Event Photography Contracts

i've licensed my photos to some of the biggest companies in the world—and i've made hundreds of thousands of dollars because i still own them. there's a big difference between licensing an image and signing it away as work-for-hire. a lot of brands will ask for full rights upfront while offering very little in return. that might be convenient for them, but it usually isn't aligned for the artist. as an agency founder now, i see this happening to creatives all the time—often because the terms just aren't clearly explained, and most people don't know to ask. licensing is one of the ways creatives protect their work and build long-term value from it. it's also how you create recurring revenue instead of one-time paydays. over the years, i've had to politely turn down requests and explain usage, scope, and pricing more times than i can count—not just for myself, or clients, but for the photographers and creatives on my team. not because we're difficult, but because ownership matters. if a client wants to buy full rights to an image, that's absolutely possible. but it needs to be priced accordingly. once you give up ownership, they can use it anywhere, forever, without ever coming back to you. that has real value. knowing the difference, having educated conversations, and being confident enough to stand by it—that's how you build a sustainable creative business. not just today's revenue, but tomorrow's too.

I just finished reading the Supreme Court decision in Ubom v. Globacom (Nig.) Ltd (2025) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1985) 157, and I must say I was quite pleased with how the apex court clearly distinguished between copyright in a photograph and what is essentially image rights. This is an area that many people, including lawyers, often find confusing. In that case, the Appellant complained that her photograph was used on billboards advertising the Glo Naija Sings competition without her authorization. She approached the State Hight Court alleging that the use of her photograph is illegal. At the trial court, the claim was treated as one falling within the framework of the Copyright Act, particularly in relation to performer’s rights. The reasoning was that since the photograph was taken during her participation in the competition, its subsequent use for advertisement without her consent could fall within rights connected to that performance, and on that basis, the Court with jurisdiction is the Federal High Court. The Court of Appeal appeared to agree with this characterization and also treated the dispute as one properly brought under the Copyright Act. However, the Supreme Court took a closer look at the true nature of the claim and came to a different conclusion. The court pointed out that the Appellant was not the author of the photographs. Under copyright law, the copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer, not the person appearing in the photograph. The fact that the photograph was taken during a performance did not automatically make the matter one of performer’s rights either. In other words, the grievance of the Appellant was not really about copyright. It was about the unauthorized commercial use of her image and ordered that the matter be transferred to SHC. One must commend the learned counsel for the Appellant for pursuing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. It would have been quite easy to accept the reasoning of the lower courts and assume the matter was simply one of copyright. That said, some responsibility can also be traced to how the Appellant framed the case. When one looks closely at the Statement of Claim, the case was pleaded in a way that made it appear like a copyright infringement claim. That framing likely influenced how the lower courts approached the dispute. This case is therefore a good reminder that pleadings matter a great deal. When dealing with image rights, one must be careful not to frame the claim in a way that inadvertently turns it into something else. And here is the lesson; copyright in a photograph belongs to the photographer, while the issue of using a person’s image for commercial purposes without consent raises a different set of legal questions entirely. For anyone curious about the distinction between copyright in a photograph and image rights, this decision offers a very useful illustration.

"I paid for the photos, so I can do whatever I want with them!" Reality: Usage rights are like renting a car. You can drive it, but you can't sell it or use it as a taxi without permission. When you pay for a photo shoot, you typically get: - The right to use photos for agreed-upon purposes - Use within defined geographic areas - Usage for a specific duration But (surprise!) you usually CAN'T: - Use them for purposes beyond the original agreement. - Sell the photos to other businesses. - Claim them as your own work. "But I paid good money for these photos!" True, but remember: You're paying for a service and a product, not the entire creative universe behind it. So before the shoot, don’t forget to discuss: - How do you plan to use the images? - For how long do you need them? - Where you'll be using them (Print? Social media? Billboard in Times Square?) Photographers aren't being difficult by discussing usage rights. They're being professionals. So next time you're booking a photoshoot, think like a savvy car renter: Read the terms, discuss your needs, and enjoy the ride… Just don't try to drive off into the sunset with the whole dealership! Have questions about usage rights? Drop them below! Let's navigate this together.

I once had a proposal rejected because of licensing fees. 😅 I quoted my usual day rate and outlined the terms: "The digital license for these images is included for two years. However, if you plan to use any shots for printed or above-the-line advertising, these would need to be discussed under a separate license." The client responded, saying they’d “never heard of a photographer charging licensing fees before” and tried to entice me with promises of future work worth thousands. 🚩 But licensing fees are standard in my contracts and with most photographers I know. While clients get the right to use images under these licenses, ownership stays with the photographer unless a mutual agreement is reached for unlimited usage rights. Here’s a quick breakdown of licensing and usage rights to clarify why this is so important: 📸 Photo Licensing Licensing is like “renting” the right to use a photo. It specifies how, where, and for how long the image can be used. For instance, a brand might license an image for social media but not for print ads. 📸 Usage Rights Usage rights define where and how images can be used. Key terms include: Exclusive: Only the client can use the images during the agreed period. 3rd Party: Others may also license the same image. Unlimited: Broad use without restrictions (and at a higher cost). 💡 My Standard Practice I include unlimited licensing for social, digital, and website use in my day rate. For print or advertising campaigns, additional licensing fees apply. If a brand requests full, unlimited, lifetime usage, it comes at a premium cost. This approach works well for clients because, by the two-year mark, most brands are ready to refresh their imagery to keep their content engaging and relevant. Understanding and valuing licensing not only protects creative work but also ensures transparency and fairness for both parties. What is your stance on licensing fees? 👀 📸 Shot for The Turmeric Co., Sept '24

Copyright perspectives of Gabriel Medina's Photo at the 2024 Olympics Scenario: Photo of Gabriel Medina Floating Over the Waters, by Jérôme Brouillet Gabriel Medina, a professional surfer, is photographed while performing an impressive maneuver at the 2024 Olympics. This photo becomes iconic, capturing a significant moment in sports history. Some highlights: 1. Copyright Ownership A. Photographer's Rights Copyright Holder: The photographer who took the picture typically holds the copyright. This includes exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and create derivative works based on the photo. Olympic Context: If the photographer is accredited by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or other agency, the terms of accreditation may affect their rights. Often, photographers sign agreements that give the IOC certain rights over the images taken during the Games. B. IOC's Rights Exclusive Rights: The IOC often holds exclusive rights to all media content produced during the Olympics, including photographs. This ensures control over the commercial use and distribution of such content. Accreditation Agreements: Photographers must comply with the IOC's media guidelines, which may require them to transfer or license rights to the IOC. 2. Usage and Commercialization A. Photographer's Rights Personal Use: The photographer can use the image for their personal portfolio or exhibitions, subject to the IOC's restrictions. Commercial Use: Any commercial exploitation, such as selling the image or using it in advertisements, typically requires IOC approval. B. IOC's Rights Broadcast and Promotion: The IOC can use the image for promotional purposes, including broadcasts, official publications, and merchandising. Licensing: The IOC can license the image to third parties, such as sponsors and media outlets, for commercial use. This helps control the brand and revenue streams associated with the Olympics. C. Gabriel Medina's Rights Publicity Rights: Gabriel Medina may have publicity rights over his likeness. This means that any commercial use of his image might require his consent, especially if it's used to endorse products or services. 3. Legal Considerations A. Copyright Law Exclusive Rights: Copyright law grants the photographer the initial exclusive rights to the image. However, contractual agreements with the IOC may limit these rights. Moral Rights: The photographer retains moral rights, such as the right to be credited and to object to derogatory treatments of the image. B. Contractual Agreements IOC Agreements: The terms of the photographer's accreditation and any contracts with the IOC will heavily influence the use and commercialization of the image. Athlete Agreements: Athletes like Medina may have agreements with the IOC or their sponsors regarding the use of their likeness during the Games. Congrats Medina and Jérôme Brouillet! #copyright #intellectualproperty #photo #olympics #photo #medina #game

The recent lawsuit against Jennifer Lopez by a photographer and photo agency for alleged copyright infringement serves as a critical reminder for EVERY content creator and influencer. Even major celebrities can face significant legal challenges when using images they didn't create or license properly. Here's what happened and why it matters to YOU: ⚫ J.Lo is being sued for allegedly posting copyrighted photos of herself on Instagram and X without permission. ⚫The photographer and agency claim her use was "commercial in nature," aiming to market the designers she was wearing. ⚫They are seeking substantial statutory damages (up to $150,000 per photo!) and a jury trial, despite alleged prior discussions about a monetary settlement. ⚫This isn't the first time this has happened – Lopez has faced similar legal action for photo usage in the past. Why this is crucial for content creators and influencers: Just because a photo is of you doesn't mean you own the copyright or have the right to post it. The photographer is typically the initial owner of the copyright. Using an image to promote brands, products, or even just your own self without proper licensing can expose you to serious legal and financial risks. Here are some things to consider to protect your creator business: 🟢 Always assume images taken by others are copyrighted. 🟢 Obtain explicit permission or a license - even if you're featured in the photo, ensure you have a clear agreement or license from the photographer/agency before posting. 🟢 Understand "commercial use" - promoting products, brands, or even just your personal brand can be considered commercial use, which often requires specific licensing. 🟢 Get it in writing - oral agreements can be difficult to enforce. Always have licensing terms documented. If you're a content creator or influencer and have questions about image rights, licensing, or protecting your own creative work, feel free to reach out. It's always better to be proactive than reactive! https://lnkd.in/ehTxFmcR #Influencers #CreatorEconomy #SocialMediaLaw #IntellectualProperty #CopyrightLaw #EntertainmentLaw

We see a lot here about work that goes well. But sometimes it doesn't. Here's an example (anonymising the client etc). It illustrates some useful points about commercial photography; areas that rarely have light shone on them. "Our client wants great pictures for a wall display in their new office; case study photos of customers." – Ah great, I said, – a PR shoot for internal use. And I put together a cost proposal that reflected this. Because the truth is that creative pricing isn't about the time and materials involved; but is closely pegged to the value derived from the work. A client who phones a photographer for a quick PR shot of the boss at her desk will get (or should!) a surprise if they then aim to use it on a global advertising campaign with a spend in the tens of millions. (Some of you might not like that reality, but it remains a reality.) So boundaries of use form part of the commercial terms. I was very clear about what would be covered, we agreed pricing, and got on with the work. It went *fantastically* well. Too well, maybe? Bright, cheerful, uplifting imagery. Customers who felt comfortable and empowered through the whole process. Really enjoying the shoots. Just as it should be. And then... As often happens, head office (not in the UK) weighed in. It sounded like someone had seen the photos and realised just how useful they could be for so many other purposes. "Well actually our standard terms include transfer of IP in all the things we commission. We need to sort that out before we pay." – Oh really, I said; that's not how this works. It's not how UK law works, and it's not what we agreed. This type of boilerplate contract is very common. Terms that work well for management consulting, or product development, don't always — as in this case — read across into creative services. And the job had already been done. We struggled through, our relationship visibly fraying, and they paid. Eventually. But then: "if we *were* to buy full usage rights from you, for any purpose, how much would that be?" Oh dear. Because it turned out to be a lot. There are various models and calculators in the industry we use to ensure fair treatment. But with this request they have to cater for some pretty high value uses: printed on products, used on street display ads, full page press campaigns, globally... And that adds up. (In some countries, and in the UK before the late 80s, if you commission it, you own it — but not in this case.) So I put a number together, and I never heard from them again. I imagine there were all sorts of tensions up the line: HQ shouting at the UK team, UK team shouting at the PR agency, PR agency saying "but the photographer's being difficult". A great creative relationship that could have blossomed into dozens of collaborative projects, all soured into nothing. I don't tell the story with any joy, but to try and shed a bit of light on how easily something can turn from good to bad in this business.

You See the Ocean. I See Ownership. A beautiful frame. Golden light. Waves. Silence. Most people see a moment. I see rights. Because even something as simple as a photograph at the beach carries legal layers most people ignore. Who owns this image? Who has the right to use it? Can someone repost it, edit it, or use it commercially? This is where law quietly exists behind aesthetics. The Legal Reality Under the Copyright Act, 1957, a photograph is automatically protected the moment it is created. The photographer is the first owner— unless rights are assigned otherwise. That means: • reposting without credit can be infringement • commercial use without permission can lead to liability • editing or modifying can violate moral rights ➡️A Real Case That Changed Perspective In ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the Bombay High Court dealt with unauthorized use of photographs. The Court reinforced a simple but powerful principle: 👉 A photograph is not just an image. 👉 It is intellectual property. Use without permission = infringement. ➡️Why This Matters Today In the era of: • Instagram • Influencer marketing • Brand collaborations • Digital portfolios Every image has commercial potential. And anything with value attracts misuse. ➡️As an Entertainment Advocate My perspective has shifted. I no longer see content as “just content.” I see: • ownership • licensing • rights • risks • protection strategies Because the biggest mistake today is assuming: “If it’s online, it’s free.” It’s not. Final Thought You may see the ocean. A creator sees art. A brand sees content. But the law sees ownership. ➡️And ownership decides everything. ❓If someone used your photo tomorrow for profit… would you have the right to stop them? — Ananya Kumari Entertainment Advocate #EntertainmentLaw #IPR #CopyrightLaw #DigitalRights #ContentCreators

One clause could shield you from unnecessary headaches: My photographer client and his celebrity customer. My client, a photographer, approached me to draft a contract for a shoot involving a celebrity couple back in April 2024. A significant portion of my clientele comprises creatives, and through divine grace, I have effectively educated them on the significance of legal contracts, particularly for substantial deals. I worked on the contract for my client, and he proceeded to sign it with his client. Few days prior to the pre-wedding shoot, the bride (who is a celebrity )unexpectedly desired to reschedule the pre-wedding shoot due to feeling bloated and concerned about her face being puffy in the pictures. Upon being informed by my client that rescheduling was not feasible as he was fully booked for the week, the bride reacted by threatening to call him out on social media for subpar service. My client was worried and he was forced to share the details of the incident with me. As his legal representative, I had a duty to shield him, and the fact that there was an existing agreement made it easy. How? I included a cancellation policy in the agreement that both parties signed. It states that the client must provide a 7-day notice for any cancellations or rescheduling, and it is up to the photographer to agree with or without additional charges. Furthermore, if the client fails to appear on the shoot day, it is deemed that the shoot has taken place, with no refund to be issued by the photographer. I advised my client to remind the couple of the contractual terms they agreed to. Even if he considered rescheduling, it could not be based on such a trivial reason as feeling bloated. I'm glad she decided to not drag it for long and stuck to the agreed date. Despite the initial conflict, the bride still referred his services to her friends. Dear creatives and business owners, It is crucial to run your business with a foundation of professionalism and contractual agreements rather than relying solely on vibes and words of mouth. People are full of surprises, the fate of your business should not be left in the hands of their mood and feelings. Let your contractual dealings be defined and clearly stated on paper. If some of you encounter clients unwilling to sign contracts, that reluctance might serve as a clear indication to reconsider engaging in significant or big business dealings with such individuals. What will you be doing differently in your business?

In today's visually-driven world, it's easy to assume that if a picture is of you, you automatically have the right to use or share it. However, the recent copyright lawsuit involving Jennifer Lopez offers a powerful reminder of crucial distinctions in copyright law that everyone, from individuals to businesses, should understand. Here are a few key takeaways: 1. The Photographer Owns the Copyright: Generally, the person who takes a photograph is the original creator and therefore holds the copyright to that image. This means they control how the photo can be reproduced, distributed, and displayed. Although, this general rule may be subject to some exceptions in some cases. 2. Rights of Publicity Belong to the Subject: While the photographer owns the copyright to the image itself, the individual(s) depicted in the photo typically hold "rights of publicity." This protects their name, likeness, and other identifiable aspects from unauthorized commercial exploitation. 3. Finding a Photo of Yourself Online (including on social media) Doesn't Grant Reposting Rights: This is where many misconceptions arise. As highlighted by the Jennifer Lopez lawsuit (where she was sued for posting a photo of herself on her social media account without the photographer's permission, as discussed in the article linked below), simply being the subject of an image, or finding it on social media, does NOT give you the right to repost it. You still need explicit authorization or a license from the copyright owner (the photographer) to legally share that image. Understanding these nuances is essential for anyone active online. Always seek permission or ensure proper licensing before using images you haven't created, even if they feature you! If you have questions regarding whether or not you can use an image or work without permission, feel free to reach out to me! https://lnkd.in/gnG8TKFK