ummm ok? (usage question)

[williamchuttonjr]

<p>People can only take your rights away when you give them permission to. I suggest you publish the photos yourself on as many web sites as possible. The studio and the blogger should not be allowed to impede your constitution right to self expression.<br>

I could care less how the studio feels because they obviously don't care one bit about how Missy feels.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>All the talk of 'professional courtesy' is fine and all that. But the fact is that Missy has just as many rights to publish her images as they do. This isn't a college frathouse where the freshmen get beaten with sticks and sprayed with a hose until they have 'paid their dues'. 'Professional courtesy' doesn't cover bullying your way to getting what you want so that you come out on top. That's called being an ass. I give professional respect to those who deserve it. Just because you are in the same business as someone else doesn't mean you should show them any courtesy. Particularly if they don't show you any.</p>

<p>I would tell the studio to cram it and publish the images where ever I wanted. I don't have patience for people who are so scared that they have to worry about random photographer x shooting better photos then they do. I don't care where they get published, nothing says "low rent" like this kind of junk. Absolutely pathetic.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I don't really consider a random post of photos , on some blog, "publishing". If the studio was THAT concerned, then they should have had anyone with a camera or phone with a lens in it, sign a contract to NOT post any pictures anywhere. This is 2009 people. A great number of people post pictures online. This is not competition with big studios. I think it's called "social networking" or something.</p>

<p>I also find this exclusivity term unbelievable . Just how are they damaged ? They can't prove they lose a DIME, because of a blog. If I am looking for a photographer to do my wedding, and I find their studio, and I like their stuff, I hire them. If I find a shot from the same wedding, anywhere on the internet, I don't call them up in a panic and demand a change in price. This single wedding is NOT the studios only source of pictures to show.</p>

<p>Now that you have brought all this up, I think a good number of us would like to SEE these shots. I wonder of Photo.net gets more traffic than that blog they were so worried about ?</p>

<p> </p>

[morena]

<p> The studio may have had a legitimate concern if someone was in fact taking credit for one their images. However, I do believe they handeled it poorly by requesting removal before investigating into who owned the copyright. I would expect them to be familiar with copyrights and it seems out of line and unprofessional of them to try and infringe on those of another protographer. The blog host responed far too quickly before lisitining to the OPs position which I think is lame but understandable.<br>

I would write a stongly worded but professional letter to the studio asserting my rights and asking them what grounds they have for surpressing my images.<br>

As to professional courtesy; it doesn't trump my own interests! The only other people who MAY have any claim to my photos and their usage are the people paying me or the people in them.<br>

Missy, I would be a little flattered that the studio went to all this trouble. Good for you. They either took your photo to be of such quality they mistook it as their own or they were embarrased that a guest could make images as good if not better than their own. <br>

Can't wait to see them.<br>

take care,<br>

B</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Missy Kay -</p>

<p>Legally - there is nothing wrong with publishing the photos - in fact I'd go Josh one step further and put your studio's watermark / copyright information on them and publish them here, there and everywhere. You took the photos - you own the copyright (unless you gave that away to someone in writing) and there was not an exclusivity clause in their contract - even if there was - they'd have to show that the bride and groom knowingly asked you to come and take photos and that you were "on the clock" so to speak for the wedding.</p>

<p>Why? To bait the studio into contacting you directly so you can tell them face to face what a bunch of jerks they are! Okay - seriously - so you can find out why they think they have any claim to tell you to remove the images in the first place, then let them have it.</p>

<p>I tend to think that either a) they are worried that you "copied" or "stole" one of their poses or that b) they took a similar photo and are worried that someone is copying their digital images or c) they are looking at your shots as being better than theirs. </p>

<p>As for "professional courtesy" that went out the door when they contacted the blogger, not you directly. If they wanted professional courtesy - they would have asked the blogger - "Where / who did you get those photos from? And may we have their contact information? We'd like to discuss the photos with the photographer. " That would have been Professional Courtesy. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[alec_myers]

<p>Did anyone consider the studio might have mistaken Missy Kay's photos for their own?</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Alec -</p>

<p>I think that point has been made a couple of times, but without the studio contacting Kay directly - she has no way of knowing...</p>

<p>I think that point that a lot of us are trying to make - is that the studio should have asked the blogger where they got the photos from as opposed to just demanding that they be taken down.</p>

<p>Given their reaction - I'm guessing now more than ever that they saw the photos, said "Hey - those are our photos" and demanded their removal. Which is probably the way that 90% of us would react if we saw our photos on a site without our permission.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[philipward]

<p>Let me get this straight.You are a wedding photographer and your friends did not expect you to cover the whole wedding for free.You actually got to be a guest.Sweeeeet!{;~).</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>There's a whole bunch of speculation going on in this thread about what happened, what's the "right thing", what's the "legal thing", etc....</p>

<p>The way I see it, the studio had the typical "we are the exclusive photographer" in their contract clause, photographically it was their wedding, as long as you were just a guest taking "happy snaps" at the wedding there was no harm & no foul. However, now the images get "published" and the truth comes out and the studio is upset.....and rightly so. I completely understand the studio's position, your actions have put them and your friends (the couple that got married) in a compromising position. No one will care about you using the photos in your printed folio to display and promote your work however any form of publishing such as putting them on your website, or someone's blog, or even posting here to P-net is IMO unprofessional. Although your intentions were not to step on the studios toes or to get in their way, nevertheless, bottom-line, you have. New shooters are warned about trying to use someone else's wedding to build their folio on this forum on a regular basis, this potential problem has also been raised several times. The complete lack of empathy and professional courtesy found in this thread toward an established professional studio IMO is disappointing and personally disturbing.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>What's the big deal with this woman's blog (the one who chickened out and took down your pics)? Why don't you upload them to your own blog, to photo.net, and maybe even to flickr.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"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. </em><strong>Probably doesn't matter to the couple one way or the other.....OK. </strong><em>They hired this studio to take photos also and it wasn't in the contract that there couldn't be a second photographer </em><strong>How do you know they didn't have the typical exclusivity clause? Unless I personally went over the contract and read the entire thing, I would assume that the exclusivity clause is in there. BTW, you are not the second photographer at this point, you are a wedding guest with a camera</strong><em>. Of course being a wedding photographer, </em><strong>(I should have known better) </strong><em>I didn't want to get in their way so I never did." </em><strong>Until I published images from their wedding while representing myself as a professional photographer.</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Had you been simply a guest with a camera and you shared the images in an amateur site like Shutterfly, I doubt the studio would have cared. </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>BTW, if you'd really like to do the "right thing" and be open and honest about all this, shoot the studio an email inviting them to participate in this discussion.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>Of course, a little look at David's bio and you'll see why he thinks the studio rules in this case. "....complete lack of empathy and professional courtesy found .....toward an established pro studio....". That says the whole attitude of pro studio's that pull this stuff. They're scared of the new comers abilities. Rather than try to make their work better, they bully the new guy......in my opinion.</p>

<p> But, the customer requested you to be there to take pics.....apparently BEFORE the contract with the studio. But even if I read that wrong, you were requested by the customer. You did not in any way interfere with their business or sale of their pictures. You put them on a blog. Now, I understand the bloggers caution in removing them, but I personally would make the effort to create my own blog, or website, and put the pics up on it. There is nothing the studio can do. they are your pics. you are not trying to sell them. you were requested by the customer to take the pics. putting them on someone else's blog may have some gray area of legality that I'm not familiar with, but putting them on your own blog is well within the law.</p>

<p>As far as I see it, the studio is pulling the old beat up the small guy to keep their business more in the limelight. letting you post pics...that they didn't get....jabs them a little in their sides. And they probably deserve it if they aren't trying to promote new business by being "better" at what they do.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I was going to write something very similar to Josh's comments so I'll just second his.</p>

<p><em>The way I see it, the studio had the typical "we are the exclusive photographer" in their contract clause...<br /> </em></p>

<p>If you read the very first post you will "see" that the situation is the opposite.</p>

<p>Respectfully, the rest of the comments seem pretty much backwards as well. Professional courtesy? This studio used bully tactics making invalid claims, failed to make any request of Missy. The studio already published their precious images they made with no interference or hassles whatsoever. The studio was not harmed in any way. Missy afforded all the courtesy the studio deserved. If anyone put someone in an uncomfortable position it was 100% the studio causing it. Shame on THEM.</p>

<p><em>if you'd really like to do the "right thing" and be open and honest about all this, shoot the studio an email inviting them to participate in this discussion.</em></p>

<p>The studio isn't identified. No such need.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p> </p>

[farceur_coince]

<p>Look, in all honesty, not enough is actually known to make a proper judgement on this. Depending on the details, I could side you or the studio.<br>

<br /> For instance:<br>

- did the second photographer mistake the images for their own? (note that it was a second photog and not the primary or at least other photog, so could easily have made the error)<br>

- did the studio have a line(s) in their contract about them being the exclusive photographer? Easily, non-photographers are not fully aware of such things, or if they are, they easily dismiss them as petty things; your friends could easily have made the mistake<br>

- did you get paid for the blog post, was the blog post to advertise your work, etc? Conflict of advertising: they want to advertise the wedding in their name, and easily the B&G can be recognised and the photographer confused<br>

Perhaps the photography studio should have not been so hasty: but without knowing the full details, it's hard to make a decision.</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"Of course, a little look at David's bio and you'll see why he thinks the studio rules in this case. "...." -Thomas</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Thanks Thomas, and while we're at it, let's take a look at Nadine and David Wegwart's bios and re-read their comments above.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>as to your second point Farceur....."They hired this studio to take photos also and it wasnt in the conract that there couldnt be a second photographer"....sure looks like they looked at the contract and didn't see anything about using another photographer.</p>

<p>your 1st point makes no nevermind....the studio's second shooter is still their responsibility....so the mistake is still in the studio's ballpark.</p>

<p>your third point also seems mute....a see no mention of Missy getting paid for anything. And I have listenned to some "professional bloggers"....at DUMBOs New York Photo Festival....and believe me, they don't pay for anything.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>sorry David....you were the last commentor, therefore the comment most recently recognizable. Of course, we have to take a look at the possible bias of any comment.</p>

<p>I still think it very heavy handed of the studio to do this. If it's the studio I think it is, THEIR bio stinks of elitism....and I actually would expect this of them.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>:(<br>

That's sad. Would like to see the pro's photos vs yours, Missy Kay :)</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>Hey everyone! Sorry I didn't read all of the responses yet bc I just woke up. But I did contact the studio and this is what they said<br>

"Hi Kay,<br>

First of all, I, by no means, EVER took credit for your photographs. I would never do something of that nature. I only said that the post featured a 'real wedding' that another photographer is claiming to have photographed. I also said that I truly have no problem with start-ups trying to build their portfolio as guests at weddings, but taking that extra step of trying to have the images published under false pretenses as being the professional event photographer is simply unfair.<br>

I just happened to come across this blog and was stunned to see my event featured as a 'real wedding'. I did immediately respond with an email to the editor, because I have already submitted this event to several national publications that (as I'm sure you will come across) REQUIRE that THEY have exclusivity to the event and it CANNOT be published in print or online with ANY other publication. Therefore, your images (which were very nice) compromised my ability to have the event published. Obviously, as the professional photographer for the event, I felt that this was simply unfair.<br>

Honestly, if I had not already submitted this event to several publications, I never would have bothered to get a third party involved in this matter. I felt so bad even suggesting to Darci that she take down one of her posts. As a fellow photog, I hope you can understand my concerns about maintaining the ability to have the event published and I am sorry if this has caused any unnecessary drama.<br>

Sincerely,<br />-T"</p>

<p>1) I never said I was the main photographer.<br>

2) Does she think she owns rights to an event?<br>

3) Simly unfair? She is stealing my rights and infringing on my business<br>

4) Magazines state that they cannot be published in OTHER magazines. Not blogs!<br>

5)START-UP!????</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>IMO, Not only is the studio likely in the right, seems to me that they are being awfully nice about it. I still can not imagine an established studio not having the exclusivity clause in their contract......could be, but I just don't see any reason not to have it. Again, suggest that you shoot them an en email and let them join the discussion Editing their side of the story would seem unfair.</p>

<p>START UP????? Yes, start up.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>Ok everyone, I typed my response but did not send it yet. Thoughts? What should I edit? Keep in mind I am sort of upset so I apologize if this comes off a little rude, which is why I only saved it as a draft<br />"<br />T,</p>

<p>As friends of the bride and groom, they asked me to take images prior to even signing contract with you. Out of professional courtesy I tried to stay out of anyone's way as much as posible. I'm not sure if you are aware of copyright laws, but you do not have rights to an "event". You have right to your images, and I have rights to my images. Therefore, you are violating and infringing upon my rights as a photographer as stating you are telling me what to do with my images.<br />Other magazines state that the event must not be published in another magazine, which has absolutely nothing to do with a post on an obscure wedding blog and would not have any affect on your ability to publish. You on the other hand, have affected my ability to publish, so if anything this situation is "simply unfair" to only my studio.<br />It's difficult enough competing with large studios such as yourselves, but to go this far when A) you were the second shooter and B) your studio is published all of the time in national magazines, i find it quite absurd. So honestly at this point I only see two options- 1) The blog posts get placed back up on the website that you had taken down or 2) I personally submit the photos to every single wedding, blog, online publication that has ever existed. Please let me know what you decide.<br />Sincerely, K"</p>

<p>David-They didnt have it in their contract and you obviously work for a big studio like stated above so its hard for me to believe anything you are saying.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"David-They didnt have it in their contract and you obviously work for a big studio like stated above so its hard for me to believe anything you are saying."</em><br /><em></em><br />You're welcome to read my bio, I have worked for large studios in the past. Obviously you can simply ignore or discount everything I've said. Now read the posts from Nadine and David Wegwart and ignore theirs as well. If you are confident in your position email the thread to the other studio and invite them to contribute their version.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>because I have already submitted this event to several national publications that (as I'm sure you will come across) REQUIRE that THEY have exclusivity to the event and it CANNOT be published in print or online with ANY other publication. Therefore, your images (which were very nice) compromised my ability to have the event published. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to say my feeling is that this is just too bad, and something the studio will just have to live with. There are plenty of guests with cameras at weddings and it's completely out of order for the paid photographer to attempt to interfere with what one of the bride's close friends does with her own photographs. Missy Kay bears no responsibility for the policies of "several national publications" and if the studio has a problem they should take it up with the publications themselves.</p>

<p>Were I the bride who paid the studio I would be writing a letter of complaint directly to the director of the studio with a stern warning not to interfere with my guests in the future!</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Kay -</p>

<p>Couple of points to your letter. </p>

<p>1. Do a spell / grammer check - there's a couple of lower case "i''s in there...</p>

<p>2. I'd rewrite the last paragraph. Suggestion:<br>

<em> It should be noted that I have never claimed, nor will I to have been the photographer of record for the wedding. Nor will I claim nor have I led anyone to believe that I was the primary photographer at this event. As to whether or not I can claim that these are "real" wedding photos - the wedding was legal, it was not staged, and I did not substantially alter the contents of the photos. Therefore - I am claiming that these are "Real" wedding photos. </em><br>

<em>T, as I'm sure you can understand, it's very difficult for me to compete with the large, established studios such as yours, thus I need to publicize my skills and techniques through non-mainstream methods such as blogs,etc... Also, I feel that you are misinterpreting the exclusivity clauses of those publications, as I believe that they are referring to only the first publication and exclusive rights to the photos which you have submitted to them. As such I feel that there is no need for your studio's permission or approval for me to publish my photos in any manner that I see fit or deem necessary. If you can show me a legal precedence, statue or ruling from the state in which the photos were taken, then I will be happy to discuss further. </em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Now if you had interfered with them, copied their poses or shot over their shoulder, etc... I might have a different opinion on this...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>