MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy  (Read 8390 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 10, 2016, 00:08 »
0
Just wanted to see if anyone has had any luck with licensing wedding photography as RM on Alamy.  This would be strictly as editorial RM since there would be people and no releases.  Trying to gauge whether or not it could be worth the effort, as I shoot 30+ weddings per year and have plenty of work published (albeit usually for no pay, just great publicity and often leads to more work) on major wedding blogs and occasionally in print.  Thanks!


« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2016, 02:07 »
0
In any case you have to have a record in your service contract signed, that they allow this. Due to work and life of some of my clients it is not possible to publish their wedding photos anywhere. Others don't mind. Mutual respect at first. Partial solution - photos where are no faces shown.

« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2016, 02:15 »
+18
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2016, 02:23 »
+1
Yes of course. For example, in the French law it is mentioned that wedding is a public event, but photographer should not abuse or overuse it. For many people simple sharing on social networks is ok, but selling is not, even with a compensation.

« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2016, 04:39 »
+7
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

I'd sue them to smithereens and close them down  >:(

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2016, 07:02 »
+4
Agree totally with fotografer and Teddy, and there are other 'issues' with your idea (e.g. you may not be shooting in a 'public' place, everyone would hate you as you took a lot more time1 looking for more 'stocky' places and angles as well as the 'family will love it' shots, etc).
1Word would get round very quickly about how long you took.
But actually, it's all pretty much irrelevant.
You have to ask yourself, how big the market is for 'editorial' rather than 'advertorial' wedding photography.
And note that big budget shooters hire models and venues with releases, get releases for the dress and accessories etc., to shoot 'wedding' shots, so there are 217,759 'wedding' pics on Alamy which claim to be Model released (interestingly, a good number of them don't actually have models in them) and 10,707 which claim to be model and property released.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2016, 13:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2016, 08:48 »
0
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2016, 09:00 »
+8
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

 I would decline any photographer who included something like this.  I am hiring them.  I am not there to be their next promotional model.

« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2016, 09:09 »
0
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 09:15 by skyfish »

« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2016, 11:56 »
+5
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"

No one is being aggressive just stating the obvious issues of selling photos of a couples special day.

Don't forget microstock images can be used for all sorts of nefarious uses.


« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2016, 12:23 »
0
Read what i wrote above. I keep my opinion. Thanks

« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2016, 12:26 »
+6
It is an option and i have people which signed it and are happy. If not signed then no use. Simple. Between clients also there are real models. And in difference from you i am not so aggressive against "colleagues"

It wasn't "aggressive".  It was a simple statement.  I could be aggressive if you want me to be.

« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2016, 12:43 »
0
I expressed my opinion, don't see a reason to change it. This discussion is not interesting anymore. It is going out of discussion of legal agreements between clients, models, photographers, agreed usages etc. Good night

« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2016, 12:49 »
+5
Sweet dreams.

« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2016, 13:17 »
0
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

 I would decline any photographer who included something like this.  I am hiring them.  I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.

Benozaur

« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2016, 14:33 »
+7
Sounds like an abuse of trust. I'm not sure that any young couple would want you to further capitalize on their images of a very personal and ultimately intimate affair (wedding, duh...) let alone the images of their friends for sale to the general public. Frankly I'd be embarrassed to even ask such a question on a public forum...

You got paid for a job, so do that job. The rest of the photos should never see the light of day outside of the immediate family circle which hired you in the first place...

Common decency still exists right???

« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2016, 15:52 »
+3
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

 I would decline any photographer who included something like this.  I am hiring them.  I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.

You should realise there is a world of difference between having sample photos in your portfolio for display on your website or as part of a catalogue and selling photos on the free for all that is microstock.


« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2016, 17:12 »
0
For me model release is a part of a contract. I am not selling wedding photos, but for photographer promotion usage it is necessary and if they sign this option, i can use the photos. May be my contract is big (3 pages of text) and complicated, but it is better to have it.

 I would decline any photographer who included something like this.  I am hiring them.  I am not there to be their next promotional model.
I wouldn't use the material for stock sales unless I worked out an agreement with the couple before hand even if the contract allowed for it. But as for promo work, it's near impossible to get a future gig as a wedding photographer without showing near past work of the exact same type. People spending actual money want to see what style they are buying and showing promo work is the only way to achieve this.

You should realise there is a world of difference between having sample photos in your portfolio for display on your website or as part of a catalogue and selling photos on the free for all that is microstock.
I honestly thought that's what I said. Okay to use as promotional work to acquire future jobs of a similar nature, not okay to use as stock sales.

« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2016, 20:24 »
0
Wow you guys really went for it on this one, huh?!  I have a line in my contract that expressly says photos can be used for editorial purposes.  A lot of my wedding photography gets published, with permission from the couple of course.  This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF.  With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial.  I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.  Yes common decency still exists... Sheesh!

« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2016, 21:32 »
+1
This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF.  With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial.  I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.

Not sure what the "this would not be microstock" has anything to do with.  Licensing their likeness as stock content is licensing, regardless.  Editorial still allows a usage like "50% of married couples get divorced".  But, as long as they're good with it.

« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2016, 21:53 »
0
This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF.  With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial.  I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.

Not sure what the "this would not be microstock" has anything to do with.  Licensing their likeness as stock content is licensing, regardless.  Editorial still allows a usage like "50% of married couples get divorced".  But, as long as they're good with it.

People were acting like I was licensing the work as RF for commercial use.  As RM editorial we're talking very limited usage and RM is clearly not microstock, it would be midstock or macrostock.  There is a very clear distinction and it relates to my point.  I'm not asking if it would be a good idea or if anyone has had any success licensing wedding images as RF editorial content on Shutterstock.

However, that being said, absolutely nobody has chimed in with any meaningful answers as to my original question.  Everyone went into the legality and morality of the issue which is no concern to me considering my clients want work from their weddings published (for the most part, and those that don't would not be in this...).

« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2016, 22:29 »
0
i just updated my wedding photo contract this week.
I put in a bonus to the couple, 5% off your photo quote if bride and groom sign a commercial model release, and 1% off for each additional person in the wedding party that signs a commercial release to a maximum of 10% savings.   just an idea for you as you move into a new wedding season.
I think genuine wedding photos can have real value.  I also shoot weddings but so far have only submitted images of the cakes bouquets and rings  to any agency so I can't comment on the real portraits and their sales..
I see a lot of individuals who submit the portraits with cutting off faces at the neck. whether or not they sell - i don't know. I just got married in september and I specifically made sure my photographer wouldn't be putting a 100 image gallery even on Facebook of our day as we lean more towards privacy.

why not just go back to the couples you've photographed for and ask them straight up?  maybe use it as an incentive to throw in a 1-year anniversary mini photo session. ;) i don't know.   good luck!

« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2016, 23:10 »
0
i just updated my wedding photo contract this week.
I put in a bonus to the couple, 5% off your photo quote if bride and groom sign a commercial model release, and 1% off for each additional person in the wedding party that signs a commercial release to a maximum of 10% savings.   just an idea for you as you move into a new wedding season.
I think genuine wedding photos can have real value.  I also shoot weddings but so far have only submitted images of the cakes bouquets and rings  to any agency so I can't comment on the real portraits and their sales..
I see a lot of individuals who submit the portraits with cutting off faces at the neck. whether or not they sell - i don't know. I just got married in september and I specifically made sure my photographer wouldn't be putting a 100 image gallery even on Facebook of our day as we lean more towards privacy.

why not just go back to the couples you've photographed for and ask them straight up?  maybe use it as an incentive to throw in a 1-year anniversary mini photo session. ;) i don't know.   good luck!

Thanks for the input!  I have a few weddings that I license as commercial RF and have model releases for, but in all honesty I don't want to license much of my work in that way since I can't track the usage in any way and it can end up on sites like TheOnion for example.  I constantly have people that comment on social media about how they see my work somewhere big and they think I've earned a ton of money for it.  I don't want that to start happening with weddings too.  But, for RM editorial work I'd be happy to have a license that helps get my name out there and gains exposure for my work, while getting paid a little.  What are your thoughts on that?  And how many weddings do you shoot?  (or what percentage of your income comes from weddings?)  Weddings are the bulk of my business so I want to make sure that is first and foremost, as well as clients being happy to find out one of their images was licensed, rather than upset when they find it on a spoof site...

« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2016, 23:28 »
+1

Thanks for the input!  I have a few weddings that I license as commercial RF and have model releases for, but in all honesty I don't want to license much of my work in that way since I can't track the usage in any way and it can end up on sites like TheOnion for example.  I constantly have people that comment on social media about how they see my work somewhere big and they think I've earned a ton of money for it.  I don't want that to start happening with weddings too.  But, for RM editorial work I'd be happy to have a license that helps get my name out there and gains exposure for my work, while getting paid a little.  What are your thoughts on that?  And how many weddings do you shoot?  (or what percentage of your income comes from weddings?)  Weddings are the bulk of my business so I want to make sure that is first and foremost, as well as clients being happy to find out one of their images was licensed, rather than upset when they find it on a spoof site...

oh I see, that makes a bit more sense to me now, especially about not wanting your images to show up on somewhere like the onion.  I have no idea how well RM does in general, let alone how well a particular subject matter like weddings would do, so I think I am little help to you on that note.  If it were me though, I'd just approach each couple you've photographed and get their thoughts on the matter, then you're covering your bases.  but If you already had something in your contracts that allowed for that kind of usage then I'd probably just move forward with it since they've already agreed to it..  weddings and real estate are about 50/50 for me with a few things like microstock and art prints filling in the blanks, so you're probably more of a dedicated wedding photog than I am from the sounds of it.

« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2016, 02:28 »
0
I didn't plan to sell wedding photos, but i have a couple which signed releases for online selling. Luckily, they were people which know about photo stocks. For now i used these photos only for our presentation. Updated contract to give a space for notes on every option. With more space taken it looks like more clear and simple.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
5854 Views
Last post October 10, 2008, 11:01
by nativelight
0 Replies
882 Views
Last post August 25, 2010, 17:02
by Artmyth
12 Replies
3520 Views
Last post April 06, 2011, 17:42
by donding
6 Replies
2320 Views
Last post August 01, 2012, 05:58
by ShadySue
5 Replies
2183 Views
Last post September 13, 2016, 09:37
by Minsc

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results