Jump to content

ummm ok? (usage question)


missy_kay

Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>I still can not imagine an established studio not having the exclusivity clause in their contract......could be, but I just don't see any reason not to have it. Again, suggest that you shoot them an en email and let them join the discussion Editing their side of the story would seem unfair.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David,</p>

<p>I normally agree 100% (or more :-) ) with what you have to say and, with this statement, I still do. However, I think there are some assumptions that have gotten out of hand in this thread.</p>

<p>We don't know if there was any exclusivity clause in the contract. Those of us who have been shooting for a while <em>assume</em> that there is but Kay was led to believe there wasn't - after all, the couple asked her to bring her camera. If that wasn't clear to the couple, then I do want to point the finger at the studio and ask why such a clause isn't clear, or made clear.</p>

<p>But... in the emails from the studio, there is no mention that Kay's shooting is a violation of the studio's exclusivity clause. The concern the studio has is about possible publication.</p>

<p>If there is an exclusivity clause, then THAT is the argument that the studio should be making. Using the argument that Kay's publication dilutes the studio's chances at having the images published nationally makes the studio come across as sounding petty.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>The part I don't get (probably because I don't submit to magazines but probably should) is this: if the... scratch that... if ANY studio submits to multiple publications and each publication requires exclusivity of content, what happens if two or more publications accept the images?</p>

<p>Or do you submit different images to each publication?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Or do you submit different images to each publication?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well if that was ok there'd be no problem as Kay's pictures haven't been submitted to any magazines at all.</p>

<p>As for exclusivity clauses: I can't see how they would bind the guests.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Even if there was an exclusivity clause in the contract, so what? Missy Kay isn't a party to the contract.</p>

<p>True, but the bridal couple would be and they were the ones tat asked Kay to shoot. In that case, the studio could make the argument that the couple had no right to ask her to shoot.</p>

<p>Again, without being privy to the content of the contract, all we can do is speculate and offer some form of support to Kay who, in good faith, shot her friends' wedding and was blind-sided by this.</p>

<p>I still don't think the studio handled it well.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kay, when responding, please use the paragraph David suggested, it is to the point and professional. Please do take out this section "1) The blog posts get placed back up on the website that you had taken down or 2) I personally submit the photos to every single wedding, blog, online publication that has ever existed. Please let me know what you decide." - it's a knee-jerk reaction that won't get you anywhere.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Kay,</p>

<p>First I would like to say that I adore your work, down to the ground. Much like Neil Ambrose as well, it's stunning and I would like to make that clear before I continue.<br>

<br /> I have to agree with Nadine & David on this one. I myself am a "start up" I have been doing this for many years, but this has been my first proper cycle (like you yourself posted lately to ask if you should raise your prices) and although we feel we have been well and truly weather beaten by the economy and the demands of brides increasing we are still the young blood in this.</p>

<p>I think most of the advice here on the forums is usually along the lines of "remove the emotion, and think of the business." It would be much more beneficial for you to establish a friendly relationship with this rather large and successful studio in your area rather than making enemies. Sure, you can say she was the one that "started it" but then that gets a bit juvenile.</p>

<p>Legally, I am sure you have every right to post your own images wherever you would like and can submit them to whomever you choose. The blogs will not take you on anymore if you start being affiliated with dramatic or embarrassing situations. And having a blow out with this lady at the studio is a way to start that sort of rumor circulating. And that would be very, very bad for you and negate any positive publicity you might have gotten from the original post. So, it's ultimately better for you and your reputation to do this tactfully.</p>

<p>And yes, always always use spell check! :)</p>

<p>The focus is not really who is in the wrong, and who is legally allowed to do what and where. It's more about playing the intricate game of business (which I myself am still learning undoubtedly!) and trying to come out on top, despite tricky situations like this!</p>

<p>You also tend to focus on your religious beliefs in some of your posts with blessings etc, perhaps lean a bit on that to temper your irritation and calm your raging river into a calm stream. :)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>In the age of ubiquitous digital cameras, exclusivity clauses are silly, unenforceable, and promote bad feeling at a wedding. I only ask that people refrain from shooting photos while I'm posing people, because I don't like it when everybody looks every which way except at my lens.</p>

<p>Here's a thought: If Kay was the bride's mother instead of the bride's friend, no doubt the studio would have gotten an earful from the bride by now.</p>

<p>I have followed David's remarks for many years. Although like him as a fellow curmudgeon, he would probably agree that we agree to disagree on many things. This issue is no exception. I concur with the majority opinion that you have every right to publish the photos in any manner you see fit.</p>

<p>However, I disagree with some posters who believe that a written response to the studio is necessary. You would be talking to a wall, and you might say something that would get you into further trouble. The most effective response would be to publish the photos in your gallery on photo.net. We'd love to see them.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>***I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice***</p>

<p>Folks, keep in mind what "exclusivity" is in a situation like this, it typically means that a studio (or photographer) does not want other hired people there at the wedding.</p>

<p>1. Unless I have missed it, Missy has said nothing about being paid. She should probably clarify this situation. But as far as I can tell, she was there as a guest.</p>

<p>2. This exclusivity only goes as far as the contract between the b&g and the photographer. There is no contract in the world that a wedding photographer presents that can stop a guest from doing whatever they want with their images. This is a free country. The ONLY people who can stop publication of an image YOU took are the subjects IN that image (and in some rare occasions the owner of the property). And even then, there are still situations where you can publish without the permission from those subjects.</p>

<p>3. Even if Missy WAS hired to shoot this wedding in contradiction of a exclusivity clause, the studio's issue would be with the b&g, not with Missy. A contract she was not party to cannot stop Missy from publishing those photos. The b&g would have broken the contract, not Missy. Their only recourse is to legally go after the b&g. The studio has no control over the copyright of Missy's images, the rights to any of the subjects in the photos, Missy's right to take photos, or her right to publish them.</p>

<p>Other than that, I stand by my previous statement. This studio (or whoever it is doing this) can rot as far as I am concerned. They are absolutely unprofessional and would get zero respect from me. In the interest of politeness, I won't repeat how my letter to them would go if I were in Missy's position. This is a weak power grab from nothing more than a bully. Pathetic.</p>

<p>***I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice***</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dawn -</p>

<p>There's a time for playing the game and a time to stand up for one's rights. If the studio had called Kay before contacting the blogger and tried to explain the situation or even their view point...I'd go along with playing the game...</p>

<p>To me - the studio crossed the line by going to the blogger and saying - hey - take down that photo. Given their reaction to this - my guess is that they are not someone that if it were me, would want to have a working or any other kind of relationship with. Doing a quick google search of the town mentioned - I'm betting that I can guess which studio it is...just from their site. The problem with 800 lb gorillas is well, that they're 800 lb gorillas. We all have to deal with them at one point or another.</p>

<p>Also as was pointed out earlier - we only lose our rights when we give them up.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If the studio had called Kay before contacting the blogger and tried to explain the situation or even their view point...I'd go along with playing the game...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. If I were in this situation (a guest or friend-photographer at a wedding) and the hired photographer came to me later and said:</p>

<p><em>"Hey, here's the situation and what were trying to do. I know you have every right to publish your images. But is there any way we could ask you to hold off on these particular images until we get ours published?" </em></p>

<p>I very likely would have said yes. <strong>THAT</strong> is professional courtesy. Bullying people to get what you want is not.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's a dog-eat-dog competitive business world out there. You've just come across a very big, mean dog. Companies can do pretty much whatever they want to until somebody pays the money to take them to court and prove a case against them. They played you by intimidating the blog-owner into removing your legitimate photographs. They played a strong hand and won, and you were wronged. This should come as no surprise to anyone anymore, as all large companies play dirty like this. They were intimidated by the competition and bit the legs out from under you. It sucks to take a loss like this, but they smelled out your weakness and took advantage of you.</p>

<p>Since this round definitely goes to the studio, you should bow out and cut your losses. To pursue this any further will only damage you more, as others have pointed out. Good luck in the next round. My best advice is to try and get ahead where you can without attracting the attention of bigger dogs.</p>

<p>If you're going to play on the same field with these guys in the future, make sure you're backed up by solid contracts (even if you are shooting for free, get permission on paper if there will be pro/studio guys at the event). Follow that up by providing proof of legitimacy to any publication or blog you are going to submit your work to.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Missy--I would caution you not to send your letter until you have given yourself time to calm down and look at things without emotion. Certain parts of your letter sound like threats, as Dawn pointed out. No matter who is legally right or wrong, damage to your own reputation and to your relationships with associate photographers and studios is something you don't want.</p>

<p>I am still curious as to what kind of blog published your images and how they published them. If the blog made it seem as if you were the official photographer at that wedding, then more so, I would leave it alone.</p>

<p>Even so, I think the real issue here is not whether your rights were trampled upon, but how and whether you want to shape your own reputation among both publishers and fellow wedding photographers/studios. This is your choice, regardless of rights.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>My $0.02</p>

<p>This isn't your blog, and this isn't the blog of the hired photographer. Why fight between the two of you. The owner of the blog needs to make up his/her mind whether to resurrect those photos or not. I would send an email to the blog owner (maybe cc the hired photog) with content something like that in the letter composed a few posts up above. Explain to the blog owner why it is perfectly reasonable to have those pictures up.</p>

<p>Suppose the blog owner decides not to host, just to be safe. No big deal, it's just a blog. Make some prints and burn a disk for the Happy Couple, and keep those photos in your own portfolio. That's what counts.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am going to stick with Nadine on the "don't bother to contact the studio". There is really nothing to be gained here. As Hal said, they pulled a power play and you lost. As I said, it was unprofessional and pathetic.</p>

<p>But the reality is that you don't have much to gain here by fighting with them over this particular situation. There is no money at stake for you and while blog publicity is nice, it isn't like you got blocked from being featured in Modern Bride.</p>

<p>Just move on, lesson learned. Every professional photographer has these lessons that they have to learn in the beginning (with refresher courses even later on). If you want to make yourself feel a bit better, post and publish those images everywhere you can think of. Here, flickr, your own website, and so on. These are your images and as I read the situation (keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice) you have every right to do whatever you want with them. But fighting with a large studio isn't going to get you anywhere, particularly when you and they know that you have nothing to gain by fighting.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Nadine on most things. Allow me to elaborate further on what she said.</p>

<p>I have a liberal attitude with my associate second photographers. I allow them to post pictures from weddings where we worked together in order to promote their own careers.</p>

<p>One associate stepped over the line by posting his pics from a wedding I booked as if HE were the principal. His pictures were accompanied by verbage such as "When I shot this wedding, I had a wonderful time working with (bride's name deleted), we got along fabulously!" While true, the statement conveys the mistaken impression that he was the only person there, or at least the principal, which means that he didn't shoot any more weddings with me.</p>

<p>I prefer to post pictures with as little verbage as possible. By using verbage you might say something that would drive away a potential customer, or damage your reputation with other photographers. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, it should stand on it's own.</p>

<p>Now if you had used verbage in your blog that conveyed the impression that you were the principal, I could understand the studio's position.</p>

<p>My position on verbage also applies to flaming responses. I agree with Nadine that any response to the studio at this point could only hurt you, and possibly provide them with motivation to take more aggressive action against you. However, I do believe you have a right to publish your photos, sans verbage, in whatever manner you see fit, and I look forward to seeing them on photo.net.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

I wanted to clarify a couple of things :)<br>

1) I was not paid by the couple<br>

2) I didn't formally submit these photos. I was published on the blog for another wedding, and the blog said they loved the other photos so much they would like to publish them too. It never said I was the main photogapher.<br>

3) I posted some of the images on my blog and never wrote anything. I never wrote I was the main photographer. <br>

4) I sent the e-mail as edited above by the other member (thank you)... So I guess there is nothing I can do at this point and we'll just add it to the victory list for big studios. But I can take it as a compliment that an established studio with multiple locations found me threatening enough, even in my first year of wedding photography, to try to pull this.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>photographically it was their wedding</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh. And I thought it was the Bride and Groom's wedding. Since when does being the hired photographer give you the right to tell the B&G which of thier freinds are allowed to take photos and what thier freinds can do with those photos.<br /> <br /> Based on what I read, if they photographer/studio wants to have the images of the B&G published in a high end magazine, THEY should be paying the B&G to cover the event; it is <em>their wedding </em> after all. I would expect a little more professionalism from a high end studio. But it seems that they are more concerned with who has "rights" to the images than actually <em>providing </em> the <em>service </em> that their <em>clients </em> <strong>paid </strong> for.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Your pics look lovely. I'm very impressed that you were able to get such quality without moving around much.</p>

<p>I can see why the big studio would feel threatened. It would appear that you covered every meaningful moment in an artistic, sensitive, and technically proficient manner. When you throw in the teaser that these images constitute a "preview" of things to come, and the fact that every picture has a huge signature on the bottom, the overall impression conveyed is that you were indeed the paid principal. It's a subtle (and quite masterful) bit of saleswomanship. Kudos.</p>

<p>However, these facts remain:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>You weren't the principal.</li>

<li>You were not paid.</li>

<li>You made no verbal claims of either being the principal or being paid. </li>

<li>You shot so well that a big studio is running scared. </li>

</ul>

<p>To this, I have only one thing to say:</p>

<p>AWESOME!</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David -</p>

<p>I was simply trying to convey that I felt it would be in Missy's best interest (business wise and emotionally) that if she was going to contact the studio to not be aggressive or threatening - to go about this in a tactful way.<br>

<br /> I agree that the tactics they used had a superior and unthoughtful attitude and were a rather abrupt way to ask for images to be taken down. I see your point in fighting, but I too, was saying to fight - in a sense. But in a more "sugar vs. vinegar" way. Sounding argumentative in an email like that only makes them go on the defensive and the email that Kay got from the Studio was pretty decent. You might not agree with their methods or their opinion but their comments to Kay were in no way rude or aggressive so I felt it wouldn't do Missy any favors to be that way.</p>

<p>When faced with adversities such as this, it's better to have the upper hand, walk away with your head held high, having not succumbed to such petty exchanges. I understand her rights have been in your opinion walked over, but how would you suggest to fight it? Ultimately no matter what sort of email is sent, the studio is in no way going to lay down and do what Missy wants so why make it into an argument?</p>

<p>I am confused because although I agree with the sentiments behind what you're saying how is she actually going to achieve anything other than venting? The battle has already been lost, but the war is ongoing and I feel it would be much better for Missy to focus her energies on the future and her creative endeavors than lamenting over this for any extracted period of time as I don't know what can be achieved from your version of "fighting".</p>

<p>The blog is owned by a third party, and that third party has made their decision - Missy pushing the issue isn't going to garner her favor with that blogger, whom she has a perfectly good working relation with at this point. So, other than posting the pictures in her blogs and her portfolio there isn't much fighting to do is there? Other than grumpy emails to the studio, and wasting Missy's valuable time.<br>

I'm all in favor of fighting a battle that can be tangibly won on some professional level.</p>

<p>All this being said I think there is a big bias against studios, and quite possibly for reason's like this but yet again we are all photographers and we should all try our best to work together in as many ways possible. I see that they didn't regard Missy's feelings about the issue, but I don't really think they were any of Missy's concern either. Overall I think the studio has overreacted but Missy getting upset about it isn't going to achieve much.</p>

<p>I personally prefer wedding and location photography but I have great respect for studio work and those that have become successful enough to run their own large studios. I think everyone should have a moment of zen or prayer or a glass of malibu & coke, take a deep breath and say "C'est la vie."</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The other photograph cannot request that your photos be taken down<br>

Even if there was an exclusive right to photograph the wedding, the other photographer's issue would be with the COUPLE NOT YOU. There IS no agreement between you and the other photographer, only he and the couple. Leave your pics up.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Missy,</p>

<p>As a rule, if I am attending a wedding and not being paid to shoot it (sorry, I avoid weddings like the plague), I will usually introduce myself to the photographers at the event. When I introduce myself I will tell them my intentions, and if they have any requests, such as don't release them outside of friends and family for a year, they can tell me then. Just a thought for the future.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The studio may have a line in the contract that states that they are the only "hired" photographer. That's fine but they cannot prohibit other people to come and bring camera. Even the B&G would not forbid the guests from bringing cameras and taking pictures.<br /> The studio does not own the event!!!<br /> Now, if one of the guests felt that the picture that he/she took was a great one, it's his/her right to publish it. The guest is not being paid by the B&G and therefore, there is no breach of contract. The studio wants to publish the pictures for publication or whatever, but so does everybody else. The guest is the photographer, he/she owns the right and sure can publish his/her pictures.<br /> Missy even got permission from the B&G, was not paid, used her own camera and lens, was not in the studio's way, was not stealing the studio's pictures or posed. So, the studio has no right whatsoever.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Send your correspondance to the blog owner and ask them to put the photos back.</p>

<p>Publish the photos on a different blog.</p>

<p>Create your own blog or portfolio page and post the images.</p>

<p>Definetly let them know that they have no right to request photos that they do not have any copyright claim on to be taken down and request that they send a message to the blog owner to have the pictures reinstated. Should they insist on claiming copyright or any rights you will seek legal council, which you may want to do anyway and at least have a lawyer send them a letter so they think twice the next time.</p>

<p>They had NO right to ask the blog owner to remove the photos. If they want to make a deal with you they can do so.</p>

<p>These people need a legal letter because they are clearly trying circumvent the law with bully tactics. I say their letter did imply that they held copyright and they have no right to prevent you from publishing the photos in any medium. If they want to buy those rights they can sign a check.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...