Shameless, unprofessional, cheap competition.

[jessica_lewis]

OK, so I was the contracted photographer for a job, but the videographer that was hired works with his

wife who is a photographer, but she was not hired to do the photography. At the wedding they asked me

if they could take some shots for the clients video, (to add some stills to the video for the bride and

groom) I said that was fine. Then I go to meet with a potential client and she says that she has seen that

wedding before. They are passing out DVD's at bridal shows with still images promoting their

photography business. I have asked them to take down the photos from their web site and to stop using

them at bridal fairs to promote their company, and they will not. I do have an exclusivity clause in my

contract, but they are saying that they have one as well, even though they were not the contracted

photographers. Should I take them to court, will I win, is it worth it? This is confusing to clients. We are

also advertising on the same web site (my.wedding.com), in the same county.

[lamont]

I might have missed something, but I think you are saying that they are using your photos on their promotional material. If that is the case I think a good stiff lawyer's letter would start the ball rolling, and go from there.

 

Donald.

[tholte]

I think you should move on also. "At the wedding they asked me if they could take some shots for the clients video, (to add some stills to the video for the bride and groom) I said that was fine."

[fotografz]

The request seems fraudulent. They specifically asked to take shots for use in a video. If

the work is presented as stills to solicite still wedding photography business, the

enevitable consequence is exactly what happened ... potential clients see the same

wedding presented by two seemingly different still photographers. If they were presenting

the stills in context of a video, then Jessica gave them permission to do that. But they

aren't.

 

They were not responsible for shooting the stills, Jessica was, yet they are passing

themselves off has having been responsible. They reap the benefit without having

shouldered the responsibility ... which we all know is considerable.

 

However, what to do about it is another matter. If Jessica has retained a good relationship

with her client, she could ask them to send a letter to the video people requesting removal

of the still photos from their web-site and sales materials. They were not contracted to do

such work and cannot publish them without a release from the subject client ... unless the

video contract has a specific clause stating such "STILL PHOTOGRAPHY" use for

promotional use ( which I doubt ).

 

That, or just let it go. Personally, I wouldn't. It's borttom feeders like this that erodes the

perception of the whole wedding industry.

[john_h.1]

Communicating with the client(s) about their likeness being used in advertising is probably the only real leverage as Marc says. If there was a release in the video contract, don't count on the lack of the words "still phtographpy" to help however. If that were true, all those releases photographers have out there that don't have those words would be rendered useless. The releases are judged on a case by case basis based on the terms and language. If a release is broad enough, the stills may be permissable.

 

The fact that Jessica has an exclusivity clause does little to restict the video people's actions. The first reason is because the clause is part of a contract between her and the client, not between Jessica and the video people. Second, Jessica waived exclusivity rights anyway by allowing professional shooting to take place. The fact that the video people claim to have an exclusivity clause is interesting if it referenced still shooting. But this matters little as the contract was with the client. The client is the one who owes the duties. Allowing the other people to shoot will probably discharge the client's duties to Jessica in this regard in any event.

 

Jessica needs to consult with a lawyer instead of the internet for actual legal advice.

[alec_myers]

Could somebody explain to me the problem please? If they shot the images, why shouldn't they use them? If you're a videographer of course you need still shots for promoting the video business, and if you're doing stills as well it makes perfect sense to use the same promo shots.

[alec_myers]

"At the wedding they asked me if they could take some shots for the clients video"

 

Suggestion: next time, say "no, you can't, as I have exclusivity over stills from this event, but I'll provide you with some of my images provided they're credited appropriately."

[sam_thompson2]

I would just tell future customers that you were the primary photographer and they were the videographers. If your photographs were superior to the couple then it only is a bonus. If your photographs are not as good as the couple. Then you should probably find other pictures to post on your website.

[alec_myers]

Wait, are you saying that they were shooting your creative poses and setups over your shoulder?

 

If so, I wonder if you could argue breach of copyright, in that the poses and angles are an artistic work, and the unsanctioned photos are reproducing it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Okay so you have an exclusive to do the stills andthey have an exclusive to do the videos. End of story.

 

Tell them that you will supply the still frames for their video and for his wife to leave the still camera either at home or in the trunk of their car.

[steve_c.5]

I agree with Ellis. Given the situation, I would have offered to provide them with photos that I shot as stills for their video, and would even gladly allow them to make suggestions about any specific stills they needed during the event.

 

The key statement in your initial post above to me was, "(to add some stills to the video for the bride and groom)". If that was the way they stated it to you, then using their own shots to "promote their own business" becomes an ulterior motive. If they claim that their still shots were ONLY to enhance the video, and then the use them to enhance their marketing, then I would definitely cry "FOUL".

 

If they want to tag-team and do both videography and photography as services to their clients, and market those services together, they need to use examples from weddings where the provided BOTH services exclusively. That is the ethical thing to do.

[sam_thompson2]

"If so, I wonder if you could argue breach of copyright, in that the poses and angles are an artistic work, and the unsanctioned photos are reproducing it."

 

You can't just copyright poses you need something unique besides even if you could copyright poses, Jessica gave them a license to use the poses in their video. What's at issue is the use of pictures for promoting their still photography work work.

 

To Ellis, the photographs were already taken by the wife. They already have the stills in the video they made of the couple. They are just using the still to promote their still photography business and also their videography business. Although I might add that if they were promoting the videography, it should be expected that the couple would show the still photos to promote their video business as it is an integral part of the video presentation.

 

You might find a lawyer and she might find a valid case and a simple threat of a suit might scare the couple into pulling their photos.

 

This doesn't constitute legal advice.

[squiggs77]

Jessica, How did you get into the wedding business? Have you only promoted your wedding photography business with photos you have taken when you were the primary photographer? And if so, how did you get your first wedding with no samples to show the client?

 

I'm not trying to make waves. My first wedding shoot was fortunately my sisters, and she wasn't too concerned about the photos. But if you don't know someone who will trust you to shoot their wedding without viewing any sample photos, how do you get wedding pictures to start your business?

[root]

Justin, A lot of people who know you are a photographer will assume that you can shoot weddings, even though they know your photographic interests lie elsewhere. I've had a few requests including one very high budget event. (I turned it down. I may go beyond my sister and my nephew . . . but maybe not.)

[sarahunderhill]

They hired you, get paid, forget about it...next...