Bride & Groom refuse to sign model release form?

[princessmocha]

This might sound a bit silly.
Have any of you had problems with couples who refuse to sign the model release form?
That means I cannot post any of the images that I take of them in anywhere, right?

[srwatters]

Did they have a specific section of your release that they objected to or just the release in general?

If a client is paying your non-discounted rate, it is their right to restrict the usage of their images. If you object and it is your standard policy to retain other publication rights, then perhaps that client is not right for you. Did you try to offer them a discount or other perk in exchange for the release rights?

To answer your last question, I would say yes, you are correct, but I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[Dsheree]

Ask them what part of it they don't like....they might not want them online but be ok with you using them in print. Some people are just weird about pics on the internet.

[LadyShutterBug]

i have had a couple of groups of clients over the years who really prefer their images be kept private... and i respect that 100%. if i want to use them in an advertisement or somethign, i just ask specifically. the worst they can do is say no, and even then, they will probably be flattered that you asked and "chose" them.

[JenJohnson79]

I had a recent couple ask me not to use their pictures. . . I've used pictures of thier cake, and flowers, but not of them. . . I was told as long as you can't see or make out someone's face you can use the picture.

[PeteQ]

Originally Posted by JenJohnson79

I was told as long as you can't see or make out someone's face you can use the picture.

Not entirely true. In general, images of someone elses property (cake, building, car, etc.) cannot be used without a property release from the owner. Especially with something that cannot be seen from a public place...

Ask nicely, if they agree, enjoy, if not, respect their decision.

[HotHolly]

Sometimes clients ask for their photos to be kept private. In our experience, that has been discussed prior to even mentioning the model release when the concern is privacy. With our clients, if someone is not comfortable with signing the model release they are concerned about usage. They are concerned about seeing embarrassing shots on a billboard or something unusually horrendous. If you can get them talking about their concerns, it should come into focus as to what the issue is - privacy or usage. See if you can be more specific with your release to get them more comfortable (e.g. - will only be used in printed portfolio). If the issue arose prior to the release, then its not your wording in the release - its a privacy issue and you should honor their request.

[wjmphoto]

One question - are you using a seperate model release or is it included in your contract? If it is not in your contract, why not?

Perhaps they would be willing to sign a limited release for usage in sample albums or studio prints for the walls with their approval. You really need to find out what they object to and why. It should not be that hard to work around it. It could be that they are self conscious and think they won't look good in the pictures. Once you show them the shots that you would like to use with their approval, they are more likely to accept them.

If you really wish to insist on leaving it in your contract, you can use the strategy of telling them that your prices are a discounted rate for being able to use shots from wedding that you like in your advertising - They are getting a lower price for giving you the rights. If they do not wish to give you the advertising rights, that's fine, they just have to pay the "regular" rate of $XXXX. (Say 2x more or $1000 more or whatever you wish to set.)

[princessmocha]

Thanks for all the feedback. They did not give me a firm "NO" or "YES", they just told me" we will decide on that later".....
They are really nice couple, and I had fun working with them, and the chemistry SPARKS, I have a lot of great shots that I would love to put on my website, and also to "show off" in the forum ...so now i guess i'll just wait.
As for the agreement thingy, I admit it's kind of my mistake. In the wedding service agreement, i did not include any model release info. I have a seperate copy of the model release.
Well, I will talk to them nicely, like you all have suggested. I really hope they will give me a yes. So that I can post some images here to get some c&c.......

[PeteQ]

Originally Posted by wjmphoto

One question - are you using a seperate model release or is it included in your contract? If it is not in your contract, why not?

Perhaps they would be willing to sign a limited release for usage in sample albums or studio prints for the walls with their approval. You really need to find out what they object to and why. It should not be that hard to work around it. It could be that they are self conscious and think they won't look good in the pictures. Once you show them the shots that you would like to use with their approval, they are more likely to accept them.

If you really wish to insist on leaving it in your contract, you can use the strategy of telling them that your prices are a discounted rate for being able to use shots from wedding that you like in your advertising - They are getting a lower price for giving you the rights. If they do not wish to give you the advertising rights, that's fine, they just have to pay the "regular" rate of $XXXX. (Say 2x more or $1000 more or whatever you wish to set.)

It's not included and here's why. My wedding clients aren't "models" to me. They are a client. If I have a client/shot that would be useful then I would approach them with the idea of allowing me to use their image in advertising, etc. At most I would likely offer a discount on some prints or a freebie print. More than likely it will be one or two images you may want to use and you won't know that until the wedding is over so why tie your whole rate structure to a possible image use? If you start doubling your rate or attaching what is in effect a surcharge, for unwilling signers I would guess you would see clients walk and their word of mouth will not be what you are looking for. And what if at the end of the day you get no exceptional shots? You have just cut your fee by 1/2 for no reason. Not every wedding will produce something you will regard as portfolio quality.

It sounds like some folks are trying to treat a wedding as a portfolio opportunity instead of one of the most memorable days in their clients life. The last thing that the bride and groom want to do along with all the other wedding day stuff is worry about a model release. Enjoy the day, shoot good images, and if you get something spectacular make them a deal. The cost to you of say a 16x20 print is small compared to their perceived value when it is given as a gift so that you can use that image on your wall or brochure.

[wjmphoto]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

It's not included and here's why. My wedding clients aren't "models" to me. They are a client. If I have a client/shot that would be useful then I would approach them with the idea of allowing me to use their image in advertising, etc. At most I would likely offer a discount on some prints or a freebie print. More than likely it will be one or two images you may want to use and you won't know that until the wedding is over so why tie your whole rate structure to a possible image use? If you start doubling your rate or attaching what is in effect a surcharge, for unwilling signers I would guess you would see clients walk and their word of mouth will not be what you are looking for. And what if at the end of the day you get no exceptional shots? You have just cut your fee by 1/2 for no reason. Not every wedding will produce something you will regard as portfolio quality.

It sounds like some folks are trying to treat a wedding as a portfolio opportunity instead of one of the most memorable days in their clients life. The last thing that the bride and groom want to do along with all the other wedding day stuff is worry about a model release. Enjoy the day, shoot good images, and if you get something spectacular make them a deal. The cost to you of say a 16x20 print is small compared to their perceived value when it is given as a gift so that you can use that image on your wall or brochure.

I disagree with this line of thinking.

It is a business for the photographer, not an opportunity for memories, which means that EVERY shoot is a portfolio opportunity. If we don't include a model release in the contract and expect to be able to use some of the images for advertising, sample albums, prints in studio and other things that we absolutely need in order to present our abilities to clients, then we will have nothing to show - period. If all clients refuse a model release, that means that we have to set up model shoots, pay for venues, and a lot of other expenses in order to create a varied portfolio made up of many weddings and update it as styles of dress come and go. That is an added cost of doing business that we would have to pass on to the customer.

If a client refuses a model release, it does cost us in the long run. We get advertising material from each wedding opportunity and should pass that saving along to the clients. The simple facts are that their wedding is not about a memorable day in the photographers life; it is a business transaction and a source of advertising material. If the client does not want us to use their work for advertising then they can pay for the lost opportunity to us for portfolio material and advertising content.

The release needs to be included in the contract, not done as an afterthought. If they wish to change the contract, that is something that each photographer has to deal with when it happens. It is up to you to decide if your contract is the way it will stand or if you are willing to change it for the client. Mine is written in stone.

[LoungeLizard]

If I had a paying customer who didn't want me to use their images - that's fine, they're a paying customer. I would ask why, but wouldn't fight it. I have never had the situation come up.

I was recently looking at some magazine advertising and even though I had the rights, I approached the couples for confirmation. They were thrilled.

[AndrewCCM]

Here is a blurb from my contract... Not exactly "MODEL RELEASE".. but spells it out...

"CCM and the individual Photographer retains the copyright for all images created and will have the right to make reproductions for portfolio samples, web site, self-promotion, and professional competition. CCM and the individual Photographer will not make reproductions for other commercial use without first obtaining the written permission of the Client."

[jeffkohn]

I agree with Pete, the photographer is selling a product/service and the client is paying for it. Most customers probably won't have a problem with the more targeted release such as Andrews, but IMHO a full model release is not a reasonable thing to expect from a paying customer. Unless there are some sort of discounts or freebies involved I don't really see why the client should be expected to provide free modeling services for the photographer.

Photographers are quick to advocate protecting their own intellectual property (and rightly so), but a persons right of publicity is also a form of intellectual property so why should a photographer expect free use of it?

I've heard of photographers raising a stink because of a person using their own portrait in a news article or some other form of self-promotion, and I can't help but wonder if those same photographers have a fine print in a sales contract allowing them to do exactly the same thing with those same images. Doesn't really seem fair...

[PeteQ]

You may disagree Josh, but I bet you will find that more people are willing to hire you if they feel that YOU are working for (or better yet WITH) THEM as THEIR PHOTOGRAPHER rather than THEIR WEDDING is a portfolio opportunity for you.

But if the portfolio first business model is working for you, then have at it. I'm a client first kinda guy.

I like Andrew's blurb in his contract and would think that most folks wouldn't object to that and if they did, line it out, initial and move on. Hardly a reason to charge someone more IMO.