What's the code when asked to be a second wedding shooter when you have your own photography business

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> If it were me, my main issues would be (A) making sure that I could use images in my own portfolio</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see why this is that important. If you don't take the job, you don't get to use the images. If you do take the job, you get paid but don't get to use the images. I know which option I would take.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>I wasn't differentiating Texas from the USA, maybe I should have just put Lubbock, Texas instead, or maybe USA all by itself, or all three. I am fully aware that copyright law is country specific and not normally affected by city, county, province, parish, prefecture, etc. Laws in regards to payments, taxes, etc, just might be. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>What if the first wedding asks you to stay longer at the reception? What if they don't want the other lady to leave their wedding? This situation is just full of potential pitfalls. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I wasn't differentiating Texas from the USA, maybe I should have just put Lubbock, Texas instead, or maybe USA all by itself, or all three.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Specifically citing the transaction occurring in Texas made it appear the transaction occurring in Texas mattered. The criteria mentioned as necessary for transfers also deviated from the USA standard which made it appear even more likely that some Texas rule was intended.</p>

<p>Page 6 of Circular 1 at copyright.gov gives a very brief summary of transfer criteria in all of the U.S....</p>

<p>http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Robert Posey, above, provides a very contextual, concise and accurate analysis of the situation in this thread.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You should meet with the wedding couple, taking along a portfolio of your best work. Be honest and forthcoming -- you are being asked to cover their wedding (even though they hired your *friend,* who cannot be up front and honest in her business dealings.)</p>

<p>If you have very good work to show, chances are good you will have a happy couple to photograph on their wedding day. The other curse would be to show up and they have to wonder who the heck you are?</p>

<p> </p>

[orourke]

<p>I think the question you have to ask yourself is would you feel comfortable making up a story to get out of this? From the way you framed your work ethic I would venture a guess that the answer is no. That said, put your honest foot forward and explain to your friend that you would love to be able to help her if she can assure you that she won't take a chance at comprimising you're reputation. If she can't respect that prerequisite then I'd politely excuse myself and my services. You may be surprised, she may realize what she's asking you to do is wrong and will hold you in higher regard and you'll both be better for it.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the question you have to ask yourself is would you feel comfortable making up a story to get out of this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would do it but have no part in any deception. Just show up and if queried, just say that all you know is that you were contracted to do the wedding and know nothing of any other arrangements.</p>

[bob_carter]

<p>EVERYONE! makes mistakes. It is our attempts to correct them, that may have a greater impact than the mistake itself.<br>

RM, it seems as though you are asking if it is o.k, ( for a certain amount of money & rights) , for you to be a part of your "friends" lie.<br>

You should stay clear of the mess until your friend is honest with the client(s). You can then determine the degree of your "friendship" by the financial negotiations, & the length of the contract both parties feel comfortable in signing. </p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I would do it but have no part in any deception. Just show up and if queried, just say that all you know is that you were contracted to do the wedding and know nothing of any other arrangements.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Knowing of the arrangements, its still a furtherance of the deception. Indeed, showing up and claiming to know nothing of the arrangements is, itself, a deception heaped on the underlying deception. If avoiding getting caught is more motive than just engaging in honest dealings, your role may be revealed. If not by online search finding this posting, the other photographer may explain enough facts to contradict your representations when they are questioned about your involvement. No doubt, there will be questions.</p>

<p> Even if the other photographer comes clean with the client, the signs are already there that this isn't someone you want to do business with. Plus, there were the other concerns about ceding images ect.</p>

<p>This whole situation says walk away.</p>

[DickArnold]

Look. I am in no position to tell you what to do. I don't know enough about the totality of the situation. However, I can speak from my own experience. In the time that I did weddings I had some problems when I first started with contracts that cost me a good bit of money. I made a couple of rules for myself. The first if a potential client or situation made me squeamish not to take the business. I learned this the hard way to the tune of a couple of thousand dollars. The second was to tie everything down in the form of a written agreement. Later in my business when I had more business if I got bad vibes in a client interview I did not take the business. I think it saved me a lot of trouble. The proposed arrangement for you would have prompted me to stay away from it. Personally I would not want to walk into a job with ethical trepidation that would have made my uncomfortable with the person I was to work with. I think this is a matter of your own personal ethics and I think it hard for other people to judge your tolerance level for dissembling. I think your availing yourself of other peope's experience is a good way for you work through what clearly has to be a matter of your own conscience.

[john_a5]

<p>As I continue reading all of this, I still think there is a lot of over reacting. She didn't really double book, she overlapped. Her comments about how she is going to tell the first bride might have just been flippant and she will transact the interaction with her clients with dignity and honesty. I think most of us say things to friends that don't end up reflecting what we actually will do, but reflect what we wish we could do and get away with but later realize that isn't a good idea. In a case like this, she might just end up telling the first couple that she will do all of the main images and have a very good assistant take the reception images, someone who is better than she at that sort of thing--the couple may be more than happy with that--we don't know what will happen.</p>

<p>As to the OP lying to the client? It isn't lying or deceitful to tell the client, when you are subordinate to the main photographer, that you were hired to cover the reception and just refer detail questions to the person that hired you--which is the professional thing to do anyway. It isn't your job to interface with the client regarding any specifics of the transaction other than your specific role. If I had an assistant that was discussing any term or conditions or what I privately told them about the job, I would can them on the spot. That isn't their role or business. When I shoot a magazine editorial, even though I generally do read the draft of the article, I don't discuss it with the people I interact with on the job. We might discuss the general brief of what I know they already know, which I find out from the editor--I refer other questions to the editor that hired me.</p>

<p>Bottom line, either do the job because you are comfortable with it or don't do it. It is a personal decision and it has to be right for you.</p>

[ted_suss]

<p>John A,<br>

Thanks for your information regarding your experience. From what you say, it sounds like your audit was performed by your state? Not sure about this, but that's how it comes across.<br>

I received my information from an IRS agent in 1990. At that point we put all of our part-time wedding photographers on payroll as instructed and never looked back.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Ted, 1990 was the year I turned pro and this issue was very highly discussed back then. The IRS was cracking down on the independent contractor thing as so many companies--and certainly photographers-- were abusing it to avoid payroll taxes and paying benefits. Public corporations would lay off employees to look better to the investing community and yet hire the same people back as IC's doing the same work immediately. The company I had left several years before, where I had been the corporate treasurer, got a big hit in this area from the IRS as did several others that I know of.</p>

<p>The issue sparked the formation of several service corporations in my city at that time that provided assistants to photographers to avoid any issue. They soon went out of business because those who weren't hiring true IC's just hired their full time assistants and crew--or leased through standard employee leasing companies. But several cases, mine being just one of them, resulted in what I described, no issue if the person being hired for a specific job is running a legitimate business and works for many others in the same capacity. I never hire newbies or casual (have other jobs) assistants or crew. I also never hired anyone as a contractor to come on a daily basis to do general work in the studio--only to work on specific jobs. I keep detailed files on the people I hire with evidence that they are running a business providing their services to the industry at large.</p>

<p>Wedding photography is probably a primary area where this sort of thing is done in violation of the IC rules. People with other full time jobs contract for their weekends doing weddings as primary or second for one photographer or wedding company (and maybe do their own small weddings under the table)--that person is not an IC under most circumstances. The OP being hired to do this sort of thing would not be considered an employee since she runs a visible business providing photographic services(based on what we know and her website).</p>

<p>As I said, knowing the rules and criteria is critical and then acting to protect one's self is very important. When in doubt, one should hire the person as an employee directly or through a company that provides the lease option. I am sure there are quite a few people out there that are exposed if they were to be audited.</p>

<p>I should add here that if your original statement was correct--"if you are required to perform your services at a specific location and at a specific time, then you are an EMPLOYEE -no wiggle room on this", even being hired by someone to do their wedding or being hired by a company to shoot for them at their location on a given day would also be problematic. We know that isn't the case. Assistants and other crew have the same right to offer their services as an IC as we do as photographers.</p>

[cardens]

<p>I would have to agree with John A. It really seems like an over lap, being your friend will be at both weddings. The fact she is doing the pre-ceremony, ceremony and portraits is really the bulk of it anyway. Receptions are usually pretty boring (other than the formal dances and cake). <br>

You have to do what you feel comfortable with. Personally I wouldnt see the big deal. If you were to shoot the WHOLE wedding that would be a different story all together.</p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>All good points, even if we did get off of the main subject for a while.</p>

<p>Booking an overlap is an easy thing to do, especially in this economy! All it takes is for a mailed contract to take a little longer while someone else writes the check or swipes the credit card for the date. Just because you sent a contract doesn't mean that you'll ever see it again. Some couples take advantage of business owners by tying-up their date for a considerable period of time, costing the studio money in the process. I've LOST jobs because of this! And sometimes they cross in the mail, and sometimes you never see the contract come back to the Studio. In Jersey, we used to call this "Growing Pains". The Studio really doesn't need a full second crew yet, and a little "help" from a friend is all that's really needed. IF the studio owner is going to do most of the "money shots", the wedding couple will most probably be fine with the OP doing the "finish-up", since the two photogs will be working side-by-side until the studio owner has to leave. Walk a mile in my shoes and then come and talk to me! </p>

<p>When I was being mentored decades ago, it was normal for the Studio Owner to shoot the formals at the house, and we'd do the ceremony & formals together at the church & park. After the "bread & butter" shots of the grand entrance & first dance, he'd say goodnight to the couple and I'd stay there for the rest of the evening, as previously planned (the couple knew this in advance). This is what this "thing" is beginning to sound like to me. </p>

<p>In my professional experience, it sounds like the OP hasn't done that many weddings (1st Shooter vs. 2nd Shooter) and doesn't really want to be left to do a simple "finish-up" as we used to call it back in the days of 220 Hassy backs. All of this chatter about image useage in a help-me-out situation is leading me to believe that the OP is getting second thoughts about helping someone. Or being left by themselves....</p>