32

Event photographers are generally in the business of selling prints, not just snapping photos. They want to sell you the best images they can make, not the raw material for making those images. There may also be some concern that their name will be attached to images that they didn't entirely control: they don't want to be associated with your questionable ...


25

I'd rather not just let the photographer pick the X images that he/she thinks are best to edit and deliver because he/she won't have the same opinion as me as to which images are the best. But you let him pick what equipment he uses, the settings of the camera, the lens, where he points the camera, when he takes an image, etc. It's odd pay somebody to do ...


23

Because unedited / unretouched images do not represent the photographers' best efforts. A wedding photographer is not somebody hired to use an expensive point-and-shoot. The shots they take require editing because there is more information in the RAW file (digital negative) than can be represented in any JPEG image. It's part of the creative process to push/...


8

As a rule, pro wedding photographers and editors consider a Blemish to be a temporary flaw or mark on a persons face. These will include skin imperfections such as spots, zits, blackheads, whiteheads, veins in the eyes ETC, anything that is temporary. Any imperfection which is a more permanent part of a person, is generally not considered a blemish. These ...


7

You should take a little look back to your contract agreement, if there's any rule regarding that matter. But if there's none, these are the concern that you should raise on your employer: Any photograph taken by you using your personal camera on the purpose of fulfilling your profession should be clearly stated on a legally-bounded agreement on whose ...


5

This is a legal question and the only definitive answer will be one provided by a competent attorney who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction and who is familiar with the subtleties of applicable statutes and common law in force within that jurisdiction. The information below is of a general nature and should not be construed as legal advice for any ...


5

Because some dumbass lawyer sued a wedding photographer who gave him "everything". Gary Fong helped out the original photographer and he's financially OK, but I bet the photographer is going to have second thoughts from now on.


4

The American Society of Media Photographers not only has a very useful tutorial on this subject, but they also have, as you requested, sample forms, available here -- and unlike other pro orgs that lock their samples behind a login, these are freely available.


4

You own the copyright. What you most likely want to do is retain the copyright, but assign rights to the clients to use those images. Unless you expressly sign over copyright to them, you will retain the copyright. You can't resize an image into a JPG and give them copyright on that file. The copyright gives the copyright holder (you) the right to make ...


4

Your premise is incorrect. They most certainly do want to release the originals as it is likely far and away the most lucrative package they offer. I would personally fly to your location and shoot your wedding, but it will cost you $15k. The fact is that they won't release the images for the relatively small monetary cost they book the shooting session ...


3

Even the best photographers will take some photos that aren't good. Poorly composed, poorly lit, subjects eyes closed etc. You can't get a lot of good photos without also getting some duds. If they give you these photos as well, it reflects poorly on the quality of their work overall. You may want to have all of the photos, regardless of the quality. ...


3

Here's some links: Modeling agency: http://www.famemgtasia.com/ Similar and very useful thread: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/558133-session-with-an-amateur-model/ Basically Noldor, without having been there previously (I've been twice but only as a tourist) it's a little hard to imagine but it's extremely easy to get it handled once you are there....


3

I second the advice to contact a lawyer to be sure, but from a non-lawyer standpoint, I'm afraid you are on shaky ground. A copyright release says that the rights-holder (still the photographer) has voluntarily suspended some part of those rights. She still owns the copyright, but you are allowed to do something; that something should be spelled out in the ...


3

I am not a lawyer, however it would probably depend on the language of the contract about what would be provided to you. Having a copyright is not the same as having the right to demand the images. You have the right to do with the images what you want, but I'm pretty sure the contract would have to specify what the deliverable is and how/when it would be ...


2

Legal questions are unique in that the best answers are usually more practically correct than technically correct. Based on the research I have done in the past you should be ok as long as it's a public place and if they don't keep you from taking the pictures you should be good to sell/publish/etc. However, even if you're technically in the clear that ...


2

YES Whenever possible you should get a model release (or a contract with a model release clause) from anyone who appears in your photos or video, this can save a lot of trouble in the future and has no downside.


2

Really, you don't need a contract for this case. Do the work for yourself personally and maintain all images and video as copyright to yourself. Just get a model release from him and then license back the works to him as you see fit. By default, in almost all cases, the rights to creative content go to the content creator, not the subject. So unless you ...


2

"Is it possible to grant the license of photos before the commissioned shoot"? Absolutely it is possible and it is best practice ( in your best interest ) to have an agreement or contract in place before any work is done. "licensing fees" What kind of licensing are you talking about. Is it a one time usage, one year or five year usage, unlimited usage? ...


2

"Normal" edits -- cropping, alignment and color correction -- should be included; no professional photographer would want his/her images going out without those. You state his "instructions" also include blemish removal, so that should also be included. The time necessary to do those are all reasonably foreseeable, so he can set a fee up front that ...


2

The following is for entertainment purposes only. Contact a lawyer if you have serious legal concerns. Contact a lawyer to determine whether you actually need model releases and whether an opt-in or opt-out system would be most appropriate. While "bulk model releases" with opt-out might save on paperwork, they would be inappropriate if you have significant ...


1

You probably would not need a model release at all. A model release is to give to people who appear in the photos. You're taking a picture of animals. But even if you do need a model release because some people are going to be in some of the pictures, that is entirely independent of the contract between you and the people who are licensing the pictures ...


1

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The information below is general in nature and should not be taken as specific legal advice. If you have a specific legal question you should consult an attorney practicing in your jurisdiction that is familiar with the law and case history regarding the issues you wish to address. The following general information is based on ...


1

Not really an answer, but you forgot to mention which jurisdiction is involved, rules differ between countries. But in any case, if a release is needed, it is needed by the publisher of the images, not the photographer. (of course, they can be the same person fulfiling both "roles"). If the breeder is the one publishing the images of his own animals, he has ...


1

Depends where you go: my wife and I got married in Vegas (we live in Australia) and hired two photographers over two days. Both gave us copies of the full set of photos on DVD with minimal retouching, for no extra charge over the hourly rate, within 5 days of the shoots. In the UK and AU you've got a smaller labour pool of photographers. The labour market ...


1

The images also sell better after they are fixed. :)


1

YES If you do not have a release (for property, too.) your images are unusable. You cannot display them in public. You cannot use them in your portfolio. You cannot use them. ONLY EXCEPTION: I worked as a news photographer—anything goes.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible