I employ three different second shooters on a fairly regular basis. I love them and their work; when I contract independedntly with others to second shoot, however, I am curious about what you all are doing in terms of letting them use their images taken at your event for their marketing and advertizing.

I know quite a few that dissallow any and all posting from their event by a second shooter.

I know others that are very liberal and allow and all shots taken by the second shooters to be used however their second shooter would like.

Simply put, I want to be consistent within the indusrty and current trends. Sooo... help me know what you do --- and, for business psychology dsake, why you've chosen such a method when it comes to use of second shooter's images.

Not trying to stir the pot; just want a good discussion on a great topic.


ERIC

PS - If this is the wrong place to post this question, lemme know and I'll go move it where it better fits.

well i've never hired a 2nd shooter myself, but if I did I'd allow full use. i've been lucky enough to work with several photographers and have built a nice portfolio based on the work I've done for them. granted only one of the folks i worked with is based here in town, but they've all been equally cool with my unlimited usage.

unless i was drawing a substantial payment from a photographer, I would expect to be able to have full usage. Otherwise $300 for 8 hrs of work is hardly worth it if you can't have total control over your work.

It depends.

If they are local to me I don't want them using the images in their portfolio, because I don't want a potential client seeing the same images/event on 2 different websites. In that case I'd ask that anything blogged be tagged with a reference to working for me at the event. If not local to me then I don't mind if they use the images for the portfolio, or whatever. I'd still ask that blog images reference me. I have an event this Friday that has some proprietary equipment that cannot be published. So on this one not all images can be even blogged.

So it depends.

So far I haven't given any of my second shooters any REAL limitations, just cleared it with my couples first to make sure they were OK with it. I did ask one shooter who lives very close to me not to use anything on their website, etc. that was extremely similar to what I have on my site as that can be a little confusing to brides browsing sites. There are a few images on there that are INCREDIBLY similar (one or two are basically identical) to ones on my site, but I honestly don't mind. We have very different editing styles and even though the shots are so similar, the end result is not.

When I was starting out second shooting I was given the promise (no contracts) of being allowed to use my images and then they (both shooters I worked for) backed out of that (they had possession of the files) and I wasn't able to use the images. I was TICKED... especially since I worked for $100 with the understanding that I'd have a full portfolio when I was done (3 years)!

The only thing I ask of my shooters is their patience in receiving the files since they usually shoot on my cards... it may take me a while to send them their files, but I feel they can suck it up and wait... heck, I was supposed to wait 3 years before receiving a single file (which I didn't get) and barely got paid anything - they can wait a month or so!

Unless your second shooter is your employee, or signs an agreement giving up their image rights, they can do whatever they want with their images. I have never placed restrictions on another photographer, and the only justifiable reason, in my book, is if the client requests restrictions for good reason.

I think too many photographers make pretty lame excuses for restricting others from using what is legally another shooters intellectual property. It's an issue that really bugs me.

This is interesting to me, because as the lead photographer, I allow the second to use their images. However, when I was second shooting for another local photographer
(and was just starting out) I was only allowed to use the images for my print portfolio- which I was greatful for. Of course this made it very difficult to start my own business- but it didn't really bother me. However, a few months ago, I was in my hair stylists office, and was flipping through a well known bridal magazine, and saw about 5 of my images from a wedding I second shot with her. The main image (full page) had the article title and photography by: The main photographer's name. The main image and about half of all the images were mine! I was blown away. How do I know they were mine- well, a couple of them, I was the only photographer present in that particular situation and the others, I was the one on that certain side etc....(but just to be sure, I checked all of my images in lightroom to be sure they matched exactly- and they did- including the main full page image.
At first, I had to laugh, becasue I almost brought my macbook to the salon to show the stylist the bride's hair, because I have been wanting to get it cut similar to the brides. THen I did get a little angry and frustrated, but I am over it now( I do not need or want to bring the negative energy into my life)....but I have learned my lesson. I have created my own contract for when I second shoot for a photographer and when someone shoots for me. The bottom line with that contract states that if any of my images are used for publication, the copyright must read, " image by Tawnya Hood for Main Photographers name" and I state in the contract that I will do the same if submit one of the second shooters images for publication.

I am sure (or at least hoping) that the main photographer was not trying to be tricky, but it sure would have been nice for those beautiful images in the magazine to have my name on them- even if her name was right there next to it.

Whatever you decide, just be clear and upfront with the second and have a small but handy contract.

Man... this crap really kills me. How can anyone maintain integrity and credibility by passing off someone else's work as their own?

Honestly, I think 95 percent of the time, having a second photographer present is overkill anyway. But we've spoiled the market, so now everyone wants two or three shooters at every event.

I allow the use of any candid shots or shots that they have set up....I DO NOT allow a 2nd shooter to sit on my shoulder and snap my pose and pass it off ass theirs.....

I haven't been burned yet on this and have a great relationship with those who 2nd shoot for me so I allow them full use. But with blogging, I definitely expect them to state that they were 2nd shooting with me and post a link to my site.

When I was starting out, DJ was kind enough to let me use my stuff for my portfolio and I am forever grateful. I definitely left images from his weddings up on my website for FAR TOO LONG which I feel bad about. I think once a photographer is up on their feet and shooting their own weddings they should definitely replace any work on their site with work form their own weddings.

Wow Tawnya--that is just awful. I can't believe that photographer can live with themselves using your images for publication.

Hey Melissa- I know, but I really don't think this photographer looks at it as wrong or anything like that. I had spoken to her once about a similar situation, and she said she just submits a bunch of images, and they choose the one's they want- and that she never can tell if the image is hers or the second shooters (well most of the time), either that or she doesn't have the time to seperate who's is who's. Like I had said before, I really have to let it go and not let it bother me in anyway- the hair dresser let me keep the magazine and I show it to my friends and family- just not my brides although it would be nice to be able to.

I think the lesson learned here- is to just be upfront and honest with the second....so that everyone is on the same page- not that this photographer was not honest with me- but if there is a written agreement, there is no question as to what is and what isn't.

I had a venue contact me about using a few images from a wedding I shot there and one of the images was one that my brother (second took) and I told them, it must read: "Image by Rob Meredith for Beauty of Life Photography" they said no problem.

I just feel better about the credit being given to the actual creator. While at the same time acknowledging me, the hired photographer. After all, I was the one that was hired for the wedding (just as the photographer I mentioned was- she was chosen and she was the one that was able to get the images published....etc. So the lead photographer does do most of the work- other than creating the image. That is why I find it only fair that both have credit given.

Really? Seriously?

These are examples of those incredibly pathetic excuses I hear when this subject comes up. It's total BS.

After 24 years of shooting, I guarantee I can pick out any of my images.

Shane, I agree about the overkill. I don't even use second shooters anymore, though I don't mind at all if someone wants to join me. I'm pretty capable of shooting on my own, and if a client wants another photog present, I suppose they can pay for one.

I'll post as the newer photographer with my input. I have had good experiences thus far with the main photographer allowing my wife and me to use our images for our portfolio with only one exception which was agreed upon before hand. As long as the terms are agreed upon up front, then it is not an issue to us. We are grateful for the ability to learn from the experience even if we don't get the portfolio build up. Something else that should be taken into account is the level of photographer. If the main photographer is in a totally different price level for brides, then there usually doesn't seem to be much direct competition, so I wouldn't be as worried as a main shooter even if the 2nd shooter was in my area.

When we do blog about the event, we always say who we were shooting with and give a link to their site. We never try to hide that fact in the least. And for the photographer that didn't want us to use any images, those went into the Lightroom vault for us to look at and critique our own work and that is it, and that is okay too because we learned, gained experience, and started to build a rapport with a great photographer.



I agree with this as well. Allowing us to use this work has been a big boost to our business. As soon as we build more of our portfolio, I plan on phasing out any work that looks similar to the main photographers first, and then hopefully phasing out all work done 2nd shooting completely once we have enough images.

I know I am grateful to our main photographers for being gracious to us, so hopefully we will be able to do the same in the future.

If a photographer did use our work and claim it to be his/her own in print or on a website, I would quite ticked.

I have had the pleasure of shooting with some really awesome photographers and most of whom allowed full use of my work in my portfolio.

It wasn't until recently that I encountered a situation where I have been told that I cannot use the images in the portfolio and I was honestly taken a back by it.

My question is why would a photographer care about their second using their own images to promote their work. Will a bride potentially see the same bride on more the one website? Sure it could happen, and if it does what's wrong with offering up a simple explanation of how it works?

And for the record almost every photographer that I have shot a wedding with feature at least one my photos on their website now. And a few of them have as many as 10! It doesn't bother me as all of them have given me rights to use them as well. However, I'd be super pissed if I was told that I could not use my own images, and I found them on that photographer's site....

Exactly! You'd think this would be pretty simple. It's part of managing your clients expectations. If my client is hiring me and a second shooter, they understand that the other photog owns his/her own images and will do as they please. And I never hire boneheads who might abuse that privilege anyway.

And the primary shooters who use second photographer's images on their own sites without credit, links or some explanation should be punished. It's pretty despicable.

So Bruce, how do you really feel? BTW, I'm pm'ing you.

we could go round and round for hours about this. the bottom line is that it is your business and thats the joy of it, we can make our own rules I take it on a case by case basis depending on if they are in my demographic etc. but luckily my husband is ussually my main bamboni second shooter so it works out good.

That line made me chuckle. I hate it when they ass their images as well. lol.

Sorry for stirring the pot. I love the candid images a second shooter can grab at an event, especially during the family images. I will always use a second shooter (and have the couple pay for it) for that reason alone. I don't use seconds to get a ton of extra shots, but simply put, I just can't be everywhere all the time, so it's nice to have another set of eyeballs and shutter.

I think the general feel is that, for people that use second shooters and when those second shooters are local: (1) limit to some degree what they show on their site to eliminate duplication of the same event and (2) have them credit you somewhere on the blog for continuity's sake.

I apprecaite the input you've given! What a hot topic! So many opinions. Nobody's right - nobody's wrong. To each his own! This industry is so funny to me sometimes.


Thanks for posting--- beter end the fight.

ERIC

Well, you can make your own rules so long as they don't violate Federal Law, which the Copyright Act is. This Law is very specific about ownership and intellectual rights, and as it's been said and explained numerous times, unless there is a WRITTEN agreement to the contrary, a photographer owns the images they create.

Why does it seem like so many photographers either don't understand this, or think they have some right to do what they want with someone else's property?

That would be unacceptable behavior to me. Not sure what kind of contract you had with them, but that sounds exactly like them passing off your work as theirs (ie Copyright Infringement). IMO, the primary is welcome to throw in my images and sell them as prints or use them in the albums or slideshows. But to advertise it in an Ad of any sort (including their website) is unethical to me.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely unethical and misleading to use someone else's work on your website and treat the image like you took it. Period. I don't think there can be any argument that would persuade me otherwise.

If used a particular second shooter regularly, like I did when Lauren was starting, I'd absolutely put the images they made at my events on my site. Your site is a representation of what a client can expect from hiring you. If you want to be formal about it then do a Work for Hire agreement that outlines usage. Lauren and I talked and agreed by word of mouth. That's the way I prefer to do business with colleagues. If I have someone that I need to do a written agreement with, I'm probably not going to use them. Not twice anyway.

Mark,

But once you put a particular 2nd shooter's images on your site, you are not creating a representation of what a client can expect from hiring you, but rather what they can expect if they hire you and you hire that particular 2nd. So now it is a team. This would be fine for a permanent 2nd shooter, but as soon as that 2nd shooter moves on, then the website no longer represents what that client will get since the person who took those certain shots is not part of the team. At that point do you remove all of the ex 2nd shooter's images because it isn't a fair representation?

Just my thoughts.

hmmm, interesting. I've never really thought of it that way. Only 2 photographers have ever had me sign an agreement, but the verbal agreements have always been shared copyright so I never really questioned it.

+1000

i totally agree, which is why i never use any of my second's photos on my site, blog, whatever. the only place they go is the client's private gallery. and for me, my second usually is more of an assistant/candid shooter on that day anyway. i don't rely on them to get the shots i need. (i have done that in the past but don't anymore.) it's more of having someone with you in case you need them ... a peace of mind thing i guess.

+1.

I'm dealing with this as we speak... I stepped in for the wife of a husband/wife team who was unable to shoot an event. Their studio is now using the images I took as their own (on site, bridal shows, flickr, etc.) Kinda sucks because I think it completely misrepresents the company... they didn't take the shots, I did. I thought my images would be used for reprints and an album of course, but didn't think they had any rights to my images beyond that. Grrr.

In any event, I let my second shooters use their images. In my book, they clicked the shutter- the image is theirs.

Not directed at anyone here- but it bothers me when photographers forget that they were once building a portfolio.

And it bothers me that some photographers take the mentality of "It was really hard for me, I'm sure as hell not going to make it easy for you."

Work for hire agreements are fine- pay me well to keep the rights to the images.

But paying me $175 for 10 hours of work and then saying I can't use the images to further my craft-- that's just bloody mad. And this has happened to me!


Whooo! That felt good!

Amy,

Did you have a contract with them? If not, you should send them a "please remove letter" and if not, then you can send them an attorney letter later with a nice bill attached.

PS: Erin says hello.

Well said - if I employ consistent second shooters - and train them to shoot how I'd like - ANY client will see what 'we've' produced and know that their event will have similar coverage with like imaging and comparable final product.

Great statement, my friend.

+1000