For those of you who don't know, there are some photographers who charge for a session, don't include any photos with the session, and then charge the client for either prints or rights to the photos. I don't have a problem with this approach at all; every photographer is entitled to do business however they want. This post isn't about those photographers. This post is about the photographers who have a very similar system as the previously mentioned, except for one very important detail; they don't tell you there aren't any photos included with the fee for the session. 

Here's an example. The client finds a photographer, signs the contract, and pays them. A few days after the session, the client tells the photographer what photos they want and how many. The photographer then tells the client they owe additional money for either the rights to those photos or for prints. The client has already signed the contract and paid them, so now their options are to either pay the additional amount, or be out the money they paid the photographer for the session and get no photos. 

There are three ways the client ended up in this situation.

The first way is the photographer was perfectly clear about how things would work, and the client either didn't pay close enough attention, or didn't understand. 

The second way is the photographer forgot to tell the client how things would work. The photographer should have been on top of things and should have told the client how things would work. In defense of the photographer, the client probably should have asked how things would work, and the information should be in the contract (keyword: should). 

The third way, is the photographer deliberately didn't tell the client how things would work in order to get more money. The photographer probably doesn't charge a whole lot for the actual session, but then makes their money on the rights/prints. As mentioned earlier, the client has already signed the contract, so either the client is out the money they've already paid and get no photos, or they have to pay for the rights/prints. 

The only way a photographer can keep the client's money like in scenario three is if there's something in their contract that protects them. Most likely, the photographer will have a section in their contract that details how paying will work, that no photos are included with the fee for the session, and/or that the client will have to pay for the rights or prints. I don't think there are too many photographers who purposely hide that the client will have to pay for the rights/prints in addition to the cost of the session, because it's a pretty terrible business plan that probably won't make clients want to return any time soon. However, that doesn't mean there aren't any photographers out there who use that type of system. The best way to avoid any confusion, whether intentional or not, is to ask questions, and be sure to read the contract. 

www.danpomykalski.com

Unrelated: You probably didn't notice, but I now have a sponsor! You can find the link to my sponsor's blog on the right side of my page in the side bar.