Using Photographs for Advertising?

CtPhotoGirl

Legal?

The photos you take, willingly for "customers" are yours Correct? To use freely?

Whats everyones stand on this?

Can you advertise with them? as in use them in ads, or flyers??

Thanks!

dragon300zx

Depends on alot of things. The wording of your contract, model release, etc. If its a wedding photo and you had a contract that made it clear in the contract that you owned the copyright to the images to use them as you see fit then go ahead. If you didn't have that in the contract or an agreement or release that you could use them then, I don't know. I always get the release myself no matter what it is to be safe.

digital faerie

dragon300zx wrote:

Depends on alot of things. The wording of your contract, model release, etc. If its a wedding photo and you had a contract that made it clear in the contract that you owned the copyright to the images to use them as you see fit then go ahead. If you didn't have that in the contract or an agreement or release that you could use them then, I don't know. I always get the release myself no matter what it is to be safe.

thanks to Shay, he suggested a book called "Pricing Photography: The Complete Guide to Assignment & Stock Prices."

the key word here is "licensing," and cost, especially in advertising, it depends on a lot. For one, what exactly do they want to use the image for? Is it for a billboard, magazine, book, in-house company letter, stock holder letter, etc.? What's the circulation?

Another thing: avoid the phrase "work for hire" like it's the bubonic plague. The company will own everything you do, as if you never existed.

So yes, you retain the ownership & copyright to the image(s) and the company is buying the right to use it in a very specific way. And in your contract you have to be very specific.

Let's say it's for a brochure to stock holders. In your contract you would say "head shot of CEO John Smith" to be 2"x4" on inside cover of Stock Holder publication #22. That way they couldn't put it on their multiple times, etc, nor could they use it anywhere else without properly paying you for it. Time period is another factor, and re-licensing after 6 to 12 months is another thing.

I highly recommend this book, it was EXTREMELY helpful.

dragon300zx

Looks like a good book and I am going to pick it up later. However your post kinda confused me. I don't think CT was asking (she is a wedding photographer) if her customers can use her photos for advertising. She is asking whether or not she can use the photos she takes at the weddings for her customers in her own advertising. The client that is buying the photograph isnt a company but a newly wed couple who will be using the images to remember their special day. They wont be using the photograph in anything commercial. My take on it has always been as long as you covered yourself in the contract for the wedding or release go right ahead and use them. Thats how the wedding photographers I know get the images they use in their advertising.

digital faerie

dragon300zx wrote:

Looks like a good book and I am going to pick it up later. However your post kinda confused me. I don't think CT was asking (she is a wedding photographer) if her customers can use her photos for advertising. She is asking whether or not she can use the photos she takes at the weddings for her customers in her own advertising. The client that is buying the photograph isnt a company but a newly wed couple who will be using the images to remember their special day. They wont be using the photograph in anything commercial. My take on it has always been as long as you covered yourself in the contract for the wedding or release go right ahead and use them. Thats how the wedding photographers I know get the images they use in their advertising.

ah-hah! in that case, the only thing I can think of is a couple of scenarios. one, it'd be easy to word the contracts that say all of her images are subject to be used as advertising for her photography business. On the other hand, if a company came across her image, and wanted to use it because they specialized in wedding planning or something like that, then she may run into trouble if the image of a person is being used to make money for this company (as an advertisement), correct?

right now I'm thinking of some news story that broke last year about a guy who's baby image was used for some product but the family never heard anything from the company. As a middle-aged adult he discovered that they had been using it all along and successfully sued. I can't remember though!

please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I am trying like hell to keep this straight myself, there's a lot of complexities aren't there?!?

and sorry for the confusion, I didn't realize she was a wedding photographer.

dragon300zx

The man you are reffering to I believe was a picture taken of him as a young man. It was actually the picture used on folgers coffee products for years. The photographer didn't get a proper release and folgers ended up getting bit.


Your scenario is correct though about if another company wanted to use her image for advertising. She would need her contract to say she retained full copyright of the image to use as she saw fit, or something along those lines.

digital faerie

dragon300zx wrote:

The man you are reffering to I believe was a picture taken of him as a young man. It was actually the picture used on folgers coffee products for years. The photographer didn't get a proper release and folgers ended up getting bit.


Your scenario is correct though about if another company wanted to use her image for advertising. She would need her contract to say she retained full copyright of the image to use as she saw fit, or something along those lines.

cool, thank you!! and yes, it was Folgers! I wonder how much he got for that.

CtPhotoGirl

oK , In our contract for our weddings we do state that we can use their photos for any advertising, so the couples that Do not wish to have their photographs used we require a seperate, "admendent" saying so. so theres no problems
the question I do have is particularly for "portrait" sessions, we dont norrmally "ask for signatures" about using their photographs, so we think "since we are the owners of the photos, they are coming to our studio to take photos, we can do what we do with the photographs. On the Kodak website they list "rules" and photographers have the rights to do. They say that we have every right since we are the photographer and the owner of it.


what do you feel about "studio portraits" can they be used freely? Some say yes some say no.. I know better safe than sorry is to ask the family, But do you think Sears and Picture People and target ask the families to "use" their photos as ' pictures that hang in their studio? or in their ads?

Sarah

digital faerie wrote:

ah-hah! in that case, the only thing I can think of is a couple of scenarios. one, it'd be easy to word the contracts that say all of her images are subject to be used as advertising for her photography business. On the other hand, if a company came across her image, and wanted to use it because they specialized in wedding planning or something like that, then she may run into trouble if the image of a person is being used to make money for this company (as an advertisement), correct?

right now I'm thinking of some news story that broke last year about a guy who's baby image was used for some product but the family never heard anything from the company. As a middle-aged adult he discovered that they had been using it all along and successfully sued. I can't remember though!

please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I am trying like hell to keep this straight myself, there's a lot of complexities aren't there?!?

and sorry for the confusion, I didn't realize she was a wedding photographer.

dragon300zx

Do they ask the families? I doubt it. But if you read the fine print on their order form/contract that they use I gaurantee you there will be some verbage giving them full use and ownership of the photos. Always always always get it in writing even if its in fine print.

digital faerie

dragon300zx wrote:

Do they ask the families? I doubt it. But if you read the fine print on their order form/contract that they use I gaurantee you there will be some verbage giving them full use and ownership of the photos. Always always always get it in writing even if its in fine print.

dragon's right. Incorporate verbage saying you reserve the right to use it however (including advertising) just like you do your others and if they don't agree, it can be ammended. that way you are covered.

wxwax

CtPhotoGirl wrote:

oK , In our contract for our weddings we do state that we can use their photos for any advertising, so the couples that Do not wish to have their photographs used we require a seperate, "admendent" saying so. so theres no problems
the question I do have is particularly for "portrait" sessions, we dont norrmally "ask for signatures" about using their photographs, so we think "since we are the owners of the photos, they are coming to our studio to take photos, we can do what we do with the photographs. On the Kodak website they list "rules" and photographers have the rights to do. They say that we have every right since we are the photographer and the owner of it.


what do you feel about "studio portraits" can they be used freely? Some say yes some say no.. I know better safe than sorry is to ask the family, But do you think Sears and Picture People and target ask the families to "use" their photos as ' pictures that hang in their studio? or in their ads?

Sarah

Yes, Sears & Roebuck are legally required to have signed releases.

If you don't have a signed release from your portrait subject, permitting you to use their likeness to promote your business, then you can be held liable if you do so and they object.

It sounds like you have such language in your wedding contract. You ought to consider doing so for your studio work as well.

Your subjects own complete rights to their likeness for any commerical usage.