If you’re looking for a wedding photographer, you want to make sure you understand all the extra charges that you may encounter, so you can decide that’s right for you.

There is a fee that some wedding photographers charge called a non-usage fee, a privacy fee, a loss-of-opportunity fee, or an image restriction fee. It sounds formal — and it is — but it’s basically an agreement: you’re asking the photographer not to use the photos they make of you for their business, and that affects how they run that business, when they’re not able to showcase the work they own. This of course isn’t a typical part of a wedding photography package, but over the years it’s become necessary to add this on as an optional extra of sorts.

I’m going to explain exactly what that fee is, why photographers charge it, when it actually makes sense, and, crucially, the realistic workarounds that often mean you don’t need to pay it. Because ultimately, being able to show my work is a lot more valuable to me than the fee. I’ll also include contract language you can expect, FAQs, and practical next steps so you and your partner can decide early and clearly.

Quick summary (if you just want the headlines)

• What it is: A non-usage fee compensates a photographer when a couple asks that their wedding photos not be used publicly (website, social media, vendor sharing, blog submissions, etc.).
• My policy: I charge 20% of the total photography coverage when a couple elects full non-usage. The decision must be made and reflected in the contract before the wedding.
• Why: Real weddings are the primary marketing material for most wedding photographers — blog posts, Instagram, and portfolio work are how we find new clients. Removing that visibility is a real business cost.
• Workarounds: Many privacy concerns can be solved without a full restriction — initials instead of full names, no tagging, short embargo periods.
• Decide early: It’s a contract item. It can’t realistically be added after delivery of photos.

How much does it cost?

There’s no universal standard. Photographers price differently depending on market, demand, and how much their marketing depends on blog and social traffic.

My policy: 20% of the total contract amount for photography coverage.

Why a percentage? I shoot many different types of weddings, from short 2-hour City Hall ceremonies, elopements, half days, through 14-hour full-day weddings, so a percentage scales with the size of the assignment rather than being an arbitrary flat fee, like it is for full copyrights buyouts which are costly and not needed for all but those with a very specific need to curate their public image and the resources to match. See my in-depth article below.

The fee is not a cash grab. I actually steer couples away from paying it when their needs can be met with a simpler workaround. The fee exists because if everyone asked for privacy, my business would struggle.

What “use” actually means

When photographers talk about “using” wedding images, we mean publishing them outside the private, password-protected gallery we give you. Typical uses include:

• Blog posts on the photographer’s site (evergreen SEO content)
• Social media posts (Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Pinterest)
• Submissions to wedding blogs and magazines
• Full galleries shared with vendor partners that you used for your wedding
• Marketing materials (ads, brochures)
• YouTube or video content.

If you ask that some/none of those uses happen, that’s when a non-usage fee comes into play.

Why photographers charge a non-usage fee (plainly)

A few practical, non-romantic facts:

• Real weddings are our core marketing. Styled shoots and stock don’t convert the same way. Blog posts of real weddings build SEO and bring couples to our website for years. My blog receives over 12,000 page views a month and my social channels (Instagram: ~180k impressions monthly, TikTok ~150k impressions) meaningfully drive bookings. If I can’t show my work, I have nothing to show potential clients.
• It’s a lost business opportunity. Every public wedding that can’t be shown is a case I can’t use to demonstrate my work, to get featured, or to help venue pages rank. That’s real revenue lost over time.
• Brand and reputation control. If clients or the public see only out-of-context, heavily edited, or poorly processed versions of our work (e.g., someone re-editing RAWs), it can misrepresent our style. Not sharing images keeps us from building a coherent portfolio.
• Legal/contract clarity. The model release is how photographers reserve the right to publish images. If the couple removes that release, the photographer needs a practical offset.

So the fee is compensation for what the photographer can no longer do when a couple asks for full privacy.

One quick note: If you apply go ahead with a ‘private’ wedding (paying the non-usage fee), it’s recommended to purchase the sneak peek so you’re at least able to see the photos prior to final delivery.

How this policy started (short personal backstory)

Early on I had multiple couples in a row ask that I not use their photos. Suddenly I had beautiful work but nothing I could show to prospective clients. It was damaging to growth, and took me over 5 years to become a booked-out wedding photographer.

I experimented with informal arrangements and eventually established a clear policy: an affordable, fair non-usage fee that protects my ability to run a business while still giving couples the option of privacy if they truly want it.

Common reasons couples request privacy, workable alternatives, and whether the fee is necessary

Below are the most frequent scenarios I see, with the practical workaround I typically offer and my recommendation (fee required or not). I keep this part long and explicit on purpose, so you can see if you fit into any of these buckets.

Format: Reason → Workaround(s) → My recommendation (Fee?)

“I don’t want people to Google me and find wedding photos.”

Workaround: I never use last names in blog posts, file names, alt text, or tags. I can refer to you by initials (“S & T”) or different first names. I also don’t deliberately share last names, but it’s possible this could be visible in photos for example in signage or invitations. I can also not tag you on social platforms.

Recommendation: Usually no fee. If absolute anonymity is acceptable (no full names, no tags), we can avoid the fee.

“I’m very selective about how I look online — I want to approve select photos.”

Workaround: With a professional photographer, part of what you’re investing in is their trained eye. Our role is to deliver flattering, respectful, and professional images. I don’t deliver, let alone share publicly, images where someone looks bad or awkward. Because of this, I don’t allow clients to pick and choose which photos they approve for release. That kind of selective control is exactly what the non-usage fee is designed to cover.

Recommendation: If you trust your photographer’s expertise, then there’s no need to pay the fee. But if your comfort level requires control over every image that might appear online, that falls under the non-usage fee arrangement. This isn’t something we negotiate piecemeal; it’s either full trust in the judgment of the professional or opting into the fee for full control.

“We don’t mind being on the photographer’s blog, but not on big wedding sites / magazines.”

Workaround: You can specifically restrict publication to third-party platforms while allowing use on the photographer’s owned channels (website, social).

Recommendation: No fee. Limiting third-party publication but allowing my business and your vendors’ site/social posts is a reasonable compromise.

“We don’t want certain guests / children showing up online.”

Workaround: Weddings are social events, and guests are part of the story. Whether it’s reactions during the ceremony, dancing at the reception, or wide shots that capture the atmosphere, your friends and family will inevitably appear in photos. I don’t blur faces or crop images just to exclude individuals, that would compromise the integrity of the work.

Recommendation: If you’re uncomfortable with guests or children appearing online, the only realistic way to ensure that is through the non-usage fee. That way, your entire gallery remains private and you don’t have to worry about who appears in shared content.

“My job requires privacy (e.g., diplomat, law enforcement, witness, high-security).

Workaround: None. If your career or personal safety requires you to avoid a public digital footprint, the only way to ensure that is to keep your wedding gallery completely private. While I don’t have to mention names or tag you, it’s possible that facial recognition technology and algorithms can still connect images back to you.

Recommendation: In this case, the non-usage fee is required. Privacy concerns tied to safety or employment fall squarely into situations where the restriction is justified, and the only way to guarantee control is a complete non-usage agreement, unless it’s acceptable to you to just go initials-only.

“We want to hold off posting until a later date.”

Workaround: I can delay posting your images for up to 30 days after your wedding, for example if you want to announce your wedding first. Beyond that, the non-usage fee applies. Our business relies heavily on sharing work in real time — especially short-form phone content that’s typically posted immediately after your wedding. It isn’t feasible to track separate embargo dates for different clients, so the default and contracted expectation is that we can use images right away.

Recommendation: If you’re comfortable with a delay of no more than 30 days, there’s no additional fee. If you want us to hold off posting beyond that, the non-usage fee will apply and we will also be free to share images/content.

“We’re having a secret wedding”

Workaround: None. If you’re keeping your marriage under wraps for any reason — whether you plan to announce it later, are eloping without telling family, or simply want complete discretion — the only way to ensure your photos remain private is through the non-usage fee.

Recommendation: The fee applies. A secret wedding by definition requires absolute privacy, and I can’t share the work online in any capacity.

“Our marriage is unacceptable in the eyes of our family/ culture”

Workaround: None. This most often applies to couples from religious or cultural backgrounds where marrying outside the faith is not accepted, or to LGBTQ+ couples who are not out or whose families do not support their relationship. Once images are online, they can be seen, shared, and surfaced by algorithms in ways that can’t be controlled. Because of that, it wouldn’t be wise to publicly share them, even without names or tags.  

Recommendation: The fee applies. If your marriage would be unwelcome, unsafe, or rejected by certain people or communities in your life, the non-usage fee is the safeguard that ensures no images are ever published.

“We don’t want family and friends to post our photos, and we think the photographer should respect the same rule.”

Workaround: There is a fundamental difference between casual sharing by friends and family, and a professional photographer whose livelihood depends on showcasing their work. Guests posting on their personal feeds is not the same as a business needing to demonstrate expertise, style, and consistency to future clients in real time. The way forward is to reframe the issue, rather than placing identical restrictions on everyone.

Recommendation: The fee is not required if you can acknowledge this difference and allow the photographer to use images as part of their business, separate from a random guest sharing photos on Instagram for no particular reason. If, however, you still want to block professional usage because you’re also blocking guests from sharing, the non-usage fee would apply.

When the fee absolutely makes sense

• Celebrities or public figures whose reputation and brand depend on careful image control.
• High-net-worth clients who simply prefer total privacy and are comfortable paying for it.
• Individuals whose careers demand confidentiality, such as diplomats, law enforcement officers, or those working in high-security or sensitive government roles.
• Clients under strict workplace or professional restrictions, where being photographed publicly could jeopardize employment.
• People with safety concerns — stalking, domestic abuse, or similar personal security risks.
• Those in witness protection or comparable circumstances where visibility poses danger.
• Anyone whose public image requires discretion, including executives or those in highly visible leadership roles.

In these cases, the photographer is losing high-value potential marketing material, and a non-usage fee is an industry-appropriate way to offset that loss.

How this is implemented in practice (timeline & contract mechanics)

A few essential rules that make this work without surprises:

1. Decide before you sign. The non-usage choice must be made during contracting. It’s not realistic to apply it after the wedding, as we have the right to share content from your wedding right away in the format of stories and a sneak peek of images ASAP. This also for your benefit.
2. Line item in the contract. The fee appears as a separate line item and the model release clause is omitted or modified. Your Photography Planning Document (PPD) should reflect the choice, and that is where you’ll make your final decision once that is submitted to me for contract drafting.
3. Payment schedule. The fee is part of your payment schedule and is bundled together with any other desired items as part of your custom wedding photography package.
4. Couple as a unit. Any restriction applies to both parties — you can’t have one partner agree to public use and the other refuse.
5. Vendor sharing. Many photographers continue to share images with vendors for vendor marketing. I share images with vendors as a small courtesy and to maintain relationships in the industry, allowing them to showcase their work as well. This is standard practice and valuable marketing for both parties.

Pricing alternatives & copyright buyouts (quick note)

A full copyright transfer or total buyout (i.e., relinquishing authorship and ownership) is a different, much more expensive discussion. Transferring copyright is rare in wedding photography and is generally priced in the five-figure range, depending on usage rights requested. For most couples, this is unnecessary and impractical.

If a client truly needs full copyright transfer and ownership — e.g., for a major commercial project — that would be a bespoke contract and a different fee altogether, as it falls well outside the scope of a wedding photography project.

What I do (and don’t do) with your wedding images

• I do not sell your wedding photos to stock agencies or third-party stock platforms.
• I do share images directly with vendors because vendor relationships are critical to my business. If vendor sharing is not acceptable, this must be stated and will likely count toward the non-usage restriction. The exception is if you ended up having a bad experience with a particular vendor, in which case I will not share anything with them, or tag them.
• I keep RAW files for the processing and delivery workflow but they are not distributed to clients (that’s a separate topic you can read about in my RAW files article).
• Even with restrictions, I maintain backups for a reasonable period but private images won’t be used for marketing purposes.

How to avoid paying the fee (actionable checklist)

If you want privacy but want to avoid the fee, this is your checklist:

• ✅ Ask for initials only in any public post instead of full names.
• ✅ Allow no-tagging on social media posts.
• ✅ Ask for no sharing to bigger wedding publications and blogs
• ✅ Approve a short embargo of up to 30 days
• ✅ If you have safety concerns, be explicit — that generally does justify the fee.

Common FAQs

Q: Can one partner opt out of public use and the other opt in?
A: No. Release restrictions apply to the couple together; you must agree as a unit.

Q: Can we change our mind later and permit public use?
A: Yes. If you later permit use, we can remove the restriction; however, if you ask to apply a restriction after the images are public, that’s not possible. It’s laid out in our process, but you must decide before going into contract.

Q: Is the non-usage fee refundable?
A: No, it is non-refundable. It compensates for marketing opportunity lost. If your wedding is canceled prior to the date per contract terms, you and your photographer should refer to the cancellation clause.

Q: If we pay the fee, do we own the images?
A: No. Paying the non-usage fee restricts the photographer’s right to publish images, it does not transfer copyright. Copyright transfer is a separate, costly negotiation.

Q: If friends post, does that void the restriction?
A: Guests posting does not change the photographer’s obligations. The restriction is about the photographer’s use. However, you should coordinate guest expectations if privacy is a priority.

Final thoughts: why clarity matters and how to proceed

At the end of the day, wedding photography is both an art and a business. While my primary role is to create meaningful, lasting images for my clients, another crucial responsibility is ensuring that my business remains sustainable. Sharing my work is how I connect with new clients, build trust, and stay in business in a highly competitive industry.

The non-usage fee is a way to balance both needs. It allows couples who have legitimate reasons for keeping their images offline to move forward, while still recognizing the significant value I lose by not being able to share my work. It’s not the same as a full copyright buyout — which is far more costly — but rather a middle ground that makes it possible for us to work together when privacy is a priority.

I do want couples to understand, though, that the fee is already a compromise. The ability to showcase my portfolio is worth far more to me than this small fee represents. So while it provides a workable solution, I hope couples can see it as an accommodation that allows me to honor their privacy while still respecting the realities of running a business.

Zoe Larkin

I’m Zoe, a wedding photographer based in San Francisco! My style is candid, capturing authentic moments for my couples all over the Bay Area and Northern California. Creating content is my passion! Follow along on the blog, Instagram, TikTok & YouTube!

Zoe Larkin Photography

Zoe Larkin

I’m Zoe, a wedding photographer based in San Francisco! My style is candid, capturing authentic moments for my couples all over the Bay Area and Northern California. Creating content is my passion! Follow along on the blog, Instagram, TikTok & YouTube!

Zoe Larkin Photography