If you've hired a photographer to take family pictures

[jgenie]

have you had to release the images to the photographer? We had a maternity session and newborn session done by one photographer and had family pictures done last year by another photographer. This year we had a third photographer do our family pictures. With all three photographers we paid a sitting fee and then bought the digital images for a separate fee. This last photographer wants us to release the images so she can use them however she wants - website or other advertising and in turn she will release them to us. I'm wondering what other people's experiences have been? We don't post pics of DS online so the thought of her posting a gallery of his pictures makes me uneasy. TIA

[AshleyAnn]

I did a post wedding photoshot (trash the dress) with my wedding photographer and a friend of his. It was free to me if I agreed to let them use the photographs in anyway they wished (advertisements, as examples in a photography class the friend teaches, and I recently found out the friend won second in a photography contest with one). I don't care what they do with the photos even though I only liked a handful because it was free. Now my wedding photos that I paid for I went through one by one with my photographer and told him yes/no to which photographs he could use for his own use. I let him use most of them but there was NO way I'd sign over the rights to my entire set (I did a prewedding surprise boudoir set for my husband of me in my dress - not something I want flashed around the net). I don't mind photographs of me or my family being on the net unless they are embarassing or immodest.

[katydid1971]

If it makes you uneasy don't do it ;)

[pb&j]

DH is a professional photographer. He gives all digital images to the clients at no extra charge, however his fees up front are higher than those who don't. Basically, he'd rather take pictures than spend time selling photo packages, so he structures his business model accordingly. His approach is pretty unusual, and most of his colleagues follow a model like you described - sitting fee, plus fees to purchase prints or digital files.

His contracts state that he still retains ownership/copyright of the photos, but that the client can use the files however they wish, make unlimited prints, etc, as long as he is credited for any commercial use. He also includes a clause in his contract that states that he may use any of the photos for promotional or other purposes. He will remove that clause upon request, with no penalty.

IMO, it is basically blackmail to require that you allow your pics to be used promotionally in order to have them released to you. I would either negotiate that out of your agreement with the photographer, or find a new photographer. There are many reasons why people wouldn't want pics of themselves and their kids posted online (or used in a newspaper ad, or entered in a competition, etc etc etc) and the photog should be able to accommodate you.

[daniele_ut]

DH is a professional photographer. He gives all digital images to the clients at no extra charge, however his fees up front are higher than those who don't. Basically, he'd rather take pictures than spend time selling photo packages, so he structures his business model accordingly. His approach is pretty unusual, and most of his colleagues follow a model like you described - sitting fee, plus fees to purchase prints or digital files.

His contracts state that he still retains ownership/copyright of the photos, but that the client can use the files however they wish, make unlimited prints, etc, as long as he is credited for any commercial use. He also includes a clause in his contract that states that he may use any of the photos for promotional or other purposes. He will remove that clause upon request, with no penalty.

This is basically what our photographer does as well. She doesn't want to spend the time ordering prints and selling packages. I MUCH prefer this.

[MontrealMum]

Most photographers I've been to have done the sitting fee + printing/ordering charges. But none of them have forced clients to agree to release images for the photographer to advertise with, or to be put online. Sure, it's often an option that you can check on the contract and I don't have a problem with being asked, but I'd have a big problem w/someone who EXPECTS you to agree to releasing images. I'd find someone else. For our wedding, for example, the photographer retained the originals, and only printed the ones we ordered, but he cannot simply print up something from the originals w/o our permission (which we did not give).

[DrSally]

I wouldn't do it if you don't want to. She should release the images to you (for a fee) wo/requiring you to release them for her use.

[jgenie]

Thanks for the replies!! The pictures are amazing and we are extremely happy with them. I'm hoping she's had other clients feel the same way and won't be bothered by the request. If we can come to an agreement with this photo shoot, we'll be asking her to come do newborn pics when the new baby arrives.

[geochick]

Last year this happened to us. We told her we'd have to cancel if we had to sign because dh works in a field where he would NEVER want his clients to know he has kids/anything about him/etc. Publishing our family portrait could be dangerous. The photographer said she'd be flexible, and didn't make us sign the release.