Unofficial photographer using wedding photos in portfolio

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>The OP's question is that if the piad tog has the legal rights to ask the unpaid tog to remove pics</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Err, nope that was not the question - not in the original post at least. He didn't even mention legal rights of the pro tog, let alone ask about them. He just described the situation generally and said "Any advice would be greatly appreciated."</p>

<p>No reason not to include a discussion of legal rights if you want, but that's not what was asked about.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>It seems to me that the ethical/practical discussion of 'what should I do' is more interesting and relevant than the legal one, but just in case anyone is interested in the legal side of it - <strong><em>if</em></strong> the unofficial photographer did put the photos on his website in a way that was misleading, then at least in the UK, there would be legal recourse that the official photographer could bring against the unofficial one, if he could be bothered. Whether he actually would go to the effort is another matter, but technically he could, and US law may well have roughly equivalent provisions.</p>

<p>A lot would depend on the specifics of how the photos were presented and to what extent the unofficial photographer was being misleading about his experience etc. - and in particular whether clients might book him where they wouldn't if they knew the full facts, but it's not accurate to say outright that the official photographer would have no legal recourse.</p>

 

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>that an unofficial photographer has published these 'for professional gain'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Simon, "for professional gain" seemed to be a drumed up term to me specifically invented to suit the purposes of the paid tog. I don't know much about copyright much less copyright laws in the UK but take the biggest wedding on earh, the Will and Kate wedding. There are numerous unpaid togs camped outside of the palace or church, snapped a few shots and posted them on their websites, many obviously did so for "professional gain". Does the royal family or the paid togs to the royal wedding have the rights to ask all those upaid togs to remove pictures from their sites?</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Hi Green, no there's not too much wrong with using pics for commercial gain usually (subject to all the usual caveats about model releases/provided the B&G don't mind etc.). Commercial gain is on the whole a good thing.</p>

 

[maira_sharron]

<p>Green - I guess it's how you interpret "for professional gain." The OP stated that the amateur photographer posted these photos on his website as examples of their style of wedding photos as they are trying to establish themselves as a wedding photographer. If he doesn't disclose his true role at the wedding, then it is for professional gain. Pretending he was the official photographer portrays to the client that he was vetted against other photographers when the bride and groom made their choice, and they chose him. They didn't. He didn't meet with them to discuss the wedding. He didn't offer them samples or albums to look at. He didn't converse with them prior to the wedding regarding options for after ceremony locations, or counsel on timelines based on his experience. He didn't answer any questions or offer wedding check lists. He didn't set up lighting equipment, nor did he offer advice on how he handles a wedding when it starts late and ends later, reducing the manageable 1.5 hours to a measly 30 minutes of after ceremony photos. He doesn't offer photographic examples of how he handles a back lit wedding, or a dark church. All he shows are some nice journalistic photos of his friends. It takes more than that to be a wedding photographer. Learn by doing -- but be honest in the process.</p>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

Taking photos of Will and Kate and posting them on your website is a cool thing, but it just proves you have a long lens and were on the grounds. Show me a picture of the Queen talking intimately with her grandson, and you'll hook me. Otherwise, I'm not impressed. </p>

<p>Can he use the images? Probably. This is more of an ethical issue on the part of the amateur photographer. You can justify anything if you try hard enough. For example....if you won 3rd place in a photo competition hosted by your city's zoo, you would technically be an "award winning photographer." Would it be ethical to advertise yourself as such? I say absolutely not. However, others might think, "hey whatever makes me sound good and gets me business." </p>

<p>Unfortunately, in this day of instant gratification, there are too many eager and inexperienced wedding photographers that don't want to invest the time and effort to learn what they are doing before they do it. They are cutting their teeth on weddings that they secured through empty promises.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that this particular amateur can't do the job he portrays that he is paid to do. I'm just saying that for every one lucky break of a good inexperienced photographer, you will get 20 that will not meet the standard. If a buyer is not willing to be thorough before signing a contract, then he or she may be in for a surprise.</p>

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maira, the paid tog was paid to provide a service and I don't see how the unpaid tog's action even if it leads up to "professional gain" is any of his concerns. </p>

<p>As to the ethical side, if the unpaid tog clarifies on his website his position, what does it really mean to the average brides who have no knowledge of photography? They likely won't know the difference between back lighting or harsh direct sunlight. And no bride books photog based on their knowledge on these subjects too. </p>

<p> </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Hey if a wedding couple can't help a friend out looking to add some wedding pics to his/her portfolio then the world has become a pretty sad place.<br>

Many wedding photographers started out taking pictures at family members weddings that they were invited too. When other family members or friends would see the photos they would often ask them to take some shots at their weddings.<br>

After the second world war photographers would often show up at churches and shoot on spec hoping to sell some prints to the couple later.</p>

[maira_sharron]

<p>Green,</p>

<p>Re the unpaid photographer. We agree that he should clarify his role at the wedding, and not let the buyer assume he shot those for pay.</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree with your other point. What do you talk about when you are meeting with a client for the first time? One of the books I show the bride, or the couple, is a self mounted album with prints I select to portray my knowledge of composition, the mechanics of the camera and technical skill based on experience. I flip the pages and then I briefly describe the scenario. "During this wedding, which was at 4:30 p.m. in September, the sun was positioned directly in the back of the church so that they streamed in the back windows. Had I not known how to compensate for that very harsh back lighting, the bride would have come up the aisle as a silhouette." etc. It doesn't take long, and they are duly informed that I know what I'm talking about. </p>

<p>I disagree that the bride doesn't book a photographer based on knowledge. I've been told more than once that the reason they booked me over other comparable photographers they met with was because of my "passion when talking about photography." They hear it in my voice when I describe scenarios. Which is a good thing, I guess, because I'm not a very gregarious person.</p>

[maira_sharron]

<p>And in case you can't figure it out -- my position is to protect the couple from being misled by a person portraying himself as a paid photographer to get the gig. There's a right and a wrong way to advertise yourself as a new photographer. The right way is to say you want to break into the business and will offer you a free or low cost wedding. The bride knows what she's getting and that it may be a bust, but perhaps that's a better alternative than no photos at all. The photographer gets to gain the experience needed as it relates to the whole process. There's more to wedding photography than just taking pictures.</p>

<p>The wrong way is to post your "journalistic" photos on line without disclosure, and then charge a rate that isn't commensurate with experience. That's deceit.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Based on all the info from Brent, the unofficial photographer did nothing wrong, and official photographer is acting like an insecure spoiled child. I do enjoy all the speculation about the unofficial photographers intentions and the quality of his work based on un-verified or supported assumptions since I don't think anyone but Brent has actually seen the wibsite or the photographs. I know if I was shooting a wedding I wouldn't and don't like it if people are keeping me from doing my job, but I don't give a fig if everyone else's photos go up on FB or whatever, why would I? That would be so presumptuous. A wedding isn't about the photographer, the photographer is just another vendor at the job. That's my opinion.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>the photographer is just another vendor at the job</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I felt like that, then I would give up wedding photography, and do something else where I'm 'just doing a job' but more profitable and less effort. To me, the wedding photography is something much more personal, and something I actually care about. Some vendors do turn up, do the job, collect the money, go home, and I always thought it sad, both for them and their clients.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't give a fig if everyone else's photos go up on FB or whatever</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think many photographers would care if photos went up on Facebook, nor on for example in a photostream on Flickr or on a blog "here's some pics I took as a guest at a wedding, anyone want me to come along and try my hand at taking some pics at their wedding?" and such like. No problem with that whatsoever. But the OP described the situation thus:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>used a selection of photos on their website as examples of their style of wedding photos as they are trying to establish themselves as a wedding photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is quite a different situation. It sounds very much as though the photographer may have a dedicated website where they're holding themselves out to be a wedding photographer, which may not make it clear that it's an amateur who hasn't done a wedding in anger, and that would be a whole different ball game.<br>

It may be that that isn't the case, and we're just talking about a Facebook gallery or suchlike, but if not, I would have expected the OP to have told us by now.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>They likely won't know the difference between back lighting or harsh direct sunlight. And no bride books photog based on their knowledge on these subjects</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I met a bride/potential client last night who specifically asked how I'd handle backlighting during the ceremony. She had a friend who'd got married with a backlit ceremony where the hired photographer's pictures all came out as massively underexposed silhouettes.</p>

<p>I'm wondering what kind of experience that photographer had with dealing with all the different tricky lighting situations you come across at weddings. Perhaps he'd just shown a selection of snaps he took as a guest at friend's weddings? Whatever, the result was a friend's ruined wedding photos. An experienced professional ought to be able to cope with whatever situation is thrown at them, and backlit ceremonies is a pretty basic and common one.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>if I felt like that, then I would give up wedding photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might be mistaking the meaning of what I'm saying here... Any job one takes on should be done with the highest respect and professionalism and hopefully, with love and enjoyment as well. What, I'm saying that in the overall picture of the bride and groom in a wedding, as important as photographs are, wedding photographers should not lose sight that the wedding is the thing. All the others are there to serve the bride and groom. It's not about some photographer's needs. In a situation like this, if the facts are as Brent said, the pro should never even have brought the bride and groom into this. Why does this become their problem? It seems to me that sometimes listening to professional wedding photographers, they act as if the whole event was about meeting their concerns, not the B/G. As important as the photos are to B/G's, and I guarantee you different couple have different sense of how important they are from most important to an afterthought, there are other things also going on that are just as important to them if not more. Yes, make beautiful heart felt photographs that will capture the specialness of the event for them, that's the job, knowing even if they don't get it now, in the future they will appreciate what you've done, but don't lose perspective about what your doing either. Photography is not the only thing going on there. </p>

 

[maira_sharron]

<p>Barry,<br>

I'm not sure if you are comprehending the message from the photographer's point of view. I confess that I don't remember all the responses, but I don't think I saw anywhere that any photographer was trying to hold photos hostage. Every single photographer I know do not care that other people take photos and post them on Facebook. I agree that the bride and groom should have as many photos as they want. Just don't misrepresent them as having taken them as the pro. That's not too hard to fathom, is it? Share a hundred thousand pictures if you want, just don't mislead the public on what your role is at the wedding.</p>

<p>Now to your other point. You said, <em>"It seems to me that sometimes listening to professional wedding photographers, they act as if the whole event was about meeting their concerns, not the B/G" </em></p>

<p><em> </em>You're not a wedding photographer, I take it. What exactly do you mean by that? Other than the posting of photos (which I already said isn't a concern to many photographers).</p>

<p>It's ALL about the bride and groom. They state expectations. We do our best to meet those expectations. We aren't "directing" them to do what we want -- we are adhering as best as we can to their wishes. If you think I'm walking around telling the bride and groom what to do all day, you have no clue what we do. </p>

<p>However, I am realistic with them. The bride may desperately want to hit three locations within two hours - because "I want as many pictures as possible!" but fails to factor in her 30 groupings in her formal shot list, the time in the receiving line, and the 45 minutes of travel involved. It's my job to tell her that this is a difficult achievement. This doesn't make it about meeting MY concerns -- it's my concern that they are going to be one hell of a stressed out bridal party. It's my job to be able to convey the message and still have them feel good about the decision to consider quality of quantity. It's my job to make sure I get the best shot possible at the ceremony and the reception. It's my job to "go with the flow" when timelines are smashed to pieces. It's my job to be professional and unaffected by any unexpected circumstances that come my way (like a tornado, or the lights not working in a church, or the ceremony running 1/2 hour longer than expected and confessions beginning 1/2 hour sooner than stated, etc., etc., etc.). It's my job to capture emotion. Most of the time that's easy, but sometimes you get a couple that are as emotional as stones -- it's my job to find it. It's my job to nicely explain to cousin Johnnie (who is usually about 10 years old) why he needs to move out of my way when I'm shooting. We don't direct this stuff. It's not about us. It's our JOB to ensure that it remains about them. It's our job to give them exactly what is their heart's desire within the framework that we are given, and convey all communication and demeanor in a way that is as friendly, comfortable, stress and error free as possible. </p>

<p>So. If a guest wants to get into wedding photography - go for it. I've had so many people come up to me and tell me that, I've lost count. Share the pictures. Give them to the bride and groom as a gift. Just don't pretend to be a wedding photographer until you actually do it for real. It offends me. Why? Because some gullible bride and groom are going to get suckered into hiring an unqualified photographer based on the deception he fed them. If that makes me one of those awful "all about me" photographers that you are complaining about, then so be it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Maira,<br>

Of course people shouldn't misrepresent their portfolios as a general rule, but there's nothing in any of the facts given in this situation that even suggests the "non-pro" did any such thing. There was what sounds like clear communication by the other photog, he had the B/G's permission to show his photos of the wedding for a portfolio. There's nothing wrong with him or doing that. The professional photographer in this instance comes across to me at least as being a bit of a prima-donna. Where does he get off asking the other guy to take down his photos and then complain to the B/G? Sorry. I'm a photographer too, and I just don't get how that is professional. I really don't have a problem if the new guy puts himself out for hire. If the photos he took are his own creations and represent his skill level than how is it a misrepresentation of his quality? As long as he's honest about his experience, I say I have no right to tell him he or she shouldn't work. In this case, I'm sure you are discussing a general proposition about misrepresenting oneself. Fair enough, but there is nothing in the given facts here that suggested anyone did that.</p>

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>Where does he get off asking the other guy to take down his photos and then complain to the B/G?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely agreed. The B/G paid their photog to perform a service not to adjudicate a dispute between the paid tog and the unpaid tog. If I am ever in this situation, I would just deal with the unpaid tog myself and not involve the B/G. Looking back, it is rather unprofessional for the paid tog to get the B/G involved unneccsarily.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I agree with you Barry if the photos are the other guys own creation then they represent what he could be capable of. If the B&G were happy for him to take them photos then whats the problem. If the B&G want to give a friend some of their time to make so portraits then again whats the problem it's their wedding day. As long as the guy is not representing himself as some kind of experience wedding photograper and is honest with clients about his experience or lack of it then again what is the problem.</p>

<p>Wedding photography is not rocket science, it's not easy either and it is easy to mess up with no second chances. But shooting in back lit situations, low lighting and difficult lighting situations is something just about every photographer on the planet should be able to do. These are not skills exclusive to wedding photographers or techniques exclusive to wedding photography. These are basic skills that every photographer needs to learn to produce decent compentent photographs.</p>

<p>As I understand the other guy in this story is not an amature photographer so should have developed these skills already. Worrying about whether he can cope with technical side of photography is not really something to be concerned about. If his style is photojournalistc then he may well not do posed shots but seek out couple that want a more informal approach.</p>

<p>Now please don't think I agree with the current fashion of buying a DSLR shooting some snaps at a friends wedding and two weeks later setting up a website and selling oneself as a wedding photographer. I sincerely hope and believe that this is not the case here. A wedding is the last place to learn basic photography skills or basic posing skills. Those skills should have been learnt long before going anywhere near someones wedding.</p>

[davebarnes007]

<p>I would just like to say sorry to the pro photographer at kirk & laura's wedding in my portfolio here<br>

on photo.net as the 5 group photos under the tree were set up by her. also the first 4 photos in <br>

[weddings ]were shot on a photo workshop.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p> the photographer is just another vendor at the job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I don't do wedding photography but I do play music at weddings sometimes. live music, Photography, Catering, etc. are all just services to enhance the day. There isn't anything special about wedding photography compared to all the other vendors.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>I would just like to say sorry to the pro photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rather than apologise and go ahead and do it, wouldn't it be better just not to show them as examples in your own portfolio?</p>

<p>I suppose, at least you're not trying to show them on your website for potential clients as examples of your work. I hope!</p>

 

[maira_sharron]

<p><em>There isn't anything special about wedding photography compared to all the other vendors.</em></p>

<p>To put what you said it context to the issues photographers have vs. the caterer or musician. It would be like guests pulling up chairs and playing the harmonica and blow in empty bottles along with you as you play Long Tall Sally. It's like Aunt Sally and Cousin Martha and Sister Susie rolling up their sleeves and elbowing the caterers for counter space because they decided that the bride and groom wants some canoli to remember along with the other desserts.</p>

<p>And although there may be nothing special about the photographer compared to any other vendor, there is a difference. Whether or not the band packed the dance floor...whether or not the chicken was soggy or cooked to perfection...they become faded memories. Long after the food is eaten and the music is played, the photos are moments of that day that last forever. </p>

<p>You can argue that all the guests could provide the photos that the bride and groom need. You may be right. If they aren't fussy and particular, they could. If they are satisfied with snapshots (and many are) But. As I have mentioned several times throughout the thread, it's not just about just taking pictures. If you've never shot a full wedding from beginning to end as the hired professional, you will not comprehend what I'm saying. And...if you are a hired pro that thinks wedding photography is so easy that anyone can do it, please speak up now. I'd like to hear your side - maybe I can learn a few things.</p>

<p>And as far as the other guy who fessed up to his portfolio photos that are from his camera, but staged by someone else....all I can say is that there are a lot of you out there. Buyer beware.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>and playing the harmonica and blow in empty bottles along with you as you play Long Tall Sally</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That happens (although there isn't enough money in the world to make me play Long Tall Sally.... or Brown Eyed Girl for that matter!).</p>

[maira_sharron]

<p>Steve -- :-) Bringing it full circle to the OP. The harmonica player takes a photo of himself playing with your band and you see a flyer at a coffee shop where he advertises himself for hire to play. It would never happen, right, because it is absurd, deceiptful and borderline crazy. That's how I feel about people who advertise themselves as a wedding photographer using photographs taken as a guest. </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>although there isn't enough money in the world to make me play Long Tall Sally</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I probably have played Long Tall Sally. I was think of that other Sally, with a Mustang!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It would never happen, right</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure it would. Doesn't make it right though.</p>

[mark_harrington1]

<p>Somehow we have to leave our ego's at the door. The "Official Photographer" was paid for his work. I know that it's a pain to have other photographers distract our b/g's but it goes with the territory. I believe the pro should have simply ignored the post of the same wedding. While he may loose some business if his work is compared to the emerging photographer and found to be equal or less than, that's not likely at this point. He should use this as a selling tool to educate prospective clients by showing his unique way of seeing a scene or his technical mastery. I'm not saying bad mouth your competition, I'm saying create problem awareness by showing how the dress from your shot maintains details and isn't blown out etc. How timing affects the feel/emotional impact of the picture.<br>

In short, who cares? The photographer was paid for his services and isn't trying to keep a secret his unique style - after all he posted the pics online where any other photogrpaher can emulate his images. Be confident and sell your experience and ability, if it isn't better than the emerging photographer, you probably need to address your business model...</p>