaching privacy laws, and therefore could also post the work publicly (the opposite is true of an uninvited paparrazzo who uses a telephoto lense to snoop on a celebrity while they're in their home).
Now, after that paragraph of legal nonsense, I will try to explain the reasons these laws are in place... They are to protect the artist. Over the last couple centuries there have been loopholes, and gateways for exploitation of artists, inventors, musicians, and engineers to steal the work and copyrights of such people. This was generally done by larger companies, but also laypeople, laws have been put in place to protect the original creator, in all extents. As photographers we have to maintain the right to publish OUR work, as it protects us from infringement, acts as a "job resume" (portfolio)in leading to more work, and most importantly because we're PROUD of it.
Lastly, I do understand people who have very LEGITIMATE privacy concerns, and have made leeway in the past for them, it's very rare, but for those who just think it's photographer's being "selfish", I would ask this: Would you hire a wedding photographer without a portfolio? Would you invest between $3000-$10,000 on someone you feel shouldn't display his work?
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks,
- Vic
Vic, I think eachphotographer needs to ask themselves in this situation, would I rather be hired to shoot this wedding but not be able to blog it, or would I rather NOT be hired to shoot this wedding at all.
And each photographer out there would make their own decision about it depending on which the need more, money or portfolio shots.
@khodos3: If it's so rare, I don't expect that most photographers would have this concern, particularly when they could include detail shots (ie, photos not of the couple). One wedding missing won't break an online portfolio, and if the OP is already hiring the photog for their desirable style/skill, I imagine the portfolio is strong.
I guess the way I see it, is the contracted artist would still like to keep the customer happy. I mean, it's not much to ask, particularly when the price tag is $3K-$10K.
OP, any update from the photog search, and how your prospective photogs might have responded to your request?
@khodos3: I feel my privacy concerns are more important than a photographer's need to portfolio-build. As I said previously, my privacy related requests were met with professionalism and understanding. I think that speaks highly of those photographers.
To be perfectly honest, a photographer who needs my wedding to portfolio build is not a photographer that I would hire. While I understand the need to keep an updated portfolio, a few private weddings each year are not detrimental to that "freshness" unless the photographer is so green that they don't have many weddings to use in their portfolio.
Portfolio building is a very small concern here, re-read my post. 99% has to do with copyright and intellectual property, by asking someone not to "blog" you are unknowingly restricting his/her rights to THEIR legal property. This is a legal issue. No established photographers "need" your wedding for their portfolio.
And I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of brides wouldn't want to hire a photographer who's very proud of their work and wants to display it. But different strokes I guess...
@MrsTrue: No, the question the photographer has to ask themself is: Do I want to permenantly restrict the copyright to my intellectual property?
This is a BIG question for someone who's full time profession is dedicated to creating long lasting and archival works.
@atalante: 99.9% of wedding clients are happier because their photographer chooses to feature their wedding on their blog, just look at all the "We got blogged!" threads on this forum for proof.
I personally am not really able to cater fully to everybody, and figured that I should explain why. I go over this stuff on consultations all the time. Mind you I blog probably 30% of my work, but I figured it's always good to help people understand the way photographers do things the way we do. :)
@khodos3: I read your post, including the statement "As photographers we have to maintain the right to publish OUR work...acts as a "job resume" (portfolio)in leading to more work..."
I very clearly understand the legal implications of asking a photographer to limit the public exposure of my wedding photographs. I am not unknowingly doing anything, but rather making a very knoweldgeable request.
Privacy is most important to me. While a photographer may have the right to contract for unlimited use and distribution of their photographs, I have the right to contract for limited use and distribution of my image.
A photographer with your attitude on the subject would not be receiving my cash.
@Lulusmom: That's cool, it's not an "attitude" though, just a differing point of view. Nothing adversarial. There are plenty of photographers out there who probably don't care about it though. :)
Just to note, you have the right to ask for limited use, if the photographer is willing to alter his contract then it's cool, however you don't actually have the right to limit the use of his work.
@khodos3: Lovely edit of your prior post. Good thing I'm quick on the copy & paste.
"I do not cater to the 0.01%"
That is precisely the attitude that I think is unprofessional and unacceptable.
@Lulusmom: How is it unprofessional to know who your potential client is and who is not? If I said I catered to your ideas on restriction of copyright just to book a sale, I'd be a liar. Why not just tell you at the beginning that it's not something I'm interested in doing so we can both go ahead and find a better fit?
I don't get what "attitude" you're seeing. Everything I've stated is in the best interests of both the photographer and client. :/
I understand the whole issue of intellectual property however the vast majority of people enjoy and like having their wedding blogged, so I think in the long run its not going to make a difference if the photographers makes a few exceptions every year. Its not like the couples are going to be posting those photos publicly if they are concerned with their privacy. This is also an extremely personal event for the couple and I may be biased but I think that it is more important then the photographer being able to blog or add them to the portfolio.
My friend who is a wedding photographer tells me all the time that some of her brides complain because she doesn't have the time to blog all of her weddings. I don't think it would be that big of deal not to post the few weddings that people don't want made public. However if a photographer is opposed to that I will respect their decision, although no matter how much I like their work I'm going to have to move on to someone else.My fiance and I are willing to pay top dollar for our pictures and are planning on spending between 4500 to 6000 dollars, and for that kind of money I hope we find a photographer willing to work with us.
@khodos3: i AM a photographer so I do understand about copyright ownership, butessentially what's being asked here is a favor. Sure the photographer has the right to post them, but in terms of having good customer service AND just being a nice human being, is it really that big a deal to give up the possibility to post a very small percentage of weddings for the brides who ask?
If it is a big deal to a photographer, it won't be to another. the bride should find a photographer that meets her needs: financially, stylistically, and in regards to privacy.
@MrsTrue: It can be a big deal in certain rare circumstances. In most situations it's not, but I'm explaining why photographers technically have the rights to hold onto the right, or might not feel comfortable altering their contract over it. There are lot of perfectly valid reasons for a photographer to go either way on this issue. I'm just explaining the side that hadn't been stated in the thread earlier, is all.
Also, I don't think the competition of other photographers is valid reason to rethink your ideals on... err, anything.
@khodos3: I don't see anything in your original post, or your prior (now edited) follow-up posts that sugget that you are in any way looking out for the client on this subject. Rather, I see a "me, my, mine" package tied up with a "it's legal" bow.
That being said, I'm done engaging in a discussion with you because I find it highly unethical to edit posts without a notation of "ETA." One can only hope you don't handle your legal contracts with the same sleight of hand.
I wasn't saying that anyone should change their ideals.
Just not every photographer is right for every bride and not every bride is right for every photographer.
Thats why brides should make the right match.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| Lyndzo | 52 |
| Brielle | 41 |
| mypinkshoes | 34 |
| his chippymunk | 32 |
| Cady | 32 |
| fivemonthsnotice | 32 |
| TheLionQueen | 31 |
| AshleyR83 | 30 |
| This Time Round | 30 |
| ndreighton | 27 |
| User | Posts Today |
|---|---|
| caseyleigh10 | 5 |
| Ivorybuttons | 3 |
| MamaMegs721 | 3 |
| Nic01 | 3 |
| atomic | 2 |
 Jamcnair |
2 |
| Joyful80 | 2 |
| mousegirl | 1 |
| KateByDesign | 1 |
| Whitanella | 1 |
