Help please with wedding photo being published in book

[Canonphotographer]

Hello everyone,
This is my first post, perhaps someone is kind enough to help me out. I have a bride who contacted me about a book her and her husband are going to be in. They both lost their previous spouses in military deaths. The book have the story of them in it. I think it sounds like they are a part of the book, not the only subject of the book. Anyways, they would like to use a few of their wedding photos in it. In the wedding contract it stated that only us(our buisness) and the clients who signed have the rights to print from the digital files that were provided. I told the client that the contract gives her the right to print but the publisher/author is someone else. If they wished to use any photos, they should contact us. I told the clients that they would need to sign a model release that they are ok with the photos being published. I also told the client that the publisher would need to sign that the images are only used in this book and that we get credit for them.

Does this all sound good? Is there anything else I should know?
How much should I ask money wise from the publisher? I know I will need to ask how many copies are being printed etc.

Thankyou So MUCH!

[Sweetlifephoto]

Not really. Since you are the copyright holder, you need to define the usage agreement with the publisher. The usage is negotiated between you and the publisher, not the bride and groom. I assume you are giving them the rights and not charging for their usage? If so then a simple license usage agreement should suffice. If you are a PPA member they have a lot of templates for that kind of thing.

Here is a generic one but it might be a little overkill for this situation.

Vendor License Agreement.txt

[kirbinster]

Let's see, from their perspective you are being a jerk. They paid you for pictures of them, and they should be free to do with them as they want. You might have some legal paperwork that says otherwise, but if you try to give them hard time I will bet they will create lots of bad will against you in the community.

I think it one thing to try to uphold a copyright on a creative photo of nature, but to prevent a bride and groom from using their images as they choose is another story. Do you really think you are going to sell these down the road? All you are doing here is creating bad will. I know many will not agree with my feelings, but I bet most if not all people that pay for pictures of themselves will feel this way.


I find it funny how photographers try to defend these rules when they are in their favor, but not the other way around. When you take pictures at weddings, that you are selling for a profit, I bet you don't get model releases from all the guests at the wedding -- who have not given you permission to either take their pictures nor profit from them.

[Sweetlifephoto]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Let's see, from their perspective you are being a jerk. They paid you for pictures of them, and they should be free to do with them as they want.

Really? You would be okay with a customer selling your images to a tobacco company to advertise their new lifestyle smokeless tobacco? The usage agreements are to protect the publisher, the couple and the photographer.

If there is no usage agreement and the couple "gives" them rights to the images, which they don't have the legal authority to do and the magazine uses them for something you disapprove of, then everyone is unhappy.

I didn't get the impression the poster was trying to restrict the usage, but make sure everything was done properly so that the couple is happy getting published, the photographer gets credit for the work and the publisher get to print a cool article.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by Sweetlifephoto

Really? You would be okay with a customer selling your images to a tobacco company to advertise their new lifestyle smokeless tobacco? The usage agreements are to protect the publisher, the couple and the photographer.

....

If "my image" is of just them, without my name on it, then yes -- it is their image and they should be free to use it as they so choose. I would never pay someone to take my picture and then tell me how I could or could not use it -- but I would not sign something that restricted my rights either. If they would not agree with my right to use my image then I would not hire them in the first place.

[dlambert]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

If "my image" is of just them, without my name on it, then yes -- it is their image and they should be free to use it as they so choose.

I've always thought that, but isn't the more restrictive model pretty much exactly what's been done in professional photography up to this point? In the days before digital photography, it never entered anyone's mind that they should be able to reproduce a photo as easily as we can today, and I've had the impression that license agreements are one of the places where business practices are still lagging technology -- am I out to lunch on that?

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by dlambert

I've always thought that, but isn't the more restrictive model pretty much exactly what's been done in professional photography up to this point? In the days before digital photography, it never entered anyone's mind that they should be able to reproduce a photo as easily as we can today, and I've had the impression that license agreements are one of the places where business practices are still lagging technology -- am I out to lunch on that?

In them "olden" days you would just take an 8x10 or 11x14 and take a picture of it with good copy lamps -- not really that hard

I am not saying that photographers should not have a right to their work, I am just saying that I would not pay someone to take my picture and then tell me what I could or could not do with it -- if they don't like that they don't get my business it is that simple.

[Hill Country Hack]

Let me being by stating I don't think the OP is out of line.

All arguements so far bring up valid points.

One sells a electronic file with contracted resrtictions on the file. I understand the buyer has the right to reproduce the file but not alter it. Is the file or the print theirs to distribute as they seem fit being the owners of the file? Altered or not, I personally would not want one of my images used in other than the intended purpose. Does it matter if the seller's name is on the image?

It is diffucult to make a full conclusion without knowing all the details in the contract. From the OP I believe he sold the rights to the files to the buyer and can only request photo credit in the book. I serioulsy doubt the publisher would alter the image except to crop and maybe lighten/darken for proper printing.

[Jim Bryant]

You hold the copyright, you tell them the terms. A byline/credit in the book doesn't pay your bills or put food on the table....Period!

[autofocus]

When a customer buys an image, whether it be a print, or a digital file, they are buying only that tangible thing. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, they do not own the rights to do whatever they want with the image(s). Not really much different than you buying a book, changing or rewriting a few lines, and having it re-published under your name as your own. And I do love you Kirb, but I would not be your photographer if you took that position with me..sorry, you can't do anything you want to the images just because you "bought" them. (unless otherwise specified) Otherwise, what's the point of copyright laws?