Weddings, legally speaking are a binding agreement and are no different from any business relationship with another party.  It might be only for a day or possibly a weekend, not a long term agreement but an agreement nevertheless.  If money or goods transpires within the agreement it has important legal ramifications and you should consider all the points, giving it some careful thought, doing the what-if’s, and only then  only be entered into.

The trap of entering into agreements without due consideration, or mistrust even if it's a family member can be the last thing you need. A contract is as much for your protection as the Brides.  On the subject of families, just remember you can choose your friends, not your relatives and this is a super emotional time, things get said and sometimes don't go away.  I will never do a family event again as long as I live.

You will want to keep the agreement pertinent to address all of the possible situations, glitches, surprises, brain farts, which may show or rear their ugly heads because given a chance they will show up.   These are called "What-Ifs”.  First mentioned by Father Murphy-Lawes in his first encyclical “Wha Da Fuk” and today is doing well in this arena.  You also want to keep things very clear and in simple language on the subjects at hand, this is not a time for "he said, she said". And it is not a time for needing three other lawyers to argue the valid points.


  • Get it in writing. "He said, she said" is great on realty court TV, thats usually why they are there.
  • Oral agreements are like the game you played in school called "whisper".  By the time the rumor got around the room, it had nothing to do what was said.  Thats why it doesn't stand up in court.
  • K.I.S.S.  Use language both of you can understand. "Keep it simple, stupid".   The contracts, especially for an emotional driven event such as a wedding, are written in plain English. As long as both parties know exactly what they're signing.
  • Keep the formatting simple and in brief paragraphs and you might consider as you go over each point an initial signifying they have understood what they are signing.
  • Be specific in what the client will be receiving for your services.  Any changes after the fact have to be in writing and both parties sign and receive copies.
  • Make sure all the payment details are up-front and clear. Specify how, when and the amount in the  payments are to be made.  


There are many variations used in the Wedding business, the two most popular being:

1 - The Three Part Common Wedding Payment Clause

  • One-third Upon agreement:   
  • One-third Before The Event 
  • One-third When the prints, books, CD’s or other is delivered. 

2 - And the second most common is the Half and Half.

  • Half Deposit at the time of Booking
  • And the second half the balance when you show up at the wedding.

These are the two most popular formats.  You can also do a layaway if you are booked way in advance so if they decide to call it off or shoot each other, you have something to show for your time. Layaways after the wedding are not a smart move. Annulments and divorces are too popular and this is not a good idea.

Some go as far as to include a provision, that states you will only perform work after the checks clear the bank. Cancelled checks can ruin your entire day, as does non-sufficient funds. Contract disputes about money, are really hard to fight as you will have to spend to recover in small claims court. Be specific but don't be a jerk and make too big an issue.

Be sure to include a short period of time and a clear paragraph on cancellation or termination. Like marriage everything doesn't always work out. Some things end as soon as the weddings over. If  payments are missed, or the agreed format is not followed or changes to the venue occur, you need to be prepared. 

The biggest and most common cancellation or termination is the wedding gets called off.  This is clearly stated in the DEPOSIT and it is not refundable. You have time invested and they are liable if you so state it.

I am not an attorney but I do know in my state and others laws differ on contracts. The law of the state you are in are absolute.  State's laws will govern in the event there's a dispute. Sometimes Brides and groom are from different states.  You might consider a clause that states which state laws will govern. If you forget to include this, more lawyers in other states cost a lot of money.

It’s their pictures and you want permission to use their pictures for your promotional use. You want this clear and in writing if it is important to you for advertising, marketing, trade shows, print competitions, and for promotional use in locations other than your gallery i.e.: the web. (Get it in writing) 

Those pictures are also your leverage if a problem arises or you are getting what we call bumped by a customer. Thats when they forget what they agreed to and start demanding more. I will explain this in detail further on.

If they say no (which is rare) then abide by it. The sword has two edges and one does not need to abuse this either by pictorializing their entire family for your benefit and violating their privacy. Written permission agreeing to use is important. The trend today is to give the negatives to the Bride after a short period, like after you are paid in total for services rendered. (More below on this subject)  Thus good digital copies of your work is a must, as is a good release to use them. 


I use and believe in the three part payment for the Wedding; A good contract is fair to both the photographer and the Bride who hired you. The one third deposit to retain the date, second third the day of the Wedding, third part on delivery of the Wedding proofs, CD-ROMs, discs, and/or enlargements. 

Sometimes (see the sample contract) I want it all up front, just a gut feeling tells me I either have a Bridezilla or sometimes bounced checks tell you that. Understanding what is and what isn’t included up front is the best way of doing business. 

The prime rule of individual business success for the Wedding Photographer is customer satisfaction. And that is achieved only one way, giving the consumer more that his or her expectations. Business sense, if you got paid enough to do the job, extra shots (one roll or fill up that spare card) might cost you another 15 dollars for prints and proofs or a CD . For the extra fifteen dollars I get all the shots that show up late, or become apparent at the affair. Maybe some special folks at the table, but, the surprises get captured. The Bride gets it all.

As trends, equipment (the digital revolution) change and laws of ownership change, the many Wedding Photographers I knew always added a little extra to the package to cover the cost of film and processing and now after sixty days or so release the pictures to the client. With digital, a hi-res and lo-res disc is often all that is delivered. 

Extra cost of the post processing time on the computer is fair to charge for. The on-line PROFESSIONAL wedding services (PBASE is not what I’m talking about) do a great job and the pro people I know using them love the convenience. 

Another argument is that most of the “cheaters” shoot down to Ritz, Wal-Mart, Costco and Sams, just to name a few, and make copies on the Kodak machine or scan them. Again with much of the industry going to digital, the abundance of digital at weddings and many households with scanners, and cell phones the whole issue becomes a moot point. 

In addition people at most of the kiosks turn the other way when copying anyway, so get it in writing and get it up front are the mottos. If you are a business act like one. (Get it in writing) 


For those in Florida and similar states...Sales Tax.  Keep all books and records. Especially if this is just a casual business. The sales tax people are bears, worse than the IRS.  
The sales tax people visited us one year in the store and requested all film sales to PROS or those with sales tax exemption records.  If you keep the negatives or original files on disc and charged sales tax on your wedding fees, yet you claim tax exempt when you buy cameras and gear you are in trouble.  Some try to avoid tax when buying gear.  They got caught too. Had to be for resale.

During the film days Florida had incorporated a sales tax law that if film is part of an agreement and you are paid for that film as part of the cost, you better turn in the sales tax if it was included in your billing to the bride.  It’s cheaper to pay seven percent tax on the film cost and be done with it, than screw with the sales tax people. 

They are bears. Anything I buy locally for my business even if it is in bulk nuts and bolts, I cheerfully pay sales tax on.  I never worry about that because I did not and do not use the exemption. As far as sales tax people go I do not exist and I like it that way.  With the advent of the digital era, the business no longer using film, the bears of the sales tax business backed off… on film…gear is another story.


Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officers have been known to ask people to stop taking photographs of public places. Those who fail to comply have sometimes been harassed, detained, and arrested. Other people have ended up in FBI databases for taking innocuous photographs of public places.

The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, one that is free from accusations of bias, lying, or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.

Relatedly, artistic expression should never be chilled out of fear of unwarranted police scrutiny. No one should ever find an FBI agent on their doorstep just because they photographed public art.

Through litigation, public education, and other forms of advocacy, the ACLU has defended the rights of photographers and all camera-wielding individuals to document freely.

If you are one of the 77 percent of Americans who own a smartphone, then there’s a good chance that every time you leave the house, you carry with you the most powerful tool for police accountability that exists today. On Friday, yet another federal court ruled that your right to record the police performing their duties in public is part of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Time and again we’ve seen civilians’ photos and videos of police expose the realities of policing in powerful ways. Ordinary people’s cell phone recordings of police interactions have been a starting point for national conversations about police reform and have sparked grassroots movements seeking accountability for how — and against whom — the police use their tremendous power.

Unsurprisingly, police retaliation against civilians who attempt to record police has also become commonplace.

Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey) became the sixth federal appellate court to acknowledge that ordinary people with recording devices not only have an important role to play in holding the police accountable — they also have constitutional protection for this activity. When police retaliate against people who record them, they violate the First Amendment. No federal court of appeals has disagreed with this. Five of the courts of appeal have not ruled on the matter, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely that any of them will disagree.

In the past few years, the ACLU of Pennsylvania has filed five lawsuits against the City of Philadelphia — and several more against other municipalities — on behalf of people who were arrested, detained, or cited in retaliation for recording the police.

The most recent two cases in this series were brought on behalf of Rick Fields, a Temple University undergrad arrested on a public sidewalk for taking an iPhone photo of police breaking up a house party across the street, and Amanda Geraci, a legal observer who was violently restrained across the neck by a police officer at a demonstration when she attempted to photograph the police arresting a protestor.

In February 2016, a trial judge threw their cases out, reasoning (incorrectly) that the act of recording the police was not protected by the First Amendment.


July 7, the Third Circuit reversed that ruling, concluding that Mr. Fields and Ms. Geraci’s First Amendment rights had been violated.

The court explained that, because the First Amendment plainly protects the right to possess and distribute photos and videos, it must also protect the act of making those photos and videos.

But even more importantly, the court explained, the First Amendment protects the right to gather information about public officials, including police officers. Without a constitutional right to collect and disseminate information about the government, the people would be left in the dark, unable to make informed decisions and participate effectively in the democratic process.

Indeed, in 2017, civilians with smartphones are as critical a source of information about how police officers use their power as the formal press. As the Trump administration begins to scale back the federal government’s police reform and civil rights work, the role that ordinary people play in keeping the local police forces in check has never been more important.