Unofficial photographer using wedding photos in portfolio

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>The fraudulent misrepresentation would have to be material to be relevant</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any misrepresentation has to be material to be relevant, fraudulent or not. If a person induces a client to appoint them by misrepresenting their experience, then that is likely to be material. The likely test would be whether the client would have gone ahead and booked the photographer anyway, even if they knew the full facts.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One does not judge photographs based on the status of the photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But a sensible client ought to. There is a world of difference between coming up with creative ideas and managing a wedding while getting great results, and standing behind someone and photographing a situation that someone else has set up.</p>

<p>If you booked someone on the basis of their creativity and experience, and then discovered that yours was the first wedding that they had the responsibility of photographing as official photographer, then you'd have reasonable grounds to feel aggrieved. Especially if the photographer went ahead to mess it up due to their inexperience.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>However, he does need the permission of the people in the picture to use their likenesses for commercial purposes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be in the US. UK law is rather different - though in this case, permission would be needed anyway, but for different reasons.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Simon makes good points but there is a matter of degree and circumstances to contend with. Are the images cited as a representation of a fully self orchestrated wedding shoot or are they mere samples of images the photographer may achieve. Consider all the photographers who post their best sample images on their site vs those who put up the actual albums of full weddings and those in between those two approaches. Fraud and misrepresentation can be very detailed fact specific matters and a fuzzy line legally as it is.</p>

<p>In any event, if pros are concerned about other pro and quasi pro/aggressive amateur shooters, they should communicate about this with clients early on if not before client status arises. Communicating with the other shooter at the event is sound too and doesn't require a 'scene'. Surely the communication can be conveyed in a positive way. If need be, exclusivity can be made part of a contract though I know there are limits and consequences to enforcing it. It really boils down to communicating well. Sometimes a client will want another photographer present however. Its just a fact of life and will have to be dealt with. David Haas handled his post situation well. I bet he could have handled the pre-shoot phase well too but decided not to just in case.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Another great example of how if it ever comes to be that I would need to supplement my full time photography income with weddings, I would just get out of the business altogether. I can't believe how much I hear amateurs bragging that they got better shots than the hired photog and that the bride and groom love them, it is sickening. I don't take my camera to friend's weddings for just this reason. </p>

<p>Amateurs just Can Not Help it, they have to shoot, feel important even if they are not hired too....barf!</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I had one similar incident in my career -- all worked out well. The bride and groom had hired a photographer for the wedding and he did specify that they restrain others from taking pictures at certain times -- during the ceremony -- at the special locations set up by the photographer for picture taking. I was hired by National Geographic who was doing a book on the World's Religions to also shoot this particular wedding (I don't remember why this wedding was chosen) and I worked with the wedding photographer. We had very different clients and uses. All worked out fine. That was before law school.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't believe how much I hear amateurs bragging that they got better shots than the hired photog and that the bride and groom love them, it is sickening. I don't take my camera to friend's weddings for just this reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You would engage in this "sickening" behavior if you brought a camera to a friend's wedding?</p>

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>Amateurs just Can Not Help it, they have to shoot, feel important even if they are not hired too....barf!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to agree with you Daniel. It's funny to see people who get all excited about the smallest thing in a wedding like the clicking of the glass and they just have to pull out their iphones, Blackberrys or something to shoot. It's almost as if that they are losing out on something if they don't do it. I guess if you only go to weddings occasionally, you'll get excited about them and you simply react to the circumstances without thinking about itpurposes.</p>

<p> </p>

[johne37179]

<p>How many here think that just standing next to Ansel Adams at a camera or Andre Previn at a piano they could produce the same result. If a professional photographer only has to offer that they will show up -- they have nothing to offer. If the pro's shots don't stand out no matter who was standing next to them with a camera they ought to think about getting a real job.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Amateurs just Can Not Help it, they have to shoot, feel important even if they are not hired too....barf!<br>

have to agree with you Daniel. It's funny to see people who get all excited... ...and they just have to pull out their iphones, Blackberrys or something to shoot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bashing people who enjoy taking photos doesn't tell us much about the issue here which is whether the pro should be pressuring their client, after the fact, to get their freind to take photos down from the freind's website.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Bashing people who enjoy taking photos etc . . . doesn’t help</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, quite so. Bashing <strong>any</strong> of the players doesn't assist.<br>

All the parts and all the players here, are just inexperience / inexperienced.<br>

Perhaps if more people read threads like this before the event: B&G's would plan better; Friend Photographers / Budding Pros would learn Professional Courtesy and Official Photographers would think more, before writing emails to Clients . . .</p>

<p>And friends, who post in forums, would respond to the suggestions and views and also reply to questions. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[richardsperry]

<blockquote>

<p>And friends, who post in forums, would respond to the suggestions and views and also reply to questions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Comeon, he's only been here for a day, maybe he's inexperienced.</p>

[finimage]

<p>Excuse me (I'll admit to not having read much of the thread)<br>

In the simplest terms contractually. The Pro shooting the wedding had a contract to provide a service & goods for a fee. I find it extremely unlikely that there would be any clause/clauses restricting the use of other images taken by others. (would be interested to read any such clause...)<br>

Given that the Amateur was there with the full knowledge of the Pro and at the permission of the Couple being wed, the Pro has no cause to complain.<br>

There are two mutually exclusive contracts here. One Formal the other implied neither having a bearing on the other.<br>

From the Amateurs view point this is quite flattering that the Pro feels threatened. Perhaps the Pro should be asking some serious questions of them self.<br>

If it's a case that the Amateur has been shooting over the shoulder of the Pro, then we have an issue, as in practical terms the Amateur is taking advantage of somebody else's work. This cannot be condoned and If I was the Groom would be pointing out to the friend that they have over stepped the line. If this isn't the case, I can see no reason why the two sets of images cannot exist happily along side each other.<br>

I also hope that the Amateur has given a set of images or a selection of the images to the Bride & Groom as a token of thanks for allowing them access to the wedding for personal gain/promotion. (Model release! is my parting shot)<br>

Regards<br>

Finlay</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>To the best of my knowledge, the only situation in which the official photographer would have legal rights to complain/request a cease and desist/etc. would be if the unofficial photographer made a clear claim that he was the one contracted to shoot the wedding. If he just said, "Here are some photos of a wedding I went to," there's no absolutely no cause for complaint. If he said, "Here are some photos of my last wedding job," it could be inappriopriate.</p>

<p>Anything in between, ask a lawyer :)</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I used to let them stand next to me, and I would help them get good shots. It's all an insecurity issue. There's no way the newbie clicker next to me was going to make any of the getting ready portraits and formals I already did alone and that's what payed the bills. This is a none issue just whining.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Comeon, he's only been here for a day, maybe he's inexperienced."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you misinterpreted the meaning - it goes to the recognition of input thus far; and the immediacy; and wanting to solve the problem.<br>

It was a PROMPT, not a complaint.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I think there are two main issues here. </p>

<p>PART 1 - if the Unofficial Photographers (UP)was over the shoulder they should have said you can not do that... and controlled the situation at the wedding and reception. if the UP's images are nothing to do with the official photogs set-up's - like details and candid's etc - then the official photographer needs to drop it. with all of my set up I allow no one to take photos while I am shooting- not even guest with PS - too many red dot to photoshop and it's just distracting - my clients know this up front. I do not have time to let people step in and shoot - so the photog should have managed this if this is the case.<br>

PART 2 - I think it is completely unethical for the guest to post images taken at a wedding where he/she was not the main or second hired shooter. This sends a message to potiential clients that you were hired to do this wedding - which they clearly were not. It also it somewhat arrogant to think that coming as a guest with no pressure to get the shot is the same as being a main or even second for that matter. It's one thing to present yourself in the light of truth and something entirely different to leave out information like I really wasn't a shooter for this wedding.<br>

So bad for the main to not manage the situation at the wedding - Bad for the guest "posing as a photographer"</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>We weren't told if the friend shooter presented it in that way.</p>

[brett_buckley]

<p>Thanks for all the comments and advice, and apologies for not having responded to the latest lot sooner.<br>

Just to clear up some of the additional questions raised about the situation...<br>

The unofficial photographer is not an amateur photographer, but has only recently considered branching out into wedding photography. However, as I'm sure people are aware, in order to get paid jobs, you need some kind of portfolio, which going off some of the posts on here means you would presumably be classed as an amateur in that particular area while building said portfolio. So, to the people physically sickened by the sight of someone taking photos without being paid, how did you start off becoming a pro without ever having been an amateur?<br>

Photos taken by the unofficial photographer were independent of the ones set up by the official photographer, and were more of a documentary style. No 'over the shoulder' shots were taken at all either.<br>

The unofficial photographer provided a disc of all photos to the B&G as a thank you for the experience. They were also consulted before any photos were published.<br>

Regarding professional courtesy, the unofficial photographer actually emailed the website link to the professional saying thanks for allowing him to shoot and that any comments and critique on the photos would be welcomed (as discussed during the reception). It was also made clear that the unofficial photographer fully appreciated that the pro was a busy person, so wasn't expecting free lessons in photography or anything. This was approximately four months before the pro emailed the B&G to ask for them to request the removal.<br>

The unofficial photographer did not mention either way on the site that he was shooting in any official capacity, but this was purely down to a lack of experience in professional photography, not malice, an attempt to mis-sell a service or (don't make me laugh) fraud. He has now said that he will be clarifying this on the website, but as the photos are his copyright and no posing, set up or composition was copied or stolen he sees no reason why he should remove them entirely.<br>

The unofficial photographer was also requested by the B&G, who knew he was looking to build a portfolio, so while I'm sure while a couple of people will shudder at the thought of a wedding guest getting above their station, it wasn't a simple case of an 'agressive wannabe' running around with a camera.<br>

It has also since become clear that the B&G are not entirely happy with the pro (photos and general attitude since money changed hands) and it has been suggested by the B&G that some additional photos are taken by the unofficial photographer (with them in their wedding clothes) to capture shots that were requested but not provided by the pro.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Well then--it seems the official photographer has no grounds to complain or demand removal of images.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thank you for the response.<br />The articulate information clarifies a lot and it is now much easier to see the scene, and the preceding to it and the proceedings of it.</p>

<p>Specifically: all the points are noted which address any comment I made and questions overt or implied, and specifically, thank you for that.</p>

<p>It is still my opinion that the B&G take the reins: however now that it is apparent that they are dissatisfied with the Official Photographer’s work and attitude it would be best apply more finesse the situation, until all dealings are complete and all goods recieved.<br>

In this regard, if “friend photographer” is indeed a “friend” then maybe if he and his work takes a background position for a short time, that is all the finesse, which will be required.</p>

<p>Also, in light of the additional information you have provided I withdraw the comment:<br /><em></em><br /><em>“</em><em>“friend photographer” posts wedding photo is and is very pleased – makes ego very big, now I am “professional” – beats chest.”</em></p>

<p>Whilst this comment was created with merely a bit of descriptive theatre in mind and not malice – it is acknowledged that no “chest beating” was involved at all – so: sorry if that raised the hairs on “friend photographer’s” neck: but it was never meant to, rather it was meant only describe a “newbie” being pleased with himself, which is a common human response.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>thanks for the clarity - I think that if the photographer we are speaking about wants to get into the wedding business - they need to network in their community through their local PPA chapter and put it out there that they want to "tag-along" without pay... this way you are a shooter known to the pro and you can use those images in the portfolio --- most newbies want to be a paid second shooter right off the bat and I have found that I do not use but a handful of second shooter images... B&G buy my style not my seconds style - so it's not and issue with me. I do put it in my second's contract they cannot name the location anywhere on their website or blog - nor can they name the B&G or the wedding date. They also have to wait one month after the wedding before posting. This way I can get all my images out, up and marketed based on my business. </p>

<p> </p>

[maira_sharron]

<p>If the contract doesn't state that he is the exclusive wedding photographer, then he doesn't have much recourse, I believe.</p>

<p>Now...about the use of photos on a website by another photographer after the event. This is the part that irks me. My thoughts are, under no circumstances should a person misrepresent the position he or she was in as a photographer. He should specifically state that he was a guest at the wedding. A potential bride and groom need to know this. Taking photos when the pressure is off is a whoooole different animal than being the hired pro who has to think about five different things at once while in a pressured situation. There's also the dimension of being a friend of the bride and groom - also completely different than being the professional who is hired. It's a given that the friend should be able to get some funny moments during the reception that isn't always possible by the pro. They know the people - and are automatically more relaxed. They are going to get some photos that you wish you could (the candid crazy ones). However, the pro will know what to look for that the friend will not. They know when they see something across the room that has potential and will wait for the right moment for an emotional shot. So in this regard, I don't find them to be competition. I don't discourage these people because I put myself in the bride and groom's shoes and know that they want as many pictures as they can get.</p>

<p>That said, I don't sit well with over the shoulder shots from people that I perceive to be in it for their own gain without the pain. I've had it from so many different angles - from a friend tagging along with her camera, to videographers who want shadow me and slow up my timing -- or worse -- to have no respect for "the moments" at the reception. I can certainly work around the videographers, but it's become kind of a sick joke for me to include the videographers in some of the shots because some can be so obnoxious that they are sharing the dance floor with the bride and groom during the first dance, or completely block the guests' view of the bride and groom during the toast because they park themselves directly in front of them. I have had aggressive guests who try to elbow me out of shots, haha. If it gets too annoying, I won't hesitate to say something. If someone has anchored themselves in a spot (like at the cake cutting) that I want, I don't think twice about stepping in front of them. But I digress.</p>

<p>I disagree that it's up to the bride and groom to fix the situation. It is up to the photographer who wants to be a pro to fix the situation. He should defer to the wishes of the pro that was paid to photograph the event. The question was asked, "but how can he get started in the business if he doesn't do this?" He gets started like many other people who get started -- you start by being a small guppy in a very big pool. You do a couple weddings dirt cheap. Do a friend's wedding who can't afford a photographer for free. Etc. The cream will always rise to the top. If he's good, his photos will show it and he will start getting business. If he's not that good, he won't get business. That's the way it works. But he can't claim a wedding as his own unless he shoots it as the main photographer.</p>

<p>As far as the bride and groom not appreciating the photos that the pro took -- really? Did they ask to see his portfolio before they hired him? Did they ask to see a couple of examples of full weddings that he shot? If not, then they have only themselves and their small pocketbooks to blame. I take offense to the notion that "after money exchanged hands" they decided that he wasn't all that he was cracked up to be, and they if they further stated that they liked their friend's pictures better, than shame on them for being rather small in courtesy and grace. It's up to the bride and groom to do thorough research before they hire a wedding photographer. </p>

<p>Shows like "say yes to the dress" and "bridezilla" have made it perfectly acceptable to act like Veruca Salt. I try to steer clear of people I sense might be like that. Or by people who try to get the most for the least. This isn't a used car lot. Respect is mutual. If you paid for a Ford, then don't complain that it doesn't perform like a Rolls Royce.</p>

<p>Tell the photographer friend of the bride and groom to put on his big boy pants and become a wedding photographer the right way....through hard work and some personal sacrifice. Not by gleaning wedding pictures off another photographer's back.</p>

<p> </p>

[brett_buckley]

<p>

<p>William W - No hairs raised and understand what you mean.<br>

Francie Baltazar - Thanks for the mention of PPA and the clarity regarding acting as a second shooter.<br>

Maira - No offence, but while I agree with quite a few of your points, and take on board what appears to be some sound advice, I think you're either irked about a completely unrelated incident and you're venting here, or you've skipped the additional posts that clarify a lot of your gripes/accusations and essentially make many of them irrelevant in this particular situation.</p>

</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Maira. excellent post, you're spot on.</p>

<p>Brett, no offence, but if you already know the answer you want to hear, then why ask on the forum in the first place?</p>

<p>It's very good if the unofficial photographer was not taking any pictures remotely similar to the official photographer/taking pictures over his/her shoulder, and not photographing for example portraits in situations prepared by the official photographer, and that may justify inclusion of one or two pictures on the website, but it doesn't change the fundamental issues. If the unofficial photographer has enough experience in any case they will have shot enough weddings as official photographer so that they won't really need to include these odd extra unofficial pictures on their site.</p>

<p>As to how they get experience as official photographer without a portfolio, Maira described it well.</p>

<p>Maira is also abolutely right about eg. videographers. There are some who build an entire business by following the photographer round and videoing everything over their shoulder, getting in the way a lot in the process. Most are perfectly fine to get on with and do their own thing, but there are a few that make a business just by leaching off others creativity.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm delighted that others should take pictures at weddings I photograph - the more the merrier. But I do object when others start to make a business from following me around. We're told the unofficial photographer didn't do that in this case, which may or may not be true, but in any case, the unofficial photographer shouldn't need to use those photographs to set up a business. Giving them to the bride and groom, yes absolutely, put a load of them on a wedding website without warning that these were some pictures taken as a guest at a wedding - no, it would be unethical.</p>

<p>I would qualify that by saying - if there really was no shadowing or otherwise being inspired by the official photographer, then including one or two pictures among lots of pictures from weddings where the unofficial photographer was the official photographer, that would I think would be OK. The problem is that I see too many photographers misrepresenting their experience, their capabilities, the circumstances where photos were taken, on their websites, and to me it is just a no-no. The result is lots of clients who are terribly disappointed when photographers muck up their weddings. I often come across people who have tales about the final results at their wedding being nothing like the standard work the photographer advertised on their website.</p>

<p>If this unofficial photographer has the experience to produce the results when he's official photographer, then that's great, and he will already have more than enough material taken as official photographer to show on his website to prove it. If he doesn't already have that material, then he doesn't know whether he can or can't.</p>

[finimage]

<p>Thanks for the clarity Brett. <br>

It does sound like the Pro is feeling threatened or at least out done on this occasion. Your point that the unpaid Tog was setting up their own shots does take the heat away from the argument however after reading Maria's post (I do not wholly agree on all the points...) I do accept that the second set of photos need to be qualified so the prospective vendors are aware they were not shot in a Professional capacity and would further agree that following the path of rights in building a photographic Wedding Portfolio is the ethical and Professional manner to approach building a Wedding business.<br>

That said on the whole the Pro needs to take a chill pill, he has not been miss represented nor taken advantage off. We have two independent sets of images from the same day...<br>

The Friend does need to consider the legitimacy of the 'Free shoot' in a professional context. Having read Maria's argument I'd not be using such material for direct sales of services. It does however give the Tog a point of reference in terms of what can be done...in which case a valuable learning experience.<br>

I hate threads when they get this long, so again I've not read everything..apologies if I'm off script with the above.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>The OP's question is that if the piad tog has the legal rights to ask the unpaid tog to remove pics from that particular wedding from the unpaid tog's site. The answer clearly is "no".</p>

<p>Whehter the photographic community has the morla high ground as a group to ban such practice is irrelevant. </p>