ABSOLUTELY!! Many might disagree or try to make this more complicated than it is, but to me it’s so easy. You want me to keep your privacy? OK. Am I thankful for the photos I can share for my own marketing stuff? YES, but it is so simple to just respect someone’s privacy. I am a woman and I understand, and then I became a mom and now I get it even more (or it feels like).

everyone should ne on board with the other. ..... or if there's a compromise portfolio vs social media for example

My prices are as advertised. I give my clients an option to receive either a few extra photos or a discount if they give permission to use them on a website or social media. I am NOT charging extra, unless you are considering anyone who offers discounts as charging extra.

I usually do this as "if you'll allow me to share your photos online for marketing purposes i'll give you a slight discount". this way not only do they get to opt-in, they even get a little something for agreeing. It's less predatory this way haha

What is the issue to have your photos posted if you will be sharing them yourself anyway? 🤷🏼‍♀️ it is potential client loss as the photos might bring new clients, so yeah it is fair to be compensated extra for that

Its how photographers market their services. So yes, it costs more for exclusivity. Thats also in every area of life, not just photography.

I feel like this is going a bit far as many photographers have this weird ownership stance to OTHER PEOPLES PHOTOS. It's so weird. And it's telling that their use to market is more important than their client relations. 💁🏽‍♀️

The problem here is both you and the photographer claim ownership to the photos. Unless you have the photographer sign a work for hire agreement then the photo belong to the photographer. Like forever. You can request a buyout where the copyright is transferred to you but expect it to be expensive. Also the client/model does not own the photos and can not use them for commercial gain without permission from the photographer/copyright holder.

Was there a “model release” clause in the contract you signed? I would imagine that most have a clause in their contract stating that. I could understand the confusion if their contract didn’t have that, and you asked for privacy after the fact. But if there’s a model release clause and you signed away on it, it makes sense that a photographer would have to charge more to make up for the fact that they will be unable to post any content from the session as a form of advertising or sharing.

I've been photographing people and events for 30yrs and never charged anyone for that. Matter of fact, the majority of my work is not online. Its on walls and in print.