ummm ok? (usage question)

<p>Hey everyone!<br>

I was asked to take pictures at a very close friends wedding. I asked if I could use the images on my website and for advertising an anywhere else, and the couple said of course. They hired this studio to take photos also and it wasnt in the conract that there couldnt be a second photographer. Of course being a wedding photographer, I didn't want to get in their way so I never did.</p>

<p>I sat in my seat during the ceremony and in my seat during the reception and first dance. But I did however have more time to take great detail shots which the other photographer didn't get.</p>

<p>So I submit my photos for a blog and they got published. And tonight (about a month later) i get an e-mail from the blog poster that she recieved an email from the second photographer stating that she must take them down. Wtf is that!!! Can anyone please comment on this!</p>

<p>I'm confused. What blog? Whose blog? What second photographer?</p>

<p>First, I assume you're in the US?</p>

<p>The blog owner received an email from the studio to take your pictures down? You refer to both yourself and the studio as the second shooter, so I just want to make sure I have it right.</p>

<p>First, the studio has no authority to tell anyone to take down your images. At best, the couple could decide that they don't want the pictures up and the couple could ask the blog owner. But the studio? Nah.</p>

<p>Email the blog owner back and tell them you are the copyright holder and have a release from the couple to display them (if it's not in writing, email your friends and just ask for confirmation that you can display them).</p>

<p>I am guessing that the blog owner feels the same way otherwise she wouldn't have contacted you first. I wouldn't bring this up with your friends yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm confused. What blog? Whose blog? What second photographer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As am I. Here's what I have inferred, but I may well be wrong:</p>

<ul>

<li>Missy Kay is a close friend of the bridal party and took pictures during the wedding</li>

<li>Missy Kay submitted the images to a blog and the images were published</li>

<li>The studio discovered the images on the blog and asked the blog owner (aka, the <em>blog poster</em> ) to remove the images</li>

<li>The blog owner sent Missy Kay an email telling her about this</li>

</ul>

<p> </p>

<p>Rob you are correct!;<br>

This is the e-mail I recieved<br>

"Hi Kay,<br>

I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to let you know that I got an email from a photographer this week, in regards to Kim and Scott's wedding. Apparently she was the hired photographer at the event and was concerned that photos from the wedding were published on a blog under someone else's name. She had submitted photos from the same wedding to national publications, and as you know most magazines don't publish weddings that have been seen elsewhere.<br>

Its is rather awkward for me to be in the middle of this situation, so to avoid any conflict or further confusion, I just wanted you to know that I pulled the post from the blog. I am sure you had no ill intentions, and really am not sure the best way to handle everything, but removing the wedding in question seemed to be the best option for now.<br>

Hopefully you understand! I hope all is well with you and please let me know if you have any questions or concerns."</p>

<p>What kills me is this is the Studio photogapher in Freehold. They are supposed to be an upstanding studio! I guess I should be flattered that they find me such major competition!!!</p>

<p>I am reading this the same way Rob did. The opinion over here is: The studio can kiss it. (When you say "the 2nd photographer", you mean the hired photographer?)<br>

YOU took the photos, you were not working for them, and you have no contract with them. <br>

Is this studio going to demand every guest at every wedding at which they work not share the pics the guests take w/ their personal cameras? Try putting a clause in your contract that NOBODY can take a pic except you, and see how many weddings you book.</p>

<p>My personal opinion is: you were there as a guest. You took pics. You never interfered, you never copied poses, you were never asked to stop. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Maybe some nice, open and honest communication w/ the hired photographer would help. She / he probably just didn't like being taken by surprise, and feels like their pictures are now less valuable to the couple. Talk it over sensibly and calmly; try to work out an equitable solution.</p>

<p>Sorry if I confused everyone. The main photographer was a gentleman and the blog said she got an e-mail from a lady. So I guess the e-mail came from the second photographer who was a woman.</p>

<p>And Maria- You are correct, I never posed them or stood behind any posed shot whatsoever. The studio doesn't have a clause in their contract because I asked my friends prior to taking the pictures that they asked me to take. They said I as 100% fine. The only shots I got were great detail shots, some ceremony and first dance. I didn't take anything else.</p>

<p>Theresa, the other photographers saw me there that night with my 70-200 and didn't say anything and knew I was there.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the damage is done since the images were removed.</p>

<p>Personally, I think both the blog owner and the studio acted unprofessionally.</p>

<p>What I would do is write a very strongly worded letter to both the blog owner and studio full of colorful vernacular and lots of swearwords (feeling free to even make some new ones up). Read it a couple of times, <em>and then delete it without ever sending it</em> . It really does help!</p>

<p>This is one of those things that no one wins if there is a fight. As angering as it is, it's a "let it roll off you" moment.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds like contacting the studio directly might be the best bet. I can understand how the blog poster would feel caught in the middle, and certainly has a right to choose to remove the photos.<br>

Doesn't sound like there was any wrong-doing involved here on your end, but the concern from the studio could be that if these were detail shots, they may have many similar ones that they are using for their own marketing purposes.<br>

Obviously if there is nothing in the contract the studio can't do anything to you if you post them on your own site or blog, and that might be the way to go. This blogger just may be not comfortable reposting without the studio okaying it, and the only way to do that will be to try and communicate directly with them. Worth a shot - good luck!</p>

<p>Rob, you made me smile!</p>

<p>lol I'm sitting here getting so upset but you just made me laugh a little. Thank you</p>

<p>Missy, they may not have minded your taking them...but they may mind your <em>publishing </em>them, see what I mean? Lots of people take photos at weddings, but most are not viable as competetive in quality or published. Try the nice approach first.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Rob, you made me smile!<br>

lol I'm sitting here getting so upset but you just made me laugh a little. Thank you</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad you could smile.</p>

<p>BTW, a glass of wine helps, too.</p>

 

<p>That sucks. You have really no recourse with regards to the blog/blog owner as they will have a clause on their site somewhere that states "we reserve the right to reject and/or remove any and all photos at our discretion." I'm assuming that the "official" photographer/studio has more pull with them than you do and they took the path of least resistance and pulled your photos. Which makes sense on their part but it's still a bummer for you.<br>

If you wanted to, you could contact the studio and say that you don't appreciate them asking independent parties to remove your work to which you hold the rights and kindly ask them to refrain from doing so in the future. Legally, I would say that if the studio didn't have a contract that gives them exclusive rights (only photographer clause), they do not have the right to demand that the blog site take down your photos - but I'm not a lawyer and would run this by your attorney to see if this could be seen as the studio actually damaging your business by preventing you from getting your name out there for photos you took. Does that make sense?</p>

<p>Theresa,<br />I understand but my photos were different because I had more time to do the detail shots and it shouldn't concern them what I do with the pictures because I don't have a contract with them so they can't tell me what to do with the images.</p>

<p>The couple asked me to take pictures, it's not like I just brought my camera as a guest.</p>

<p>Karin- Not a bad idea, they are messing with my business. It's so weird because they're like a high calibur studio, I would just never expect this from them.</p>

<p>If there is no contract, you don't need to take them down. However, as a professional courtesy I would do so and keep your reputation intact. </p>

<p>If you want to discuss it, call her and let her know your position and that you were asked. I would not blow this out of proportion though, in fact, you may at a future date receive referrals from her if she felt good about how you deal with this. ??? </p>

<p>Just some thoughts.</p>

<p>What kind of blog is it? Regardless of legal rights, as a wedding photographer, I would think you would understand the studio's position. I would agree with others save for the one fact that the studio is also trying to get their images published. It is true that publishers like exlusives and your images would negate that for the studio and harm their chances of getting published. Since you weren't the 'official' photographer, I would take the high road and not try to use those images beyond your own website and blog.</p>

<p>Missy--for the record I think you're totally right. I'm just suggesting where to go from here. Keep us updated.</p>

<p>Nadine- honestly, I would understand if it was a low end studio. But these people get published like once a week in high-end magazines. The blog I was published on was just a blog. It's not like I submitted the photos to a magazine or something. Plus the studio never submits to blogs.</p>

<p>David used the words I'm looking for--professional courtesy. Put yourself in the studio's shoes. Imagine yourself years from now as a successful wedding photographer looking to publish images from a wedding at which you were the official photographer...</p>

<p>Rob - the PERFECT solution.<br>

As a matter of fact, I have done that exact thing. Typed a colorfully worded email which was to be saved, FULLY edited, written maturely, and then sent.</p>

<p>I hit "send" not "save". THAT is an emotional rollercoaster. Anger to panic in .03 seconds. Sooo - be sure you hit that BIG RED X!!! <br>

And have a glass of wine.</p>

<p>Nadine,<br>

The studio already published this wedding in the knot magazine. Why would they care if it was on a random blog? It doesn't make sense</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hit "send" not "save". THAT is an emotional rollercoaster. Anger to panic in .03 seconds. Sooo - be sure you hit that BIG RED X!!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, step 1 is <em>always </em> to clear out the "To:" box.</p>

<p>Missy--it makes them look bad since obviously, they didn't have the 'exclusive' that publishers want. A guest took professional caliber (I hope) images that were also published--how would you feel?</p>