Unauthorized usage by a second shooter...

[William Michael]

<p>haha!<br>

Point taken.<br>

You are now abbreviated, I noticed.</p>

[ianivey]

<blockquote>

<p>A contract isn't always the answer, work with people that you have a relationship of respect & trust with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> A contract is the primary vehicle by which to establish a relationship of respect and trust. :)</p>

<p>I think people often mistake enforcement as the main value of a contract (not that David was necessarily making this mistake). Enforcement is usually expensive, and maybe seven times out of 10 it is more expensive than it's worth.</p>

<p><strong>The main value of a contract is to establish mutual understanding and agreement.</strong> Most people entering verbal agreements think they've clearly articulated their expectations, and I'd argue they're usually incorrect. And even when they have, people still misunderstand and forget what others say.</p>

<p>The contract is mainly a tool to help us walk through an agreement step by step and affirm understanding of each point. After that, its next most valuable purpose is to serve as an easily cited reminder of what we agreed to.</p>

<p>Enforcement of an agreement is much less likely to be necessary when a contract is in place than it is when no contract is signed.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Even if this was true, there would still be harm in a person representing that they were hired to cover the wedding when in fact another studio was hired and they were simply 2nd shooting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was the second shooter PAID? If so, he was "hired to shoot the wedding." It's a true statement unless he claims that he was hired EXCLUSIVELY to shoot the wedding.</p>

<p>If he volunteered (like an Uncle Bob), then he can't claim to have been hired, but it sounds as though this shooter was paid for the job. It doesn't matter who hired them - the client or the primary - they were "hired" to shoot the job. To argue that they weren't hired would be deceitful.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The main value of a contract is to establish mutual understanding and agreement</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whilst this is true, a contract is only of any use after a problem occurs in order to clarify the situation. If everything goes to plan, the contract is not consulted.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"A contract is the primary vehicle by which to establish a relationship of respect and trust." </em> :)</p>

<p>Despite the smiley face, I think this statement is just plan sad.</p>

<p>@Dan, if your studio was hired to shoot a wedding and you allowed an assistant to take a few photos and paid him as an assistant, then him representing himself as the wedding photographer for client A in his public self-promotion/marketing then it is indeed deceitful.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Was the second shooter PAID? If so, he was "hired to shoot the wedding." It's a true statement unless he claims that he was hired EXCLUSIVELY to shoot the wedding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Omitting material facts resulting in a misleading or deceptive claims amounts to misleading and deceptive advertising just as much as lying does. Let's not incorrectly give people the impression that such practices will pass legal muster or that it is a proper business practice in general.</p>

<p>A curious illustration of how an omission, itself, can be deceptive is in Dan's post. He omits the fact that omissions can lead to misleading and deceptive advertising and then concludes that such advertising must then be perfectly valid since there is no falsity, per se, in the actual statements made. IOW a material omission is used to incorrectly defend a material omission. Incorrectly on both accounts. I'm confident, however, that it arose out of ignorance rather than purposeful misleading of the readers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To argue that they weren't hired would be deceitful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The promotion is obviously designed to convince people that the shooter had primary responsibility to handle the wedding themselves and that the shooter is, thus, qualified to do such things. One example of a typical state law against "False Advertising" includes situations where there is...</p>

<p><em>-"a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source..." of " ...another person's affiliation, connection, or association with or certification of goods or services."</em><br>

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

<em>-"representing that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have."</em><br>

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

<em>-"engaging in any other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding and which misleads, deceives... ...in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services."</em><br>

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

<em>"using or employing deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or knowingly concealing, suppressing, or <strong>omitting a material fact</strong> with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods or services whether or not a person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

To say that objection to the second 'claiming they were "hired to shoot the wedding' in the context it was made is deceitful is absurd. Its the other way around.</p>

<p>As previously noted, the fact that the primary may have a claim to make for unfair trade practices or false advertising doesn't mean its worthwhile. If they were to suffer substantial or ongoing harm then it is a much different situation. The primary, should they wish to take action, nevertheless, will need to apply the law in their jurisdiction. Something we can't advise them on here.</p>

[thomas_abbott1]

<p>Your friend had a contract with the assistant, albeit an oral contract. File a lawsuit. Your friend may not win, but the action should convince the assistant to avoid that kind of predatory action against your friend in the future. As part of that lawsuit the couple would be open season, meaning your friend you elicit the truth from them that they hired her and not the assistant. As part of settlement, your friend could require that all references on the Internet regarding the assistant's having shot the wedding be removed.</p>

[james_smith55]

<p>Part of this situation is pretty straight forward and easy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A couple days ago I happened to find a blog post on a major wedding photography blog about this wedding, giving full credit to the wife of the assistant, including a two paragraph quote about how she shot the wedding and an interview from the couple that hired my friend.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>All your friend has to do is contact the blog and tell them about the copyright violation and fraudulent post.</strong> Your friend has a signed contract from the bride. <strong>That blog post should be taken down in about millisecond and the fraudster will probably be permanently banned.</strong> I would take a screen capture of the fraud before hand and keep copies of my email correspondences with the blog. I would also send an email warning the fraudster to stop using the pictures and misrepresenting my work as someone else's. I like email at least initially because people will admit and/or confirm things in emails they simply will not respond to when you send them a certified letter. After several back and forth emails where they will unwittingly confirm what they did then send a certified cease and desist letter. Keep all correspondences and screen caps to use in case these crooks don't get the message.</p>

<p>Also the EXIF of the images should help confirm which camera took which pictures.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I thought the issue is that the second photographer's <strong>wife</strong> is credited with taking the photos and being hired by the bride. There is no question of copyright violation, as far as I can see--just a complete fabrication on the part of the second photographer in an effort to promote his business.</p>

<p>Aside from using a contract next time, I would simply contact the blog's 'person in charge' to explain the circumstances, adding that I could provide a signed contract for wedding photography from that specific bride, as proof of my statements. I would nicely ask for removal of the post on the grounds that all statements in the post are fabricated.</p>

<p>I would be very surprised if the blog's head person did not take the post down. If he or she didn't, I might post a comment on the blog, under the post, revealing the situation (in a calm, factual style).</p>

<p>I would also send a certified letter to the second photographer which describes my deep disappointment in his actions, my resolve never to use him again for any kind of photography job, and a sincere wish for him to come to his senses regarding his future actions to promote his business.</p>

[jnina]

<p>This people have no ETHICS! Since your friend has other photographers that recommend each other then I would tell everyone what happen to me! And use this as a experience for next time! This business is based on Ethics. If you don't have any then you will not survive or have business to do!</p>