I shall try to work with you but is it even possible to make sense of it?
If you're not providing a photo or video service to the customer, why on earth would it be in your contract?
Last edited:
No wonder things are a mess with this business!
- Thread starter MIXMASTERMACHOM
- Start date
I shall try to work with you but is it even possible to make sense of it?
If you're not providing a photo or video service to the customer, why on earth would it be in your contract?
I think to allow the re-posting on his website .. that's probably a good thing.
But Mix, given your "newness" in the photography world and the types of images you have shown here, I would consider hiring a professional photographer for an hour to take some shots for your website. The cost won't be horrendous and you will get far more usable photos. Just consider it another business expense.
DjDennis
RIP- My Dad (2011), Sister (2013) and Mum (2017)
It's in there because I wouldn't just take pictures and video without the OK from a client for us to use. I already explained why I want to get photos and video.
From everything I have read and understood, your client does not have the authority to permit you to use any and all photo's taken at an event - especially of people other than themselves. In agreement with what others have posted, I would hire a pro to take pictures you want to use on a site. A pro is also most likely schooled in what they have to do to get permission to use pictures on a commercial site.
Mix, I don't know why I am going to keep trying to help you....but here goes.
Up until last year, we did what you did, took pics and video and put them on our site....and I have no problem admitting, they looked like crap. When we reorganized, I reached out to area photographers we had worked with, and asked if they could supply us pictures from events we had worked with with them, in exchange for us linking the pics back to their website from our site.
We got them, and will continue to get them from photographers we work with. This keeps our site fresh and up to date with current events we have done, and keeps us in the good graces of our referring vendors.
Up until last year, we did what you did, took pics and video and put them on our site....and I have no problem admitting, they looked like crap. When we reorganized, I reached out to area photographers we had worked with, and asked if they could supply us pictures from events we had worked with with them, in exchange for us linking the pics back to their website from our site.
We got them, and will continue to get them from photographers we work with. This keeps our site fresh and up to date with current events we have done, and keeps us in the good graces of our referring vendors.
Taking pictures at an event isn't really the issue that arises. It's what you do with the pictures that matters. For example, posting them on your personal Facebook page as part of the life of you and your friends incurs no liability and your friends can always ask you to remove something they don't like.
When you place a photo on your DJ website you are now using the image commercially - and that legally requires a talent release (permission) from any person recognizable in the photo. It is best to have that release in writing, and the person has to be at least 18 years of age to give you a valid release.
That's why I generally take my own pictures. I know exactly who has and has not given a release, or I exclude and mask people's identity within the photo. The "people" photos I use are almost always stock photos that I have purchased. This way, no one gets uncomfortable with my using their image.
When you place a photo on your DJ website you are now using the image commercially - and that legally requires a talent release (permission) from any person recognizable in the photo. It is best to have that release in writing, and the person has to be at least 18 years of age to give you a valid release.
That's why I generally take my own pictures. I know exactly who has and has not given a release, or I exclude and mask people's identity within the photo. The "people" photos I use are almost always stock photos that I have purchased. This way, no one gets uncomfortable with my using their image.
Although I agree you should proobably have a release I have taken hundreds of pictures and posted them on my business FB page and website with no issue. Only once have I been asked to take a photo down and it was just a specific photo of that person they didn't find it flattering I had 10 more with them in it they had no problem with
I think the advice Bob gave is the best Jeff. The reason being that one never knows when something can occur and if DJs are not given the facts first, then they tend to waiver and the next person after that waivers more etc. All it takes is one incidence for trouble to brew. For instance, someone was supposed to be out shopping or at home/work and their spouse or S/O sees them in a pic at a party having a good time. Then that person ends up in problems. That person in the pic may have the means to retaliate big time against the person who took the picture. Personally I have never seen the need to post a whole bunch of pics with people dancing at an event unless it was a Public Event.
Using your own pics, and not depending on the paid photog to supply them, is very good business practice. I know of a local photog who had a request from a venue for pics. He provided them, claiming that he only gave permission for them to make some 8X10s to put in their office. The venue used the shots in some brochures and the photog is throwing a hissy fit and I believe is issuing a cease & desist order.
Knowing this photog, I can see it entirely plausible that they casually asked him for some shots and he likely may have just sent them over and who knows if he actually communicated any stipulations? Bottom line, the venue is incurring a sizable expense in re-designing and re-printing their material and there's likely very bad blood between the photog and venue. For you guys who think you can count on the pro photogs to supply your material, keep this in mind. You may get burned.
Rick, if one is paying the Photographer for the Photos they want then they are more likely to get good photos. Just let them know what you want to get before they start shooting. However, since you will be entering into third party use, the person's in the pictures may still object to you using them. However, you will know that they have been legally obtained.
The issue is usually people - a photographer can supply you with pictures but, if he hasn't obtained model releases for the people in them you will still be liable if you publish them. That you got them from someone else or paid for them won't matter if your purchase is not a condition of the release.
The photographer in question may have given them photos to use on site - but, once they publish them in a brochure he too becomes liable for distributing them if he never obtained a release for that person from people in the photos. He would also be pissed of he he thought he was goingto get his work displayed on-site (which is of value to him) and then instead they use the images for advertising (a higher use he was not compensated for.)
Journalism gets a pass on this if the images are legally obtained or in public places - but, only where the photos are part of a story. The moment you use them to advertise or promote something you need a release.
Remember, this is a thread started by and aimed at Mix, and while I personally can take good images, the same can't yet be said for Mix (though I'm sure he'll get there), so the options are stock photos or a pro. I think a hired pro, even at one event, given the marching orders to get releases (or maybe that can be Mix's job) would supply Mix with enough decent shots to flesh out his website for now.
This raised a question and I'm curious as to ya'll's take on it. Now keep in mind, I include a model release in my contract. It obviously covers the B&G but not the guests. Not foolproof but not wide open either. The question would be about publishing to a website. My pics are hosted on picasa and displayed from my website by linking. Since the pics aren't actually hosted at my site, then wouldn't that add a layer of difficulty in trying to prove un-authorized use? The plaintiff's lawyer would have to subpoena google for their discovery phase, would they not?
Getting a Model Release from the B&G does not give you the right to publish photos of other people's faces. Gently blur the faces and any recognizable Tattoos etc and you should be ok