ummm ok? (usage question)

<p>Paul, you are indeed correct in correcting my constitutional awareness, but I'm sure you knew what I meant, as you corrected it and I stand corrected ;) You also bring out and excellent point in that all this business may be without the knowledge of the principal, and he/she/they may have a completely different take on it. As for playing the "freedom of press" card, I know that I'm not qualified to argue this point so I'll use my 5th Amendment Rights instead :) Seriously, what "freedom of press" rights apply to private blogs with rules and moderators? They didn't want a conflict, weighed on the side of the studio and Kay's indeed beautiful images are "poof" gone, and we hence have this instead.</p>

<p><em>Was this all in good form, probably not, but it got the job done.</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Translation: Who cares if a studio chooses intimidation to get its way instead of making any effort to contact the photographer first? As long as it works.</p>

<p>The message from this and the rest of the post... Full professional courtesies are expected of small time Missy but criticism of the big 'getting the bankrupt studio's clients' studio Dave likes (and almost identifies) is so unfair.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John--there are plenty of people who said the studio didn't use the best methods in trying to get Missy's images taken down.</p>

<p>As for Missy being 'expected' to take her images down while the big, bad studio does whatever it likes--this is not the point, as I said above. Yes, the tactics weren't admirable, but the studio photographers were the official photographers and Missy wasn't. IMO, the fact that the studio used less than sterling methods to get the images taken down does not mean that Missy gets to do whatever <strong>she</strong> likes. She also could have reaped benefits out of this situation but chose not to pursue that path.</p>

<p>If the 'foe' was not a studio, and instead was a lone wedding photographer, I would still say the same thing about this situation. This is not a big bad studio/poor starving wedding photographer conflict. This is about extending professional courtesy--allowing unencumbered self promotion by the official photographer by not muddying the waters with one's own images of the same event--to the official photographer when one was not.</p>

<p>I remember reading previous posts about photographers complaining when a guest/would be wedding photographer at one of their weddings posted images of that wedding on their website, making it appear to anyone viewing the website, that the guest was the official photographer. Now, would there be such an outcry if the photographer in question tried to get the guest to take the images down? Even if the photographer leaned on the guest a little? I think not. I think people would be posting with suggestions as to how to sabotage the guest's website and the like.</p>

<p><em>there are plenty of people who said the studio didn't use the best methods</em></p>

<p>I was refering to other people. Those who hold up the OP to professional courtesies but excuse the studio or whoever wrote to the blog such standards. I don't have an issue with anyone being critical of Missy. I'm addressing the arguments of those who defend the studio for its conduct or justify it because "it got the job done" so that others hopefully will not behave the same way.</p>

<p><em>Now, would there be such an outcry if the photographer in question tried to get the guest to take the images down?</em></p>

<p>The studio chose to use different methods instead of this approach. It only helps to contrast the studio from those who would follow common professional customs.</p>

<p><em>I think people would be posting with suggestions as to how to sabotage the guest's website and the like</em></p>

<p>Which serves as a reason to focus on the studio's behavior and discourage others from mimicing it.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>John, cool spin, but off the mark a bit.</p>

<p>Nadine,</p>

<p>I'm not sure what your issues are with the way I handled it, but I chose the high road. I could have fought the studio, called in my husband who is a lawyer, said yes to my friends the bride and groom who wanted to call the studio telling them their place, cursed at the studio and sent them my original e-mail, and I could have sent the photos to every single magazine in the U.S. making it a conflict of interest and essentially doing to them, what they did to me (making it inelligible to be published). INSTEAD, I did none of that above and just accepted it. So why you, a moderator, would keep saying that the way I handled it "wasn't the high road" IS UNACCEPTABLE</p>

<p>I'm a fairly new wedding photographer, (in business 3 years, ) and here's my two cents from that perspective, for what it's worth. It quite possibly will reflect poorly on you if this gets out, and it is causing unnecessary drama that could stain your business reputation, all over a few detail shots. You've got them posted on your own blog...isn't that enough? You work is lovely, and I'm confident that there will be <em>many</em> other weddings to promote your business with. Use those.<br>

If the situation were reversed, would YOU be upset? (Be honest with yourself and think about it carefully once you've had a chance to cool down.)</p>

<p>Be glad you did the right thing and let it go.</p>

<p><em>cool spin</em></p>

<p>"but it got the job done";)</p>

<p>I am accepting the assumption that there was no exclusivity clause in the contract, and that Missy did not represent herself as the official event photographer. Given that, the methods the studio used, and the simple fact that they took action first and contacted her later invalidates any notion of professional courtesy.</p>

<p>So as long as Missy did not represent herself as a business with the published photos, what right does the studio, or anyone, have to demand the photos to be taken down? Just because they were good photos? Any non-professional photographer can be there taking pro-quality photos, and since there was explicitly no exclusivity clause, they are free to publish them as they see fit, be it on Facebook, on their blog, or any other website.</p>

<p>I'm all for defending one's rights with a passion, but i just don't see any rights here on the side of the studio, legal or otherwise. Everytihng was explicitly allowed by them when signing the contract and during the event itself. It seems that Missy was just another shooter in the crowd and they only went after her because, unlike a hobbyist, she has a reputation to defend, so they can intimidate her. No courtesies, no legal arguements, just pure underhanded competition with any means available. They are trying to make up for a badly written contract.</p>

<p>I am not in the business, this is just the way it seems to me and i am curious about this story. Where i live most weddings are open public events and it is entirely possible for any random passer-by to drop in and take pictures if they wanted to.</p>

<p>I'd really, really like the studio to respond to this thread which would be the open and honest way of getting all the information. I might be wrong but here's the scenario that I see and how it could have played-out.</p>

<p>Missy's friend is getting married and knows that Missy is a new wedding photographer in her first year of the business and asks her if she would take some shots at her wedding. The bride and groom hire a studio to shoot their wedding (might have been a better move for them to have offered the gig to Missy but they didn't). Missy asks if the contract mentions any problems with her shooting. The bride calls the studio and says her friend is coming as a guest and is a "start-up" photographer and asks if it's OK for her to take some pics at the wedding. The studio says no problem to her shooting (out of professional courtesy), the friend tells Missy no problem and everyone is happy. However, I'm doubting that the studio does not have the "exclusivity clause", it's standard and if this is an established studio with any kind of history, I would expect them to have the clause, it wouldn't make sense for them to not have the clause. Now, in the studio's mind, Missy is there shooting as a guest for her friend and not as a professional, they're OK with it out of professional courtesy on their part. Wedding goes OK, she's happy, the studio is happy, and the B/G are happy. If it ends there, all is OK, if Missy uses the images in her print folio, I doubt the studio would squawk, even if she posts them on her website/blog (technically an act of publishing) I think they are probably still cool with it. However, they discover that unknown to them (because Missy doesn't alert them to this ahead of time) that images from their wedding appeared on a wedding blog that is the cyber equivalent to a bridal magazine which creates a problem with their submission of their images that they have taken/obtained under a contract with the B/G and have submitted for publication in various outlets. They recognize what's up, notify the blog of the conflict of interest and requests that the blog remove the photos. They craft a polite, professional email (as noted above) and explain the circumstance and as a fellow professional they expect some reciprocal professional courtesy by way of Missy having a professional understanding of their position. In which case I would totally support their position. However, instead of reciprocal professional courtesy, what follows is this thread on an internation forum for wedding photographers. Perhaps it didn't go this way but without hearing the "other" side I have no way of knowing that it didn't.</p>

<p>Well, calling her an "upstart" is not polite neither professional on their part, even if she is. But the main issue here which we all agree on is that the deciding factor is whether there was an exclusivity clause or not, is that correct? I think Missy has implied in the opening post that she has a) read the contract and that b) there wasn't such a clause, but she hasn't explicitly stated so. Answering this might help clarify things.</p>

<p>Another thing, a generalisation that i'd like to hear opinions on - the question is broad/vague on purpose because i think it reflects the multitude of cases that might arise in a real scenario: if i am present at a friend's wedding as a guest and take good pictures with whatever camera i have and upload these pictures somewhere, what exactly determines if the hired wedding photographer(s) has the right and leverage to move against me, legally or not?</p>

<p>Tasos...The email reads "start-up" and not "upstart".....quite a difference. I agree, it would be nice to get some clarity on exactly what was in the contract. I believe the email from the "studio" was very polite and well written.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But the main issue here which we all agree on is that the deciding factor is whether there was an exclusivity clause or not, is that correct?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if she wasn't part of the contract. If she didn't sign a contract with an exclusivity clause, then there is nothing they can do after the wedding to stop her from doing what she wants. If there was one, either the photographers or the signer of the contract (probably the bride?) was obligated to say something . But there is absolutely nothing they can do to someone who didn't sign or otherwise agree to a contract.</p>

<p>Tasos, pretty much you can take the pics at your friends wedding and post them and tell the photog studio to go pound railroad pegs. What's going on here is a little more concerned with professional courtesy and ethics and who gets the nod here, Missy or the foe studio. If you read all 100+ posts, you can explore all the opinions and you'll see there is not much common ground here and thus the long thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tasos...The email reads "start-up" and not "upstart".....quite a difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, just got mixed up there somewhere in the huge thread, sorry. Yeah, it's not the same at all but it still sounds a bit like intimidation.</p>

<p>Jeff, does that mean that no matter what a contract says, a guest can arrive with their D3s, compliment of pro lenses and a couple of assistants and take and publish whatever photos they want? As long as they don't get in the way of the hired photographer i'd imagine it to be that way legally, but isn't there a burden on the B&G side to make known any restrictions? At least in the form of what they wish if they are not backed by law. Am i correct to think that this is a grey area? As far as the law is concerned, do any other provisions apply other than what is explicitly mentioned in the contract?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, does that mean that no matter what a contract says, a guest can arrive with their D3s, compliment of pro lenses and a couple of assistants and take and publish whatever photos they want?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody says anything to them. If there's an exclusivity contract, usually it allows the hired photographer to do something (like tell them to stop, or maybe to leave if the b/g don't do anything about it) or requires the b/g to do something to inform the guests and/or stop them.</p>

<p>Dave, i think i have read it all by now and to me it seems like a misunderstanding that may or may not have gone out of hand. For what it's worth, i don't think there was any ill intent initially, although both sides have subsequently acted "unprofessionaly". Then again as i have said i am not a professional myself.</p>

<p>David S and others....</p>

<p>I would venture to say that there would be 100% unanimity in the resumes to this post if the situation were as follows:</p>

<p>1. Kay butted into the posed / formal shots of the Official Photographer<br>

2. Kay stood up during the ceremony - near / or blocking the Official Photographer<br>

3. Kay posted the photos in a gallery and laid claim to the wedding - trying to sell the prints and promoting herself as the sole photographer.</p>

<p>From the side we've gotten - she did none of that. I think that all of us who do weddings either full or part time would object to the behaviors I've pointed out above.</p>

<p>Kay did what thousands of guests do each year - she took some photos of a friend's wedding, and posted them on her blog. They were good enough to be picked up by a blogger - whom the studio obviously happens to follow. The studio sends the blogger an e-mail - saying whoa - hold the horses - that's our wedding - pull it now. Blogger does so and informs Kay. Kay goes ballistic - or at least semi-ballistic - since she knows what her rights are and what can and can't be done legally to her.</p>

<p>A lot of the discussion above has been about building a relationship with the studio and working with them. Did anyone stop to think that maybe Kay doesn't want a relationship with them?</p>

<p>As for the tone of Kay's response to the studio - I think we'd all agree that the first version was a tad emotional and threatening to publish the photos on every site possible was, well, ill advised at best.. That's why I offered the edit that I did - and from the sound of her response Kay took that edit and used some or all of it.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody says anything to them. If there's an exclusivity contract, usually it allows the hired photographer to do something (like tell them to stop, or maybe to leave if the b/g don't do anything about it) or requires the b/g to do something to inform the guests and/or stop them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for that clarification.</p>

<p><em>"Not if she wasn't part of the contract. If she didn't sign a contract with an exclusivity clause, then there is nothing they can do after the wedding to stop her from doing what she wants. If there was one, either the photographers or the signer of the contract (probably the bride?) was obligated to say something . But there is absolutely nothing they can do to someone who didn't sign or otherwise agree to a contract." -Jeff</em><br>

<em></em><br>

This is exactly true which is why I said in a much earlier post that the studio would have a problem blocking Missy from using the images legally. In the scenario that I proposed above, with the exclusivity clause, the studio could have prevented her from shooting at the wedding.....(OK, attending as a guest and shooting as a guest should seem OK and can create a can of worms if you decided to enforce the exclusivity clause at and during the wedding)...... However, if the studio gives her the green light out of professional courtesy, I think that they should expect that she respect/refrain from publishing the images....also, out of professional courtesy.</p>

<p>A similar situation arose a while back where a young "start-up" wedding photographer, attended a friend's wedding, asked the pro if it was OK to shoot along side him, he not only said OK but gave her some pro tips at the wedding. He's happy, she's happy, and the B/G is happy. However a few weeks later the photographer posts several hundred images from the wedding to a pro-smugmug site with the images for sale at the default smugmug prices (less than 25 cents for a 4X6 print). Then, wonders why a pro-photographer would have a problem with that.</p>

<p>The problem as I see it lies in role confusion. If you are a guest shooting at a friend's wedding there's a different set of expectations than if you are there because you have the contract to shoot the wedding for the B/G. I also believe that there are ethical issues among professionals in this field but often find myself in the minority at times like these.</p>

<p>David S -</p>

<p>Huge difference between publishing the photos and selling them... Huge...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Gives new meaning to the old saying "Published and be damned."<br>

Josh Root is right in an earlier post - publish your images wherever you can.</p>

<p>Missy--I don't have 'issues' with the way you handled what is your business to handle. You asked for comments, and you got comments. I have an opinion, and so does every one of the people who posted. You may have accepted the situation, but not willingly, and your letter is not a letter I would write. I do think you missed an opportunity to turn this situation into a win-win situation, and I don't think you understand my point, but again--these are <strong>my</strong> opinions and <strong>your</strong> decisions to make.</p>

<p>My continued comments in this thread are to try to clarify what I think is a series of misunderstandings. The first one is that an exclusivity clause in the studio photographers' contract affects this situation. It doesn't. You said there wasn't one, and even if there was such a clause, it does not affect this situation either way.</p>

<p>The second misunderstanding is that since the studio photographers' were (supposedly) heavy handed, you have the right to retaliate or refuse to take down your images.</p>

<p>The third is the notion that the studio should have no problem with your publishing your images on a blog because your capacity was that of a guest and you didn't interfere with the official photographers at the wedding. In reality, you are not like any other guest at a wedding, because you have subsequently started up your wedding photography business and have a website, blog and are actively soliciting wedding photography business. The blog your images were on is also not just any blog--it is a wedding oriented blog similar to other publishing vehicles used by the official photographers. Also, I don't know this, but I suspect your images had your logo on them, were lumped with the other images you had on the blog, and when you were mentioned, it was in the capacity of a professional wedding photographer, and no mention was made of the fact that you were not the official photographer at that particular wedding, so the assumption on readers' parts was that you were the official photographer.</p>

<p>The fourth is that this situation is about your right to publish your photos anywhere you want, and the studio photographers are trampling on that right. This situation is not about rights, legal or otherwise.</p>

<p>I won't go into details on some of the above because I already have, above. And when I express myself on a thread, it is in the same capacity as any other photo.net member. My words should carry no extra weight because I am helping to moderate the forum. Feel free to comment on anything I say. I strive to equally hold everyone, including myself, to the same photo.net guidelines for posting on forums.</p>

<p>David H.--it isn't only the studio with which Missy should be concerned about maintaining positive relationships. What about the publishers of blogs and magazines? Plus, one's actions and reactions to situations are watched by many in an industry, and word gets around.</p>

<p>I also would not have advised her to take what was essentially your words and use them in her letter. The difference in writing style is quite obvious. I don't know how she used them, but I would think it made the overall effect worse, not better. Again--my opinions.</p>

<p>I think Kay mentioned in one of her last posts that she didn't reply to the studio's email or did I misunderstand that?</p>