Wedding Contract oddity

[Niresangwa]

Really just wondering whether anyone else has had this request...

Met with a couple, blah blah snore, got the wedding, all is well. Get her details for the day and compose the contract. Mail it over, all is well. Suddenly get an email from Dad saying he wants to be the one on the contract, not his daughter and future son-in-law, as it's his wallet.

Initial thought was "makes no difference to me". However, something doesn't quite sit right with me about this. Looking back over the meeting there were too many times she was checking an email on her iphone from her mom making sure asked the right questions, and the exhaustive notes she was taking apparently on behalf of her mom. I can live with invasive parents, we're all used to handling people as photographers... and if her folks gave me the nod after an extensive grilling, they must have been fine with the work and my process...

...however, anyone see anything i'm missing by having Mom and Dad on the legally binding document? Is it worth mentioning to them that I'm keeping creative input firmly in the hands of the B&G, or ultimately does it really matter? I'm struggling to see where it really matters from a contractual standpoint, yet it doesn't feel natural to be contracting with the mom and dad, not the B&G - maybe its just because i haven't done it this way before.

So, anyone had this before, and if so what did you do? Even if you haven't can anyone see anything i'm missing?

It does sound a little odd, and should probably be noted as a "yellow flag" (not quite a red flag, but something to note).

It's probably nothing to worry about, but you if things start to get a little weirder, you might think about dropping them. For instance, if the dad starts asking for several large changes in the contract that you don't feel comfortable with, you should probably get out. Especially if it's a day you think you'll re-book easily (like a May-June or Sept-Oct wedding). If it's not a day you can easily book with another client, you might take on a bit more risk.

[Jim Poor]

You need to get them all in one room and make sure everyone is on the same page of music.

[i speak in math]

Its pretty common for the Dad to be on the contract as he is usually the one to pay the photographer (in my experience or ask a wedding planner if its typical). I assume the bride just wanted to find a photographer that she liked and if dad approved, then he would sign em.

[BigVinnie]

You WANT the dad on the contract. Typically he is the one who is writing the check. If his name is on the bottom line he is also party to making payment.

[Niresangwa]

Thanks boys, appreciate the thoughts.

I'm a little cautious of them being over-bearing, and I think that's what makes it seem odd to me. I can't think of any reason under which having the Dad on the contract would cause issues, aside from giving him a thought he can start dictating terms...

..that said, there has been no mention of issues with the terms in my contract, and ultimately he is the one signing the cheque. I'll probably just add his name to it in addition to the B&G.

I just haven't had anyone ask this before, so it seemed off.

Thanks again!

Steve

[candleman]

its common for the parents to pay. however, i try to make it clear that i dont really worry about who is paying for it.

The REAL issue is that the contract (licensing/limitations of use of the images) needs to be between me and the people i hand the final work over to. Which is ALWAYS the couple.

if the parents sign ther bottom line, they pay the check, but you hand the images over to the couple.. you just gave images away without a contract IMHO.
what i do?
I make the couple both sign the contract, and i have another line for "Additional Signing Party".

but i just made that up.. its not a Lawyers answer.
I think a good chat (as Jim suggested) wil clear the air when you explain image licensing, protecting your work.

[Jim Bryant]

All above is good advice. Ya'll took the words out of my mouth and then some. Make sure whatever you decide goes on a contract signed by the Dad.

[LeeR]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing the same red flag here. If the dad signs the contract and becomes legally responsible, which is what he is after, then he becomes your client. I can't think of many circumstances where the wishes of the dad and that of the bride would be different, but if that were to happen you would be obligated to follow the dad. You can say it is your intention to honor the wishes of the B&G but you are contractually obligated to the dad. I would think it would be in the bride's best interest for she or the groom to be your client so that your loyalties remain where they should. Better to sit down with them and hear their reasoning for the change. There may be a better alternative.

[Niresangwa]

...aaand thanks again, I appreciate the thoughts very much.

I decided to add the father (as Candleman suggested) as the additional signing party, and to make sure that the B&G were named as such in the contract.

Also to emphasize that the image release was in the name of the B&G only. Thankfully the usage release is a separate document for me, so it won't be an issue.

If this represents a problem in any fashion, then we'll call a meeting.