Showing pictures on your website

Do you ask your clients (is it called clients?) for permission for showing some of the best shots on your websites/facebook/flickr/500px? I just wondered.

I do, and one time I wanted to use one of the pictures for a internet-flyer, so I wrote the girl again (she said of course, go nuts).

​

It's part of the contract they sign . . . they acknowledge that any of the photos can be used by the photographer for print or online exhibition. I never attach or tag the photo with a name.

ohkphoto said:

It's part of the contract they sign . . . they acknowledge that any of the photos can be used by the photographer for print or online exhibition. I never attach or tag the photo with a name.

Click to expand...

Ahh.

I dont have a contract, since Im only starting. But I do make all conversation by mail, at least.

Is there a standard contract like Nolo press, or does every photographer have their own?

There are standard contracts, which are pretty much generic across the board, and there are customized contracts, drawn up in cooperation with the client. Some photographers even draft their own contracts, depending on their genre of photography. Google "photographer contracts".....see what you come up with.

That question again…

Hello Billy,

This is a deadly trap, he are some thoughts:

Did you know that if you buy a Picasso, or any other painting, for say 10,000,000 €,
you are the proud owner of a wood frame, a piece of canvas and an average of 468
grams to oil paint. That is it! The image on that canvas belongs to the rightful owner
and this is never the buyer.

What you bought is the very very very exclusive right to look at it anytime you want,
without having to pay museum entrance and waiting in line… BUT YOU DON'T OWN
THE PICTURE THE ARTIST DID! (you may buy a cd but not the royalties of the songs)
Yes, a client is the right name. And things are getting tricky here:
1. You took a decent picture (I mean not an indecent picture), the photograph is
for ever yours. But you cannot always use it. Animals, landscapes (without military
installation) and such, is ok. The minute one can recognize someone… you will need
a release.

2. You took a picture of a tree or a bird. Some one want to buy a print. You sell the
print …not the rights! …remember Picasso! All you need is to sell a photo for 10M€!
I think only once would be ok!

3. A client is asking that you take a picture of what ever from his business to be
printed in a prospect or catalogue or else. HE OWNS EVRERYTHING! Your fee
covers your work and includes his ownership.

I'll stop here because I'm boring myself to death.

International laws, continental, national, even state or provincial laws…

Just be very careful my friend.

PPA (Professional Photographers of America) have a resource file of sample contracts. I'm not sure if you need to be a member or not, but like Jack said, you can probably find a contract online and then customize.

You don't want to get in the habit of "asking permission" to use the photos because it may lead them to the false assumption that they "own" the photos. The client can own/purchase the print, but the copyright stays with the photographer.

The client should be asking YOU permission to post the photos . . . you might want to include something to the effect that for each print or download purchased, they also receive a personal, royalty-free license (so they can post to FB, etc.)

Kodiak said:

That question again…


3. A client is asking that you take a picture of what ever from his business to be
printed in a prospect or catalogue or else. HE OWNS EVRERYTHING! Your fee
covers your work and includes his ownership.

I'll stop here because I'm boring myself to death.

International laws, continental, national, even state or provincial laws…

Just be very careful my friend.

Click to expand...

Hello, Kodiak! I agree with all except #3, and this may be different for different nations, and I'm sure others who have done this type of shooting will chime in. If a business hires me to do a simple photo shoot of say their office for use in brochures, unless they pay a hefty commission fee that includes copyright release, the copyright still belongs to me and for using any photos for their brochures, they need to purchase a license from me, the copyright owner. There's a big difference in price for commissioned work and for a photo shoot from which they select a photo to license. The copyright always stays with the photographer/creator unless it is signed away by the photographer, regardless of what the subject is.

I agree that copyright laws and usage are getting more and more complicated, which is why that initial contract is so important.

Hello again cat,

A contract is valid when it conforms with the international, national, state or
provincial, city or municipal all the way down to the individual laws. All must
have been considered and not conflict with any.

I let my lawyer take care of that for me.

I just wanna take pictures…

Greetings to Capitan, NM

This is not what courtrooms rule in this case.

The jurisprudence has established:
• If you are hired, you are an employee, commissioned to do something for a fee.
• The employer owns the work and the rights. No contract=no claim!

The designer of the iPhone works at and for the company. The salary is there to
justify his/her efforts. No contract=no claim!

You are right, a contract must be. Only after

Interesting. But what about people/faces? Our law are a bit hard on this: you are not allowed to post a portrait on your website unless the person agreed.
You are allowed to post pictures of events or gatherings, like at concerts, kids playing at a playground, street photography with several people on it.

I think we are loosing our time…

A smile in New Mexico objects, based on american laws, to an argument brought
by a canadian, and based on canadian laws, to a question posted by a DANE?!?!?

Are we crazy?

The only thing that's worth at all is the knowledge of territorial and political differences
that one should discover for the territory of his/her operation and be very careful.

As far as I am concerned, my lawyer takes care of those things …and writes the contracts.

Who said that the laws of physics, in photography, are complicated?

With all due respect to the dane and the smile in Capitan, NM.

wud said:

Do you ask your clients (is it called clients?) for permission for showing some of the best shots on your websites/facebook/flickr/500px? I just wondered.

I do, and one time I wanted to use one of the pictures for a internet-flyer, so I wrote the girl again (she said of course, go nuts).

​

Click to expand...

I ask 99% the people I take photo. Sometimes before sometimes afterwards. Only if I take photos from a crowded place than not. But here in Thailand is this not really a matter. I ask they smile and proud to get in the WWW.

Kodiak said:

I think we are loosing our time…

A smile in New Mexico objects, based on american laws, to an argument brought
by a canadian, and based on canadian laws, to a question posted by a DANE?!?!?

Are we crazy?

The only thing that's worth at all is the knowledge of territorial and political differences
that one should discover for the territory of his/her operation and be very careful.

As far as I am concerned, my lawyer takes care of those things …and writes the contracts.

Who said that the laws of physics, in photography, are complicated?

With all due respect to the dane and the smile in Capitan, NM.

Click to expand...

You are right, Kodiak, the whole thing is a mess, and somewhat unnecessary . . . just another way for lawyers to get rich.

Here in the US, the IRS makes a distinction between an independent contractor and and employee. You can be "hired" to do a job for a business and not be classified as an employee. If you are indeed a bona fide salaried employee, then the employer owns your work. But if you are an independent service provider/contractor, the work is yours. . . at least here in the USA.

Maybe the safest thing to do is to always have a release for person and property.

Like you, I, too, want to just take photos, and maybe NOT like you, I have a dislike for lawyers.

Haha, I dont think its crazy, just really interesting how it works at your places. You dont have any law about posting people/faces on internet? Here it is actually compared to putting personal information about someone online, like your social security number!

Yes, it is the same here, I do own all my pictures even though someone pays for it - unless they pay a whole lot for the license.

I googled a little about danish contracts and see that people write into the contract, that the photographer are allowed to use the pictures for whatever he/she wants. But as far as I can see, an agreement written by mail works the same way as a signed contract.


I'll write my danish friend who is a pro photographer, I'm sure she will let me see her contract. Plus we got an lawyer in our family (and he is very sweet and dont charge anything for looking through a contract) and also my best friends boyfriend are a lawyer.

ohkphoto said:

You are right, Kodiak, the whole thing is a mess, and somewhat unnecessary . . . just another way for lawyers to get rich.

Here in the US, the IRS makes a distinction between an independent contractor and and employee. You can be "hired" to do a job for a business and not be classified as an employee. If you are indeed a bona fide salaried employee, then the employer owns your work. But if you are an independent service provider/contractor, the work is yours. . . at least here in the USA.

Click to expand...

That's correct here and in most countries (the paparazzi industry would not exist without it). However, as a contractor I've found retention of rights is dependent on the job and sophistication of the company/individual paying the bill. Many companies explicitly retain all rights in the contract for product photography and product has many defintions. Also, I've known a couple of pros who did family/personal work for high profile individuals and in every instance rights were retained by the subjects, obviously dictated by business managers/ legal counsel.

In the US, with more lawyers than the rest of the world combined, legal caution is the working definition of rights.

Maybe the safest thing to do is to always have a release for person and property.

Like you, I, too, want to just take photos, and maybe NOT like you, I have a dislike for lawyers.

Click to expand...

wud said:

Plus we got an lawyer in our family (and he is very sweet and dont charge anything for looking through a contract) and also my best friends boyfriend are a lawyer.

Click to expand...

​Then you, my friend, are more than a step ahead of us! Good move and good luck!

ohkphoto said:

PPA (Professional Photographers of America) have a resource file of sample contracts. I'm not sure if you need to be a member or not, but like Jack said, you can probably find a contract online and then customize.

You don't want to get in the habit of "asking permission" to use the photos because it may lead them to the false assumption that they "own" the photos. The client can own/purchase the print, but the copyright stays with the photographer.

The client should be asking YOU permission to post the photos . . . you might want to include something to the effect that for each print or download purchased, they also receive a personal, royalty-free license (so they can post to FB, etc.)

Click to expand...

I have used a sample of their model release for many years now. I did of course modify it to include my name, etc. I also added a phrase that I own all rights to my negatives/transparencies/RAW files.

"It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" - Grace Murray Hopper

As long as you're not making googles of cash from an image (hardly a concern for 99.999% of your shots) the worst that can happen is a letter asking you to remove it. While this may not be the best way to deal with your street photographs, it certainly is the most pragmatic way.

I made a text on my website now, saying that I will use some of the pictures on sites concerning my photography, better safe than sorry. But if people kindly ask me not to show a given picture, of course I wont. I myself would hate being displayed, lol.

Another question, do you put your logo on pictures made for internet use? I dont on the files for print, but after googling for a while, it seems people use logos on dog/animal pictures, but not on pictures of people.

For dog pictures, several write on their website, that of course people can have them without logo, this cost extra.