Sole photographer clause

As an amateur (I live in the UK) who regularly reads the posts in the wedding

and social forum, my curiosity has been aroused by some wedding photographers

using the sole photographer clauses in their contracts to prevent guests taking

photos per se (I am not referring to celeb weddings etc). Alternatively, guests

can take photos, but only because I am (the wedding photographer that is)

allowing them too. I appreciate that the photographer has a job to do and needs

to do it with the minimal amount of fuss/interference, however it does seem a

little draconian to me.

 

It is also appreciated that the hiring of a second photographer by the bride

and groom who is unconnected with the first photographer can give rise to so

many problems. Also, just because they have a semi 'decent' bit of kit (some

guest(s) that is) think(s) they can do a better job and get in the way. Again,

I appreciate that this type of situation is to be avoided.

 

My questions are what purpose does this approach serve apart from avoiding some

of the issues mentioned above and is it good practice? I appreciate that the

last question will be subjective. I am just trying to elicit peoples views and

the pro's and cons of such an approach.

 

I look forward to your responses and your forbearance if I am asking a 'daft'

question.

Other than the points you already mentioned, the original reason was to protect a photographer's reprint and enlargement sales. Since this isn't so much of a concern these days, the reasons given have shifted to the ones you've covered, not that they aren't good reasons.

Agree with Nadine.

Having the clause is fine and should be respected but who will

enforce it on the wedding day?

If you are a 2 photographer team (husband/wife..main/assistant)

it's a bit easier to block/obscure the other semi-pro's.

If you are single it's probably more challenging.

At many weddings we have at least 3 other photographers who are usually guests but we just work together and make the best of it.

"my curiosity has been aroused by some wedding photographers using the sole photographer clauses in their contracts to prevent guests taking photos... ...it does seem a little draconian"

 

I think you are reading too much in to these discussions. The great majority of these clauses refer to or are interpreted as only refering to professional photographers. While banning guests from photographing would be draconion as you say, it rarely happens. The more grey area is the "Uncle Bob" types who really interfere. Often guest and Uncle Bob problems are prevented or quelled by other means.

<p>I'm in the UK also. I've never once prevented guests taking photos. It would never

even occur to me to do so - I'd view it as their absolute right to take pictures of their

friends. I even make it easy for them to do so. Frankly, under most laws these days it's not

even enforcable: I suspect any photographer who attempted to order guests not to take

photos would be infringing upon their rights.</p>

 

<p>However, I won't work with another professional photographer I don't know. I make it

clear that if the client wants to hire someone else as well they would not be able to without

terminating my contract. This is really what the 'no photographer' clause is all about.</p>

I don't know whether I'm just old or you guys are too young, but as I said, the original reason for the sole photographer clause was to protect reprint and enlargement sales--so yes, it was designed to prevent mostly guests (including Uncle Bobs) from shooting anything the hired photographer shot, especially of the formals but also extending to the couples session later on in the day. Back then, nobody hired two pros, thinking two are better than one. In practice, guests were not prevented from shooting generally, but anything set up by the pro was off limits, and back then, many parts of the day were set up by the pro. And back then, no negatives were given with the job, so any guest who took pictures over the pro's shoulder could siphon away print sales. Now, the same clause has a slightly different slant because now, everybody and their brother has a digital cam, there are multiple Uncle Bobs with expensive digital gear at weddings, and people are hedging their bet on the pro by hiring a back-up cheapie or free would-be pro.

Gray area for us. I have a clause stating I can leave if the interference is too much. But do I ever? No. I also have a clause saying nobody else can photograph during the formals. Do they? Yes. There are times we tell the uncle bob to stop, there are times we dont. It all depends on the situation. The clause is in there, to try to save some print sales, because everyone knows the uncle bob will go straight to wal mart and get hundreds of prints made (and they wont look good either). So thats where we stand, I can understand the policy, and enforce it on occasion.

I just did my first wedding and I had this very issue. The wedding, first of all, was FREE. It was for my brother-in-law whom I don't see much, and it was the first time meeting his bride.

 

So, I was very bothered by the fact that there was another gal (friend of the bride's) running around with her fancy camera acting like she was the main photographer. Ugh! She showed me a little bit of respect by not getting in my way during the ceremony, but she was in fact, standing up in front of all of the pews, getting as many shots as she could, and she continued to do this throughout the day.

 

The other thing that bothered me.... everyone showed up to take pictures during the formals. Again, free wedding....but that was a bit bothersome because of all of the flashes going off during my own pics. I'm sure the wedding party was uncomfortable with this, and I did have a lot of eyes closed during shots. I finally told everybody to at least wait until I got my shot before they took any pics.

 

And you know...I don't know if I'm just a woosy, but my feelings tend to get hurt easily. I don't know why. But to see another person with a camera going around taking all of the same shots as me, hurts my feelings. They should have come up to me and said, "I know you are the main photographer, and I will respect your work and your space; but if you don't mind, I am learning here, and would like to get a few shots myself, etc. blah, blah, blah.) But otherwise, it's as if they (or the bride and groom) don't trust me. Hiring a backup should be done by the photographer, not the bride and groom. Just my opinion.

 

Lesson learned, however. Maybe easier said then done, but I do plan on implementing some sort of Sole Photographer clause. And while I can't enforce all of the Uncle Bob's out there, I can please ask nicely to hold their shots until I'm done. I probably (if I can summon up the courage) please ask everyone to go on to the reception or wait outside during the formals.

 

I hope this helps! By the way, I am new here. Hello Everyone!

It's imperative to put your foot down on this. I have had clients invite guests who had some talent and gear, who shot despite my protests, and then had the bride and groom demand their money back because they liked his work "well enough, since it's free". It's in my contract that I am the sole shooter, and if any guest insists on shooting, after I ask them not to, the following options are open to me:

 

1 - A minimum order clause goes into effect, holding the clients to a minimum dollar amount order - which I usually set at $300.

 

2 - I have the option to stop shooting and leave, with no refund due.

 

3 - When Bride & Groom sign my contract they are acting as the "agent" for those they invite to attend, and for the venues, and they release the copyrights to their images to me, as well as the locations, and most importantly to any images made by anyone in those locations. So, if some troublesome shutterbug refuses to stop shooting, I can legally demand the images and sell them to the bride & groom.

 

Never had to actually do any of those things other than once I enforced the minimum order clause.

 

Usually, just knowing these conditions are part of the contract has the Bride & Groom telling everyone to put their cameras away if I ask them to intervene.

 

These images are your bread and butter. You need to make sure they are exclusive. So put your foot down.

I have to agree .. this is a big deal to a professional wedding photographer. I live in a fairly small town and have not used a contract yet (but will from now on). I was hired to do a wedding but the bride said she had a friend who would do the reception for free so I was to just do the church service, formal shots, a private time with b&g, and whatever candids I took.

 

When I went in to take the before wedding pics of the bride and her maids this "non professional friend" was in there with VERY professional equipment and in my way. The bride looked a bit embarassed about it but it wasn't until after the ceremony that I became very annoyed. I'd set up great and fun shots and this woman would take photos when I was done. In fact, I had to keep telling the bridal party to look at ME.

 

I was very unhappy by the time we were finished. I went home like a puppy with her tail between her legs. I knew it was my own fault for not having a contract, but all I could think of was how much work I had ahead of me processing while this woman would probably be giving them photos for free of the same shots I set up. I had to get ahold of myself and just DO the work set out for me.

 

Big surprise was when I called the bride a week later to tell her that her proofs were ready and she apologize profusely without me even mentioning it. She said the night of the wedding, the groom and her discussed that they'd look at my photos and purchase before they even looked at her friend's photos. She said she didn't know how to stop her.

 

All came out well. She placed a large order and has raved on and on about loving them.

 

But, lesson learned. NEVER will I do a wedding without a contract. I'll also have an assitant from now on to help me with things, including other photographers, when I get busy.

 

The question I have is, has anyone seen that at some weddings the bride and groom put up a very classy sign on an easel in the entrance of the church requesting no other photographers? A friend of mine saw that at the last wedding she was at. She said people respected the sign. I was just wondering if anyone else has encountered or used anything like that.