Non professional use of wedding photos

<p>This may sound ridiculous or obvious, but I really do need to ask for my own sanity. I know people at weddings know they will be photographed. But the hired photographers have a contractual relationship and probably know the ropes regarding photographing and dissemination of photos taken at a wedding. As someone who attended a wedding and took video and photos, I've been asked by the bride to provide these for her album and online display site (dropbox). Should I be concerned about the possible legal issues or are there any, given the people at the wedding did not give me permission to take their photograph nor display it for example on the web? In the old days, these photos just ended up in a printed book. Those days are long gone. Everyone wants an image they can display to the world. I'm hoping someone here can give the real legal skinny on this topic. Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This may sound ridiculous or obvious.... </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's neither ridiculous nor obvious. It is paranoid, but this particular kind of legal paranoia is extremely common in the USA and the west generally.<br>

. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know people at weddings know they will be photographed. But the hired photographers have a contractual relationship and probably know the ropes regarding photographing and dissemination of photos taken at a wedding. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I very much doubt it. What they do have that you don't is the experience of having seen their photos published on the web without anything bad happening as a result.<br>

. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>As someone who attended a wedding and took video and photos, I've been asked by the bride to provide these for her album and online display site (dropbox). Should I be concerned about the possible legal issues or are there any, given the people at the wedding did not give me permission to take their photograph nor display it for example on the web? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should not be concerned. If you are willing (and I assume you are), share your photos with the bride and forget about it. If you receive a cease and desist letter from somebody at the wedding who wants their photo removed, politely respond that they should take the issue up with the bride. But you will not receive any such letter. <br>

. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the old days, these photos just ended up in a printed book. Those days are long gone. Everyone wants an image they can display to the world. I'm hoping someone here can give the real legal skinny on this topic. Thanks!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's simply not a problem. If it were, Facebook wouldn't exist.<br>

<br>

Will</p>

As long as it's not used for commercial purposes. If the person is simply represented as a person at a wedding on a

personal web page, the odds are in your favor. Just don't sell an image of the bride/father dance for use in an ED

advertisement… t

<blockquote>

<p>As long as it's not used for commercial purposes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. Don't use it for advertising or as though the people are endorsing something, then you're good to go. Also, portraying them in a very bad false light or highly embarrassing or in the bathroom and private situations of that magnitude. Otherwise your just showing pictures of people which is fine. The rules haven't changed. If someone objects, just remove the pics with their likeness in it to keep people happy.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just don't sell an image of the bride/father dance for use in an ED advertisement<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just a bit of clarification here... Selling isn't the issue. Liability over using someone's likeness isn't determined by whether an image is sold, used with permission or copied and used by an infringer. It is how it is used that matters. As discussed above.</p>

<p>"... It is how it is used that matters. As discussed above."</p>

<p>And the use you propose is not one which leaves you liable. - If the bride then takes those images/video and inserts some ED drug text into a picture, or makes one into an ad for extra small condoms (because apparently proper precaution requires a proper fit!), then she is the liable party, the photographer retains no liability (unless he's also the publisher!). </p>

<p>Thanks. This clarification was really helpful. Now I just have to keep her from posting pics of myself and my wife on Facebook! That's easy!</p>

<p>If you hand pictures over to the bride and she puts them up on the web, you're not the one who has published them -- she is.<br /><br />Wedding photographers have a contractual relationship with the bride (or bride and groom, or parents, etc.) but not with the guests at a wedding.</p>

<p>Craig, do not be too sure of that. </p>

<p>While, there is an unwritten expectation that wedding images will be publicly used by a Bridal client, usage can be legally challenged if a private person wishes to do so … depending on how the image(s) are used. In reality, it has nothing to do with whether it is a wedding shot or not, or who misused it. </p>

<p>That a Bride sells an image for a use that was not intended (traditionally sharing with friends and family, album, etc.), doesn't absolve the photographer from civil action … unless the photographer has a signed agreement that limits the copyright usage to private, personal use without alteration.</p>

<p>Even benign use can be challenged. Say you photograph an executive attending a wedding who is depicted as drunk and seemingly doing inappropriate things … but you took the photo and gave it to the client, who then published it on social sites where it gores viral ruining the executive's reputation. A wedding is NOT a public event, it is private, and we are not photo journalist with journalistic intentions, nor are our clients news publications. If challenged, you would have to provide proof that the executive was indeed drunk, and that the actions depicted were the whole story not some select image that taken out of context could be construed as inappropriate. Good luck with that. </p>

<p>As an advertising creative director, I have been privy to a number of legal cases where a client used an image intended for one thing, and then used for another, and both the client AND the photographer were successfully sued … even though the photographer had nothing to do with the misuse. </p>

<p>We own the copyright, and we are the ones who determine the limits of use … not the client. </p>

<p>One line in your contract covers your bum.</p>

<p>- Marc</p>

<p> </p>

I have to agree with Marc with this one. Another serious problem are kids, probably under

18, I'm not sure, 16? I do know that putting kids on the internet can make some parents

pretty irate. Intense angry parents can challenge your innocent postings of kids on the

internet.

 

Even though a contract is signed by the couple, the parents, whomever, this is a very

sticky situation. Lets say that an FBI agent is attending the wedding, a famous movie star,

you get the idea, you have to remember that they didn't sign the wedding contract.

 

So is this wedding considered a public affair or a private function? I'm not answering this

question.

<p>I agree with a lot of the points raised...especially with Marc's point being shown in a bad light...and Bob Bs point about kids.</p>

<p>We give online viewing with our base package...and i will always ask the couple if there is anyone they know of...maybe child custody problems for example...and don't want their image on the net. We photographed a state troopers wedding and i had reminded him about the online viewing. Needless to say no photographs went up...but they sign off on it.</p>

<p>When we go through the images...we cut anything showing anyone in a bad light...or even the interpretation of an image. Nobody get to see it. I have also had parents call me and ask that the flower girls photo be taken down. Our response is always absolutely.</p>

<p>We ran into a problem once...where a bridesmaid moved from the west cost because of a stalker. She was in a lot of the photos and had asked not to have her image out there. The bride of course wanted them up on line and because it was in the contract...we were in a pickle. Luckily...the bride gave in and most of the brides images didn't go up online.</p>

<p>John H. how do resolve something like that?</p>

<p>"A wedding is NOT a public event, it is private, and we are not photo journalist with journalistic intentions, nor are our clients news publications."</p>

<p>True, but according to US courts, in the US, unless there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' there is no 'right' to privacy (part of which allows our government to record us nearly completely). Attending a wedding where people are actively (and obviously) taking pictures eliminates any 'reasonable expectation of privacy' - unless said behavior is in the bathroom (or similar) ;).</p>

<p>"As an advertising creative director, I have been privy to a number of legal cases where a client used an image intended for one thing, and then used for another, and both the client AND the photographer were successfully sued"</p>

<p>Perhaps you could cite those cases? I was not aware of a single judgement, EVER, in the US where a photographer (who was not part of the publisher, or did not engage in fraudulent behavior) was found to be liable, though my knowledge may be a couple years out of date ;) </p>

 

<p>Marcus, Fourth Amendment rights regarding "reasonable expectations of privacy" isn't the issue as much as the context of images and the meaning they may convey … some exceptions which you even cited.</p>

<p>But who is to judge what may be offensive to any given individual? We also have the right of free speech, but cannot publicly defame someone without the "reasonable expectation" of being sued in civil court. People may expect to be photographed at a wedding, but if the context or use constitutes defamation of character or some other personally offensive context, they can sue in civil court. </p>

 

<p>BTW, the Supreme Court case you cite was about government surveillance of an individual in a criminal context, not a civil one.</p>

<p>The advertising law suit examples I mentioned were presented to us by our ad agency legal council. They had to do with usage that was not approved by the subjects. The point was that both the agents for the clients (ad agency), AND the photographers we used, had to make sure the specific usage was clearly spelled out in the releases to be signed by the subjects, and any further use had to be approved by the subjects before publication of any kind.</p>

<p>Without that documentation, both the client/agency and the photographer could be libel (unless the copyright was transferred from the photographer to a third party). Thus my note that one line in your contract can eliminate being held responsible for the actions of others who may publish an image in an unexpected context. </p>

<p>Anyway, that's how I understand it, and have conducted my business accordingly. Sort of common sense really.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

 

<p>The bottom line though is that an ad agency release, as well as it's photographer's liability have about as little to do with the original question as the space shuttle does with missions to the moon. Yes, they are both in space... and that's about as close as they come.</p>

<p>While an ad agency photog often works at the SPECIFIC direction of a creative director, whom often conveys the specific use of the image before it's even taken, a wedding photog doesn't (typically) walk into a reception with the intent to take pictures of the most embarrassing actions they can find. We cannot often even anticipate the site specifics, much less actions, behavior, attitudes of our subjects. Since any kind of intentional use would be reliant on ALL those things, there is simply no way for us to plan, in advance, how any candid shots will be specifically usable.</p>

<p>.... Of course common sense has to govern one's reaction (because most of us (ad agency folks NOT included ;) ) live in the real world). Personally, I don't even include questionable images in my deliverables... There's no way I could know who's cousin is married to who's brother, and even if the picture is stunning, unless it was being done in front of the whole crowd, it's not something I forward to the B&G. On more than one occasion I've captured images that were of married individuals behaving inappropriately with folks who were NOT their spouses. Not knowing (or wanting to know) the sorted details, I refrained from including those particular images in the package.</p>

<p>However, that is ALL an aside. The answer to the original question is simply NO. Neither publicity, nor privacy, concerns will typically leave a wedding photographer liable in this context - especially as the OP has described it. Releases are not required (in this context). Even if the photog captured images of someone behaving inappropriately (while not in private) and forwarded those to the bride, and the bride posted them on her FB or blog (or even put them on a billboard), there simply is no liability on the photog's part. (although the bride... well, it was her sister the guy was stepping out on ;) )</p>

<p>Yeah I agree that as long as these photos are not used for any commercial purpose they can be used. Also they should be presented in such a way that should not harm the feelings of the person involved in the pic.</p>