Why Does My Photographer Limit My Use Of My Photos // Ever Wonder Why

If you've ever worked with a professional photographer, you have probably seen in the contract that your rights are limited to personal use only. You can't sell the images or edit them. Why not? They're your photos, right? Shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want with them?

*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is in no way legal advice. This post is for informational purposes only and is based only on what I understand of U.S. copyright law.

The way I understand it, the U.S. recognizes photographers as artists and our images are our art. Because of that, we retain the copyright to all of our images. We then grant licensing to our clients but that comes with restrictions.

This is what it looks like in my contract:

• Photographer Rights - It is understood that any and all images, whether proofs, digital files, final prints or sample prints, and all rights to them remain the property of the Photographer.
• Client Rights - Regarding the images delivered, as digital files or otherwise, Client’s rights are limited to personal use. No part of the image may be altered by the client. This includes filters and phone editing. Photographs may not be sold or used in advertising unless otherwise specified by the Photographer.
  
  

It's very important to me that my clients have all of their images and be allowed to freely print them, share them, etc. That's why I don't use watermarks and allow unlimited downloads.

To understand this we have to think about what happens when people make copies of art or statues or artifacts. Reproductions are allowed but no one paints additional people into a painting or carves more notches into a sculpture. And if people are making copies, (without permission), they are forgeries. Similarly, if you are adding filters or editing the photographs, you are changing the art that your photographer made.

There can be exceptions. If I am doing branding photos, I know that these images will be used by the client to promote their business and help them make money, but that is not the same thing as the images directly making them money. It is also something that is understood by the very nature of brand photography. I once did a senior session for a girl who is a photographer. I edited the photos for my style and I delivered her the gallery of edited photos, but I also gave her all the RAW photos so she could edit them how she liked. If I am photography a fellow photographer, I want to give them the option of editing their photos themself. But that is a special circumstance.

If nothing else, you chose your photographer for a reason and they have put a ton of time and effort into learning their craft and perfecting their style of shooting and editing. If you liked them enough to hire them, please respect them enough to not sell or change their work. Yes, they are your photographs, but someone else made them for you.

Does this make sense? I'd love to hear your thoughts and questions about this. And if you happen to be a copyright lawyer, please add your expertise in the comments.