Over the my shoulder wannabe pro shooter steals shot...

<p>As I write this I am pretty certain that nothing can be done, so I writing this in the hope that other up and coming photographers see sense and act in a professional manner.<br>

I was hired to shoot a wedding recently where I noticed an individual, considerably older than myself wondering around with a camera, by camera I mean 7D/480 ex. After a little while I start to notice that this individual starting to take a little bit too much control, of the happy couple, delaying some parts of the day while he gets a shot he wants.<br>

My contract states that I must be the sole professional photographer at the wedding and that no one else with professional photographic equipment is allowed to take shots. It’s in the contract for this specific purpose.<br>

However, I notice that this individual is clearly a close-ish family member, therefore I tread carefully. <br>

The rest of the day goes without a hitch, individual with camera has backed off leaving everything to run smoothly, until…<br>

I set-up a shot, a group shot, quite a distinctive group shot, for which I am using items around me to set the bridal party up on. It’s getting quite a lot of attention and family members with point and shots start snapping away. Day ends, all good.<br>

I then get a call a month later from one of my digital artists that an image of mine appears to have been stolen and placed in a ‘real weddings’ section of an international bridal magazine.<br>

Yup, you guessed it, Mr 7D had been over my shoulder, unaware to me snapping away at the shots I’ve set up and got the whole lot published, including the a full page print of the distinctive group shot I set up. While none of these are actually my images as, I can tell by them being as flat as a pancake, I am guessing there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.<br>

The only shot that appears to have been masterminded by Mr 7D’s own accord was a shot of the cake.<br>

Of course all accredited to his own business, website, telephone number, the lot!<br>

Is there absolutely no professional courtesy anymore?! I might have expected it from some young thundercat trying to get in the industry who wouldn’t really know any better, but coming from a man almost twice my age it’s a hard flippin’ pill to swallow! </p>

<p>Classic Uncle Bob!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My contract states that I must be the sole professional photographer at the wedding and that no one else with professional photographic equipment is allowed to take shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who, or what, determines professional equipment? That alone makes your statement in your contract unenforceable. The statement is ambiguous. A professional can use a simple P&S to take pictures. I do at times because I just don't want to carry the heavy stuff. Does that make a cheap $129.00 P&S camera a professional camera? I have seen others at weddings I have done with much better equipment than myself that are not professionals. Does that disqualify my equipment as professional?<br>

<br>

What is a professional photographer? Someone that makes a living taking pictures? Probably. But what about someone that is retired and just looking for some income and something to do? What about people that do weddings part time? Are they professional photographers? Perhaps if they got paid. What if they don't have a business license? What if the person does the event for free, such as an Uncle Bob who truly may make a living photographing weddings? Does not getting paid now remove any professional status from the individual?<br>

<br>

Digital has changed the world. People will be taking pictures over shoulder at weddings. Back in film days the outcome of the images was generally not so good. But with the digital cameras of today that is no longer true. Even simple P&S cameras will take very good pictures in the correct hands.<br>

<br>

My son is getting married the end of this month. They have hired a professional photographer to do the wedding. Which I think is great as I want to enjoy the wedding and be part of it instead of having to work. But what camera do I bring to the wedding. My DSLR with associated goodies? Or my cheap $129.00 P&S. If I bring the big stuff I may offend the other photographer. Do I care? Not really. I did not hire the individual and I should be free to take images at my sons wedding. If I bring the big stuff and there is a line in the contract such as yours, can it be enforced? I am not a professional at my sons wedding.<br>

<br>

There is a lot of ambiguity in your contract statement and you will have a difficult time getting any lawyer to even consider enforcing such a contract line. If you leave the wedding because you "think" there is another professional involved you will get sued by the person you contracted with to do the wedding. And that case will be easily won because you failed to perform the contract based on your assumptions which may have been incorrect. You would be unable to prove otherwise.<br>

<br>

Some things in life are not worth wasting effort and this, in my opinion, is one of those items. And I may very well be twice your age (a simplistic guess on my part).</p>

<p>Raymond, <br>

The post is not about the legality of any statements made in my contract. What I wrote in the post does not give full details of this clause, the terminology used or more importantly who decides what 'professional' equipment is. Furthermore, as a lawyer wrote the entire contract, I don’t see having any issue with any clause in a contract being enforced.<br>

This post is simply about professional courtesy.</p>

<p>Back to uncle Bob-- I've never shot a wedding ceremony, for pay or otherwise. However, I have been asked by three very close friends/former students to shoot their receptions. In all three cases I introduced myself to the hired professionals, explained what I'd been asked to do and how and what I planned to shoot (I used a flash, they didn't, and so on). I had also planned to stay away from the "money shots" --garter/flower toss, face stuffing, toasts, etc., but in all 3 cases the pros invited me in to shoot besides them. I've never sold or displayed any of the pictures I took-they were gifts to the couples. I did, in one case, make a 13X19 print for parents. I'm still friends with the pro shooters, who were generous and welcoming. It is disappointing to hear about the "alternative" styles out there. I'm in it for fun, the pros for money, reputation and fun!<br>

Yes, it's all about common decency, isn't it?</p>

<p>EXACTLY! If the guy had turned around and said, 'Hey, mind if I get a shot of that, I trying to get some shots for…' I wouldn’t have had a problem. I have all the time in the world for people who genuinely ask for help/advice. But doing it on the sly and passing them off as a shot he fully created from concept is another matter. <br>

They say, copying is the sincerest form of flattery, I just find it a pain in the backside. It doesn’t even bother me that much that he may get bookings from the images in the magazine.<br>

What bothers me the most is that this he clearly had absolutely no intention of introducing himself at all and did it all out of sight, clearly knowing it was morally wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul, imitation or in this case, copying, is the best form of compliment. I don't think technically there's anything you can do or is worth doing here. I've seen some shot stealers' pics on the net. How do I know they stole shots? Because the original the photographer is in the frame with a camera.</p>

<p>When Mr. 7D got his own gig and has to setup his own shots, he'll then know this is more than clicking a button.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Digital has changed the world. People will be taking pictures over shoulder at weddings. Back in film days the outcome of the images was generally not so good. But with the digital cameras of today that is no longer true."<br />Digital has nothing to do with this. Any of us who have been shooting pictures for more than 10 years know that Uncle Bobs have been around as long as there have been weddings and cameras. And to say "in film days the outcome of the images was generally not so good" is ludicrous. Are all of the millions of photos taken before digital "not so good"? Half the guests at a wedding 20 years ago had a camera and the photos came out just as well -- sometimes better -- than those from camera phones and $100 digital cameras today.<br />The real issue here is professional courtesy. The gentleman in question should have been upfront and said he was trying to build up a wedding portfolio, would you mind if he made a few shots over your shoulder. He might even have gotten into your good graces and had potential as an assistant for future jobs. Instead he burned his bridge before he even had a chance to cross it.<br />I got some of my first samples at weddings where I was a guest, generally using a P&S camera to shoot the bride coming down the aisle or the cake being cut, etc. And, yes, on film.<br />Today when I go to a wedding as a guest, I might take a P&S but I would never dream of walking in with my professional gear. For one, why would I shoot a wedding if I'm not being paid. And I don't want to get in the way of the photographer who is trying to work, even if it's just the distraction of having him worry about what I'm up to.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there absolutely no professional courtesy anymore?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. Gone.</p>

<p>I am personally very tired of such bad behavior. While it is good to take the high road, I would not think it is too low to write a letter to the editor of the international bridal magazine, just to explain the facts. No emotion, just facts, written in a matter of fact, even nice, way, and only about the one pose that you set up.</p>

<p>Fact A: Mr. 7D was not the hired professional photographer at this wedding.</p>

<p>Fact B: The concept for the 'unique pose' was yours, not his. He took his image 'over your shoulder'.</p>

<p>Any photographer that posts or submits an image for publication that was a) conceptually someone else's and b) not taken under his or her own contract to be the professional photographer at an event (and these facts are not stated), is unethical, plain and simple.</p>

<p>I also would not be adverse to posting said facts on Mr. 7D's blog. They are, after all, facts. Also on my blog, so that the internet crawlers can find the information should someone google that wedding or location, except that I would leave Mr. 7D's name out of the post, for the sake of my clients.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5381026">Paul Armes</a> scribed: "The post is not about the legality of any statements made in my contract. What I wrote in the post does not give full details of this clause, the terminology used or more importantly who decides what 'professional' equipment is. Furthermore, as a lawyer wrote the entire contract, I don’t see having any issue with any clause in a contract being enforced.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This post is simply about professional courtesy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is the case why specifically bring up the clause in your contract? You may consider the equipment professional, but only a court can really decide. You leave a wedding because you thought someone's gear was too professional and you will be the one that gets sued.</p>

<p>If the guy was not a professional he has no obligation to show "professional courtesy". Personal "courtesy" perhaps, but no professional courtesy. I seriously doubt he was a professional (however you define that) otherwise he would not have taken images over your shoulder.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=938526">Craig Shearman</a> scribed: "Digital has nothing to do with this. Any of us who have been shooting pictures for more than 10 years know that Uncle Bobs have been around as long as there have been weddings and cameras. And to say "in film days the outcome of the images was generally not so good" is ludicrous."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I stand by my statement. I have been taking images for 40+ years. P&S cameras even 20 years ago were simple fixed aperture cameras using perhaps ISO 200 color reversal film balanced for daylight. The flashes were small and beyond about 7 feet were basically useless. In a church lit with incandescent lights the backgrounds were blue, pictures were grainy because of the small negative size, motion blur from slow shutter speeds, all kinds of issues. There was no intelligence in those cameras as they had a fixed shutter speed and fixed aperture with the hope that the exposure could be fixed in developing.</p>

<p>Digital has changed all of that. High ISO's that were only dreamed about with film unless you really pushed Tri-X really hard. Automatic color balance, scene detection, automatic fill flash, digital motion reduction. All technologies that 20 years ago were only available to NASA. What you can do today with a simple and cheap P&S far surpasses anything that could have been done 30 years ago with the most expensive commercially available camera. And even with that most of the guests at a wedding take horrible images. I doubt they would have done better with an inferior camera.</p>

<p>People are going to take pictures at weddings. People will get in your way. People are many times not courteous. Get used to it. Control the situation. It works both ways. As the media director at my church I have been involved with photographers that were "professionals" that were most annoying and rude.</p>

 

 

<p>Find out if he wants to second shoot for you, since clearly he likes your style. Or contact the magazine and let them know he doesn't have a model release, if you want to play hardball. I would re-word the 'pro gear' portion of your contract too, I've actually had much less trouble with photographers that bring pro gear than those with consumer level dSLRs. One of the nicest guests with cameras I've worked around had a 1 series body and 50L, and she was sure to check with me before the wedding and told me to just tell her to move if she got in the way. <br>

The worst experience I had with another photographer was at a destination wedding where the resort had a videographer and photographer at the ceremony. The videographer was literally 2 feet from the couple the entire ceremony, and the photographer spent a good deal of time over the officiant's shoulder. <br>

It all comes down to communication for me-if I know I'm working with a videographer, I will chat with them for a few minutes before the ceremony. If I see a guest with camera that's becoming a problem, I will enlist them to help round up people for group shots or to hold a reflector.</p>

<p>Raymond,<br>

I’m lost, at what point did I say that I would “leave the wedding”? You’ve mentioned that twice now and I have no idea where you are getting it from? I brought this point regarding my contract up in case someone else mentioned that it might be useful to include something like it.<br>

As for professional courtesy; it works both ways regardless whether he is a professional or not!<br>

As for the “<em>Control the situation</em>” paragraph, slightly stating the obvious there. I can’t control someone who I am not aware is around me and purposely avoiding my line of sight. I would have expected in your 40+ years’, of no doubt extensive experience, you would have been able to understand this.<br>

As for everyone else that has contributed; Thank you, I am glad I am not alone when thinking this is rude. I have thought of a few choice ways to express my views, some mentioned here, but ultimately it just gives the offender more limelight. Hopefully one day something similar will come around to bite him on the butt as Craig said.<br>

As I originally stated, I hope some new faces end up stumbling upon this thread and learn that this type of behaviour isn’t good practice.</p>

<p>This guy was out of line, and I'd move forward to take the credit away from him as soon as possible. He needs to learn. Oh, and apologize!</p>

<p>If he needs to steal to look good he doesn't have much of a career ahead of him. Life's too short, just move on. The market will sort him out. </p>

<p>Paul - </p>

<p>First off - I'd go with the advice to send the magazine a letter (registered mail) with the explanation as Nadine put it - no emotion - strictly business, that the images they printed were indeed taken by the photographer in question, but that they are in fact your poses. (I'd send them a couple of prints for comparison's sake - along with a screen print showing the files.) </p>

<p>Secondly - I know you didn't ask this - but you did post the clause in your contract (at least a part of it) - Basically you are saying that no one at the wedding has the right to use "professional" equipment at a wedding you are shooting... Okay - great - So what do you do if someone is using pro equipment? Obviously - Nothing. This person with a 7D was shooting over your shoulder most of the day and YOU DIDN'T SAY A WORD??? </p>

<p>Sorry - All sympathy is gone. Right along with the "professional courtesy". One of the first weddings I shot as a pro - A bridesmaid insisted on getting in front of me for every posed photo. After about 15 minutes and 3 poses - I called her on it - In front of the bride. I very nicely told (not asked) her to stop - that I would pose the people, I would take my shots then she could take hers (if she wanted to). 2 poses later she was back. This time I was not nice. I told her that if she got in my shot again - I'd knock her into the next county. The bride cracked up. The bridesmaid didn't know what to do. I said go sit down until we are ready for you for photos. She didn't speak to me again that day. The bride on the other hand loved it...because she was annoyed too. </p>

<p>Not saying you have to resort to threats... but you do have to assert your standing as the official photographer. Uncle Bob gets 1 chance in my book. There is no second chance. I did one wedding where the bride and groom had a friend who was breaking into photography - I allowed her to shoot - just give me credit as the primary (which she did) and stay out of my shots. She had some good poses and I had some... </p>

<p>After about the 2nd or 3rd time of him shooting over my shoulder - I would have politely said - excuse me - Are you a guest? If his answer was yes, then I would have said - okay - please don't shoot over my shoulder again - go enjoy yourself. If he had persisted, a few well timed blasts from a monolight would discourage him. </p>

<p>Digital does make it easier... 30 years ago - as was pointed out - Only pros bought SLR's (or serious hobbyists) - the working class bought instamatics and loaded them with kodak gold 200. Instamatics were great... in bright daylight and for subjects no further than 10 feet away. Today - most cell phone / ipod / tablets have better cameras, optics and processing software than the old instamatics. </p>

<p>I saw a woman today at a store - buying a D7000, two tamron lenses and then asking the salesperson - "when is the next basic photography class? " Over $2,000 spent - and she is asking about a class? That would have happened 30 years ago. But with digital - we all can be photographers. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Hello Dave,<br>

Thank you for contributing a response.<br>

I think when I wrote my first post I was still seething with anger and it may have been unclear. To clarify, when I first noticed this individual with the camera taking a bit of control, I was around 20 – 30 meters away standing on a wall at the end of a church car park waiting to get a shot of the B&G leaving the church in their pony & trap. This guy was next to the B&G sitting in the pony & trap. At that point I didn’t do anything, I didn’t want to move and miss the shot, but this was the first time I noticed him taking control.<br>

Next time I noticed him doing something similar he was right in front of me. Me saying “I tread carefully” is me saying I fired a warning shot at him. As he was clearly close to the couple and not wanting to upset anyone, I politely said back off go have fun.<br>

He kinda huffed, and walked away. That was the last time I saw him with his camera in hand. I thought I had controlled the situation. Then, once the magazine had been published, it became clear he was over my shoulder taking shots un aware to me and as previously stated, out of my line of sight. You can tell they have been taken sneakily as my copies are all composed straight, framed centre and symmetrical, where as his copies are off centre and further back. Looking like a classic over the shoulder type shot.<br>

My attention was fully on what I was shooting, dealing with 15 members of a bridal party, children also and difficult light.<br>

I have absolutely no problem with asserting a professional stance, but I believe the situation called for a polite warning. Which, from what I witnessed for the rest of the day, worked. I guess the one thing I’ll learn from all of this is to have eyes in the back of my head for guest behaviour. But it just seems ludicrous.<br>

Seriously considering a letter to the magazine. But I can’t see them doing much about it; I am sure they acted in good faith when accepting the images and are unlikely to run a printed apology.</p>

<p>I don't think it is bad form in the perp's mind. It's all part of the free-for-all that is part and parcel of the homogeneous digital age and social networking ... which is de-valuing professional photography little by little. </p>

<p>Send off a letter to the publication if it'll make you feel better ... I doubt it'd make a bit of difference unless it's on a Law Firm's stationary in which case it still probably will be ignored. Ignoring such things is generally the first step to resisting any complaints. BTW, what would you expect the publication to do about something already printed?</p>

<p>There are steps you can take to avoid some of this ... I request that everyone stop taking photos while doing set-up shots because the subject members need to ALL be looking at my way, not theirs ... which is reasonable, and almost always works. We usually run out of time before anyone else can take any shots. </p>

<p>At the reception, I diplomatically ask the DJ to NOT invite guests up to shoot the cake cutting. Never been refused this request yet.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not a wedding photographer but have been asked to shoot receptions for friends. I was invited to shoot candids at a wedding though there was a hired pro on the job. I stayed out of the way on all formal shots and for the most part stayed on the other side of the room. Uncle Bob was pretty rude IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5381026">Paul Armes</a> questioned: "Raymond, I’m lost, at what point did I say that I would “leave the wedding”? You’ve mentioned that twice now and I have no idea where you are getting it from?</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >You never did and I stand corrected. That was merely a error in assumption on my part. If you have the clause in your contract that there are to be no other professional equipment at a wedding, what are you going to do if you think you spotted some? Others have stated they would pack up and leave the wedding. I assumed too much.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That does bring up the question of what would you do? If you do indeed have the statement in your contract and some chap shows up with a 20K Hasselblad what are you going to do? Leave? Withhold Image? Throw a tantrum? :) If you are not going to do anything then why have the clause in the contract?</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >As for the “<em>Control the situation</em>” paragraph, slightly stating the obvious there. I can’t control someone who I am not aware is around me and purposely avoiding my line of sight. I would have expected in your 40+ years’, of no doubt extensive experience, you would have been able to understand this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >If you are not aware there is nothing you can do. And if you are not aware then how do you know what equipment this individual is using. When I do weddings I am fully aware of my surroundings and who is around me. I ask them to refrain from taking images until I am done. My assistant is another pair of eyes that is also aware. I have encountered people who continue to take images and use flash. For those situations I ask them individually to cease. If they do not comply I remove the slave disable on my strobes. When their flash goes off mine do also and it will completely overwhelm their camera and destroy their images. Even preflash is taken care of as the camera will think it is brighter than it is and severely underexpose.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the 40+ years I have found most people cooperative but not all. There are the jerks that, professional or not, will extend no courtesy. There is no right or wrong way to deal with them. It is going to happen. Does not matter what is in the contract about such individuals or behavior. You cannot refuse to work as your reputation will suffer. You cannot refuse to deliver the images as word of mouth will spread faster than HIV at an orgy.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In my opinion you handle such discourteous people, professionals or not, by ignoring them as much as you can and do your job. Price your work so that any subsequent print sales are not a factor.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have been an Uncle Bob, unintentionally. Lesson learned. My nephew was getting married and his bride to be asked me to photograph the wedding. I agreed. Showed up and found another person with a high end camera. Asked what they were doing and they stated they were a friend of the bride and wanted to take some candids. I said fine but please stay out of my way when I do the formals. I did the ceremony and the formals pretty much ignoring her. On the way to the reception I saw her car. She had a photography company. The red warning light in my head became active. When I got to the reception I found out she was being paid and complained to the bride that I was interfering. So I ceased taking pictures and was quite angry at the bride. But I was more ticked off at the other photographer who lied to me. Had she been honest from the start there would not have been any issues.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This other photographer was totally unprofessional by failing to tell me her role in the process. She was unprofessional by complaining to the bride about my getting in the way when we had talked about this earlier. She was unprofessional by pointing her flash straight up and using the small bounce card built into the flash at a distance of 20 feet. She was unprofessional in failing to gel her flash to match the incandescent lights in the venue. She was unprofessional by arriving at the wedding late and missing many of the preparation images.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You will encounter such people. It is the nature of the beast. Best way to handle it is to move on to the next adventure in my opinion.</p>

<p>When I suggested sending a letter to the magazine, I didn't think they'd do anything about the situation, let alone publish an apology. They will undoubtedly ignore anything you send. However, it is possible that they have a letters to the editor column, although they probably will not publish your letter--but then again, maybe they would.</p>

<p>Or, perhaps they have an accompanying blog, where you can comment. Even if they squash your comment, it will take some time before they notice it. Or perhaps they are reviewed somewhere online--you just have to see where you can just get in a factual account of what happened.</p>

<p>Which is why, if you have a blog, you can place the accounting there. You might even send Mr. 7D a polite letter expressing dismay and taking a "perhaps you didn't know" attitude in explaining how unprofessional his actions were. Nothing will come of it, probably, but then again--you never know.</p>

<p>I agree with the contacting the magazine approach, because it makes the magazine aware of this sort of situation and hey, it might even be the basis for an article on the uncle bob phenomenon.<br>

<br />Secondly at Raymond, regarding the clause in his contract, I'd say it's not so much as an enforceable threat but rather something to make the bride & groom aware that if the paid shooter has to deal with uncle bob's then the photos won't be as good. It's something you can note at the contract signing and plant the idea in the B&G's head that you're the #1 guy there for photos and that's what they should want. They might be pro-active if there is an Uncle Bob situation. </p>

your contract should say Pros and Am's, while you are shooting. This way you can ask the bride and groon to ask the person to hold off with the shooting, until the photographer is done. It's that simple and yes I've had to say something just a few times in many, many, years. When the bride and groom speak - people listen!

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aU21"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2019244">Bob Bernardo - LA area.</a> <img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" />Responded: This way you can ask the bride and <strong>groon</strong></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I know that was simply a typing error but in some way that is indeed funny.</p>

 

Have to add that the key here is "When the photographer is shooting". Shooting mean when you are doing the formals. After that I don't care what people do.

 

If people are stand next to me during the formals I tell them not to shoot until I have because the wedding party and the families tend to blink when a lot of flashes are going off. It's really that simple. Most of the time I am asking for the next group so the people behind me really never get the formal shot I got. Even if they did I don't care because I use a few other flash units hooked to radio slaves. My shots will never look like anyone just popping out a snap shot regardless if they say they are a pro.

 

Good luck here.

 

Raymond, yes it was a typo, I may need to call the groom a goon? What to you think? hehe Anyway I'm always making typing errors! Read past posts! I use the hunt and peck tenhnique.

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2019244">Bob Bernardo</a> questioned: What to you think?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I was not sure if you misspelled "groom" or "goon". I have done weddings where both terms could have been used interchangeably. And yes, my typping scills are somewatt questionable at tymes.</p>