What is common practice when using a second shooter regarding rights? I don't mind mentioning in my blog they assisted me with even a link to their site. But I have a second shooter who wants credit whenever I publish something he shot. I put images in a local mag. that usually will state the bride and groom names and the name of the studio. However, he wants his name that he was shooting for my studio to be listed. I think this is overstepping since he is shooting this wedding for me or am I wrong?

I think that's a bit much...when I work with a second shooter, they're working as a part of my business so all their images are part of Mariah Smith Photog...they don't get individual mention. They are able to use their images to promote their business but other than that, the images are mine.

In the future, get the deal written up and signed before hand so all parties know what to expect

I require assistants to sign a 'work for hire' agreement. Although I do allow use for some self promotion in reality, it keeps things simple. Couples find it weird to find their wedding pictures promoting some other photography site.

+1

Did you get anything written down as to who owns the copyright on the images? I have a work-for-hire contract prepared just in case a photographer wants me to second-shoot and doesn't have a contract of their own. It's rather liberal, particularly as the folks I've shot with so far are very reasonable and pretty laid back and we have a lot of mutual trust, but even then I always sign over full copyright to the primary photographer's studio (and then have them license permission back to myself for advertising and self-promotion). Since they now own the pictures, as far as I'm concerned it's their call on how much credit to give me, and if they want my pictures to go under the studio's name with no individual attribution, that's totally within their rights.

That said, I have been credited once in a publication as a second shooter, but the primary shooter was my father helping me build my experience and reputation, and giving me published credit was his idea.

Ummm... no. I second quite a lot and I feel that's ridiculous to ask. They probably just have some business conscious maturing to do.

Also is it FOR you or WITH you(/your studio)?

That's a little much. I can see wanting to be able to post on your blog etc- but for a magazine article or ad- no.

If 2nd shooter wants that much credit he needs to set up his own shop and get his own clients.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I just wanted to have something to tell him when I go back to meet with him about continuing shooting for me. This is the first time I have had a second shooter in five years of business and I like the freedom it gives me. I will definitely have a contract written up for next time and if it isn't satisfactory I will need to get a second shooter.

Thanks

Hold on... you'd actually have images published in a mag that aren't yours???????????

Wow, would you enter competitions with your second shooter's work?

This is why I think we've made a huge mistake saturating the market with the idea that you NEED a second shooter to adequately cover a wedding.

If you write a book, it should be in your words. If you have photos published, they should be your photos. If not, the person who shot the photo should get credit.

I've used a second shooter maybe twice. I've never blogged their photos. If I did, I would make absolutely sure that people knew which photos were mine. Have some artistic integrity, folks.

I don't really understand why you would be using your second shooter's images in a publication when you could use your own.

If a magazine is featuring one of your weddings - and they asked to publish an image that belonged to a 2nd - or you needed maybe one detail shot or something - that would be different. I wouldn't see the need to give them publicity for your wedding.

But...if you are regularly submitting someone else's work and taking credit yourself - that is different.

+1 to Jill and Shane-- from someone who 2nd shot for a year with the same photographer. I'd be pretty irritated if they were regularly representing my work as their own in publications.

Representing anyone elses shots as your own is wrong! If you submit anything to be published, it should be your own.

If you submit ones that were by a 2nd, the credit should note the photography by jane doe and john smith for such and such photography.

Having work published is another matter altogether. No you should publish another's images as your own.

That said a 2nd shooter is there (IMO) simply because I cannot be in two places at once.

Guys, we don't know that this isn't something like knot real weddings, or a feature about the COUPLE. Most couples choose the photo in the spread and have no idea which camera the photo comes from. They just know its part of their wedding.

I've both been a second shooter and used second shooters, and this has informed how I treat the shots of other people. When I have been a SS I am willing to give the shots to the main 'tog to edit and present to the clients. I have seen a couple of my own shots used in their own brochures and on their website and I find this a little irritating. If they hired me to capture extra shots for the album then that is all fine, but presenting my shots as shots THEY'VE actually taken is just plain wrong.

The B&G will at least know there was another 'tog at the wedding so they will not think all the photos are just by the main photographer, but other potential brides won't know that.

As an aside there a LOTS of photographers who give 2nd shooters card and do not permit them to shoot on their own cards. At the end of the night they hand the cards over. Some get paid then and other get paid later.

The original post said he is submitting them to a local magazine.

Yes, it does say he's submitting them, but it doesn't say WHY. That is where we are all guessing. My reaction will be different depending whether it is an ad or if it is for a feature of the b&g

Wow, I was reading through the first several responses and thinking I was alone in this...glad to see the second half agree. I second shoot frequently and don't require any sort of acknowledgment (although I rarely shoot for people who won't allow me to use the images myself) but I would definitely not be okay with someone publishing my images in an advertisement/magazine representing themselves. I guess it depends specifically on what you're publishing for but it doesn't sound like an unreasonable request.

And I wouldn't 2nd shoot for those people.... unless there was a LOT of money, that night.

OK... I see what your going...

So if you have no agreement in place and you use their images, you are going to need his/her copyright release to print or publish his/her work right? I would be careful on this one. He could easily lawyer up and put you in a huge bind and in this case with no agreement in writing (which I am assuming you don't have or you wouldn't be asking), I think you would end up on the losing end.

Everyone has their own opinion on this, but I think that if a primary uses 2nd shooter images to promote their work in any way, the primary is mis-representing their work to the client. It isn't a fair representation of the work you will get from that photographer, but a representation of the work you will get from that photographer plus that specific 2nd photographer.

I'm with Shane on this one. If you didn't take it, don't advertise in a manner that would lead people to believe you did.

For albums or prints, I totally understand using the 2nd shooters stuff. That is whole different story than mag ads, brochures, or any website promotions.

I agree with Shane. Even if the images are for feature of the bride and groom- I think that the name of the person that took the shot, should be on the image. It could even state ©Joe Smith for Big Deal Studios.

I have had a couple of my images published without any credit (I thought I was ok with it) until I sat down in my hair stylists studio- Open a bridal magazine and see one of my images (from a second shooting job) as the main full page image with the title of the article, and the main photographers name- right there on my very own image. After careful inspection (about half of the images in the whole article were mine.) I think seeing the other photogs name ON MY image is what did it for me.

I gladly give credit where credit is due, when I have a second working for me

I'm kinda confused guys. If i'm shooting for a studio, lets say a stuido in sears, or any portrait studio or something liek that and they want to use my image in an advertisement. Guess what, tough noogies that's how it goes.

If I'm shooting as a second, then my images are the stuido's FIRST and mine second. If it's going into an advertisment/blog/website for the studio then that's just how it goes.

I have to disagree. It all depends on what is in the contract. If nothing is agreed on before hand, then standard copyright laws should apply. Whoever takes the pic, owns the image. But is certainly is a sticky situation, because then the 2nd shooter doesn't actually have a model release, the primary does, so the 2nd can't really use it either without permission. Sounds like a twisted pretzel.

Coming from a bride point of view:

Let's say I am a new photographer who opened up my studio. I am shooting my first wedding and a good friend on mine that is an awesome pro photog like Jessica Claire helps me out. She takes some ultra killer images of the wedding. Way better than mine, let's say(haha of course they would be). Do you really think it is fair to a bride to then use all these images on my website or a magazine ad? It certainly isn't a fair portrayal of my work or the work you will get if you hire me.

It isn't the same as stealing the images right off of her website and then putting it up on my site as my own, but it isn't that far off... Just because I made the sale to the client doesn't mean I can use someone else's images to deceive future clients.

Definitely an integrity issue here in my opinion.

You better believe Sears has that in writing, carefully reviewed by their lawyers.

If you don't have a written agreement, You're opening yourself up to legal trouble if you use the images in ANY way that the photographer who pushed the button doesn't agree with. Period.

True, but when a client goes to a sears- they know that they are going to get whoever happens to be working that day- and they know in general, they will receive an image that looks similar to the one in the add (that is because the employees are trained to set-up and take similar images- there really is no "creative eye" when going to a chain photography studio) but if I went to a wedding photographers website or to a bridal magazine and I saw a few images that I just really loved and decided to choose that photographer because of it- I would hope that it was their own work that they were fairly representing.

When an image is representing an individual photographer it is in my mind only ethical that it is their own work.

There are times, when I have known beforehand (ie- second shooting a celebrity wedding) where I knew that there would be no credits given- and I just did it for the experience anyway.
I think the key is to have an understanding and an agreement before the event.

The difference here is are you an empoyee of sears or a indepentent contractor?

Of course you're hired by sears and an employee, who has signed over the copyright when hired.

however as Chris said, general copyright laws are in the favor of the photographer who tripped the shutter unless the contract transfers copyright over to the studio.

It's gotta be in the contract for the copyright to be transfered.

And I agree with the above, if you didn't take the shot, don't advertise or portray those images as your own (as stated above selling the prints and albums are different, and expect part of second shooting)

I recently had a big wedding that I just couldn't cover all by myself. I had three wonderful people (thanks Hassel, Jeannie, and Krystal!) there supporting my efforts. If we end up publishing, the credit line will read H.Weems for amitphotography.com. Any I take will just say amitphotography.com.

Seems to work fine.

But it's not really representing an individual photographer, it's representing a business. Sure it's a bit grey, and not something I would personally do, but if I was hired by a business (like a photographer) I'd be ok with it being done.


I guess it just doesn't seem too courteous of the second to me. And no written agreement? That'd be like photographing a wedding without backup gear or putting a MOB on a contract! We would never do that! (Note the sarcasm, i definitely see your point.)

I've actually been in this situation and had a dissagreement with the shooter. I submitted probably 300+ images to a local wedding guide to use as filler. I submitted VERY few 2nd shooter images- actually this one image may have been the only one- and I submitted it only because it was a shot of a plate in a waiters hand. The magazine asked me specifically if I had some images that would be fitting for the catering section.

I told this guy because I thought he'd be excited (the image was printed like 1x2- with the studio's name under it (which by itself barely fit) and instead he was very upset with me that it didn't have his name. He has only shot with me once, he will not be shooting with me again (because I don't feel he is a good fit for the studio), and it's not like this shot was a bride groom feature. He was shooting for the studio that day. He would not have been at that event if "the studio" had not hired him. I did not think it was a misrepresentation at all. I didn't put my name on it, it says Art & Soul Photography- which I think is fair. I have lots of people 2nd shoot for me for various things. I agree with Bryce.

Also, one of the agreements I have with my second shooters and how I've explained the rights is this. I would never in a million years claim to have taken that image or any other taken by a second shooter. At the same time, I told one of my assistants that worked here that she was mroe than welcome to use the wedding images for her portfolio, but they had to say that they were taken by her for Art & Soul. I didn't do this for my own self promotion. I want her business to succeed! But I also want to protect her. The clients signed a contract with Art & Soul. The model release they signed is also for Art & Soul. They did not release their images to be put just anywhere by a second shotoer and by having the studios name on the image, she is not only protecting herself, but my business as well. I have a feeling that if a client saw their images used on someone elses website or magazine without Art & Soul on it, they could potentialy wonder who this person was and why I allowed their wedding images to be used to promote someone they did not directly hire.

It could get very hairy.

Erin what if it had been your image?

How would you feel about it then?

You say he wasn't a good fit for the studio but I am willing to bet its because he called you out on it.


my $0.02

I know that's directed at erin, but I'd be more than glad. Heck The photo of Laura & Paul Eaton in the Lightsphere ad was taken by me. I'm proud to have taken it and it was taken while I was working for the business, it's a photo that in a small way supports the business.

Seriously, when you're hired you're "repping the brand." Vidish have you ever let a second shooter hand out their business cards at your events? I'm sure it's a No. When you take a shot if it gets used to benefit the studio that's how it goes. When you're shooting with the studio you support/represent the studio. Same basic idea.

An associate photographer is a different story than a 2nd shooter. You are really associated with that business, so you should be proud to have helped it. Not a fair comparison with a contracted shooter.



I agree, your 2nd shouldn't be passing out business cards. But that is why it is in the contract. And while you may think "when you take a shot if it gets used to benefit the studio that's how it goes," an attorney and copyright law don't agree with you. That argument would never hold up in court, which you didn't say it would, but since the OP has no contract that is really what we should be dealing with here. Clearly we(lots of us) have differing opinions. That is why the contract is there. Obviously a contract would have solved all of this, so no need to mention that any more.

But in this case of the OP, I would be reconsidering submitting his images or work on a new line that is agreed on in writing by the 2nd shooter. If the 2nd shooter lawyers up, it is going to be an ugly and losing battle for the primary. As others have mentioned, the law greatly favors the one who pushed the button as it should.

I was afraid it may have come across that way, but I didn't mean it like that at all. Actually he was not a good fit for the studio the moment he arrived at the wedding. We went to photography school topgether and he is a very good photographer (does sports and landscape work) and he really wanted to try out weddings. Well he hated it. He was not good with the people (I was sorta embarrased, actually) he didn't like people talking to him while he "was working" (which we all know is like 60% or more of a wedding) and out of the entire day I believe he had about 25 usable images. On the drive home I told him I didn't think this was agood gig for him, and he agreed. It was not at all what he expected.

And if it was me, I would have been fine with it. Now if it had said "E.rin... C.ady" -(google proof- sorry) then I think he could've raged about it. And I have as a shooter turned over images and worked one day for another studio in my area and she had the event listed under her studio name. I was fine with it. I got my pay check and that description was not innacurate at all. I was working for her studio and acting as an agent of her company.

fair enough I understand all that. At the same time if the 2nd shooter is treated fairly (in all that can encompass) they may surprise (you/us/me). Giving credit photo by 2nd shooter for vida's studio may be an option.Having been treated like poop by other primary shooters I know what it feels like. There are several ways to skin a cat.

Chris you're making assumptions. Who said anything about being an associate at the time? I didn't. I said I was a second, because at that time, I was.

And actually as an associate you get MORE of an identity rather than less because your name gets more strictly associated with your work so that they can sell you as well as themselves.


Very true. Everyone wants to screw someone else to benefit themselves. Loyalty is a hard thing to find now a days.

I think the issue is point of reference.

I think also that some are making the assumption that the primary was trying to reap the benefits of this image. We don't know if the image is of a bride and groom or of a chair. I know it doesn't change the give credit wher credit is due, but as in my case, the image was not an image I was going to be getting a call from a bride for, "gee I love that amazing shot of the waiter's hand carrying a dessert plate. I'd love you to shoot our wedding." This was not a case where in the submission process I could have designated that one specific image was his, and that may be the case for the original poster as well.

I use 2nd's all the time and I also have an in house employee that shoots for me. I'd never take credit for one of their images, I don't think I've ever used one on the blog (unless it's something I have to show off for them with credit) and I'd never use it on my website with my name on it. But we don't know the case with this image, its intent or purpose.

I saw 'artistic integrity' mentioned earlier in the topic. I understand the debate for the second shooter in relation to integrity based on clear copyright laws and the lack of an agreement pre shoot. So please don't take this post the wrong way. But I would like to look at the artistic integrity in relation to how a second shooter wants to use images they shot for their own promotion (or wants them credited by the studio in an article where their image is to be used)

How much of wedding photography is composing and pushing the shutter release with good exposure settings? It is not an insignificant portion but lets look at what a primary shooter may have done before and after the second shooter did just that.

First of all the primary shooter has won the client in the first place. Most clients would have seen a wide range of the photographers work/website/blog/albums (not just one magazine article where one of the shots was taken by a second shooter). They would have probably also met with their photographer being enthused by their passion and relaxed that their personality and attitude, which were such a good fit to the special day. Obviously perceived value for price would also have been considered. Based on all these factors they book. I won't go into the relationship fostering that may continue to happened or the excitement and comfort the e-session may have left them with.

All this culminated to the special day. Primary shooter here may be responsible for ensuring that the timing of the day flows so that opportunities are not missed or that enough time will exist to get images to meet or exceed the expectation of their client. Primary shooter may also be responsible for - spotting and placing them in optimum lighting conditions; - posing the individuals, the couple & groups artistically and flatteringly; - using their existing relationship to help relax and bring out the bride and grooms natural personalities; - possibly even offering some advice or guidance to the second shooter a couple of times through the day. .....At this point in time (perhaps with a little less pressure on them) the second shooter sees a tender but fun moment that is just so perfectly the bride and groom, uses their artistic eye to compose a killer shot from their unique angle, has all the camera settings spot on ... and fires. Brilliant shot, and exactly why the primary wanted them to second shoot.

Now post wedding, the primary shooter may have a particular style and may post process all the images to that style. They now choose one of the images that the second shooter shot as one (perhaps of a few) that will help compliment an article this studio was asked for. And the second shooter wants credit for how that image looks presented in a way that is only because of the said studio's ability to be published based on their network, skills, reputation or whatever.

OK, so this may be an extreme example. But I hope it shows that aspects of any image taken by a second shooter may have a lot to do with what the primary shooter has done before, during and/or after the Second did an excellent job on composing, exposing and seizing a precious moment.

Sorry for the long post but I thought there was an aspect to artistic integrity that should be considered on both sides.

Bryce, Erin, and Craig.. I couldn't agree more. I hire seconds frequently and they walk into it knowing that all images belong to O.O.I they are not obligated to take the job, but if they do they must agree that they are there to represent the business.
They have the job that most clients *think* the job of photography is.. that day only. no editing, no album design etc
and I also do not want my clients uncomfortable by possibly stumbling across images of themselves on another photographer's website.
I do think its really important to be clear verbally, and contractually so that there are not misunderstandings later.