The use of wedding photos I have taken

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>I'm not really at the start of my career as such, I have a Degree in photography which taken 6 years to get and that was intense! it's just the beginning of my Wedding photography which I do consider it the beginning and I have a separate website (which will be linked to the Wedding site), but this stops the confusion of the jack of all trades look. It helps to point people to the right place without a fight to get there.<br /><br />It's quite exciting to get on this path but I think the SWPP is definitely something I'm going to look at to help do this smoothly.<br>

You guys are full of knowledge! thank you for taking the time to respond so in-depth, it's greatly appreciated!</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Well, there you go! Congratulations.</p>

<p>The SWPP sounds like a good thing to join. I've found the PPA — a counterpart here in the USA — very valuable and after being a member of the national organization for several years, I finally joined the local chapter as well and started attending monthly meetings. I've found it quite useful.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>p.s. Wow, a thread with a happy ending! How many of those do we see here? ;-)</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>He said yes he said I could use them! No restrictions either! Fab chap!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the UK, I don't think that is <em>completely</em> the last word. Since the primary photog has okayed it, I'd contact the subject of the images (since they are likely not merely incidental in the images), and obtain permission<strong> from them</strong> <em>as well</em> to use the images for advertising your business. </p>

<p>I'm in the US, so we photogs have a bit freer of a hand, but it appears that (unlike the US) the photog is <em>also</em> subject to libel laws in the use of imagery (here, only the entity that <em>uses</em> the image libelously is subject, not the photog, who merely took the picture). In your case though, <em>your</em> <strong>use</strong> could put you in the hotseat - if the subject was a jerk (or really offended ;-) ). In general, I would caution that you cover all your bases, <em>not</em> because someone could sue you, but because it's common courtesy.</p>

<p>(Keep in mind that my 'understanding' is only garnered from some brief internet surfing, I have no practical or in depth knowledge of UK law)</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>In the UK, I don't think that is <em>completely</em> the last word. Since the primary photog has okayed it, I'd contact the subject of the images (since they are likely not merely incidental in the images), and obtain permission<strong> from them</strong><em>as well</em> to use the images for advertising your business.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />It depends on how you want to use them. If you intend to use them to advertise your wedding photography business then you should have their permission - preferably written.</p>

<p> </p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Correct, such provision for second shooters or "Jo Bloggs photography and any photographers acting for Jo Bloggs photography" is normally written as such into the language of the lead photographer's contract. I say 'normally' but I'm beginning to suspect this guy is a bit casual and I suggest Tammy clarifies that such permissions were formally obtained. If not, as you say, she would need to gain consent before publishing the images.</p>

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Oh god, think I'm just going to bury my head in the sand! :( good news turned bad :(.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>No Tammy, not bad at all! Just double check with the photographer that the requisite permissions cover you. If not, perhaps the client can be approached and asked, in my experience it's very rare for somebody to say no. </p>

[william-porter]

<p>Tammy,</p>

<p>Oh, don't despair just yet.</p>

<p>Let me repeat my caveat: I AM NOT A LAWYER. I'm certainly not a British (or even Scottish) lawyer. So I'm not going to give you advice, and if you think you hear advice in what I'm going to say, you should think about it on your own and don't take it from me. But I will tell you what I would do. </p>

<p>I'd just use the photos. </p>

<p>I'm assuming first that reaching the subjects in these photos will not be easy for you. Of course, if it's easy, then by all means, do it.</p>

<p>I further assume you're not going to post anything embarrassing to the subjects. I assume you're putting these on your web site—not publishing them in a print magazine. I also assume that your website provides a way for visitors to contact you. If those assumptions are correct, then, unless things Over There are really different than they are here in Texas, I'm reasonably confident that you aren't going to get hit with a lawsuit out of the blue. On the very off chance that somebody (a) discovers that you've put their image on the Internet and (b) doesn't like that fact, certainly the most reasonable course of action for them to take is to contact you, and of course, if they do, you'll apologize, thank them for contacting you, and remove that photo from the site immediately. And that will be the end of that.</p>

<p>I can <em>imagine</em> ways in which following that course of action could turn out badly. I can also imagine dying a dozen horrible deaths this very afternoon while I drive to pick up my daughter from school. But there's a difference between imagination and prudence, just as there is a difference between following the letter of the law and using your common sense.</p>

<p>Again: I'm not <em>recommending</em> that <em>you</em> do anything other than what's absolutely proper. But that's what I would do. And I would sleep fairly well at night. As with all things, common sense and good people skills make hiring a lawyer unnecessary.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[tammy_mckindle]

<p>Ok thanks once again, There is so much legal fences in this business! Definitely getting that insurance sorted!</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I've got to admit, the biggest hurdle in this business is the ability to balance good business sense with an ability to take good pictures. The legal 'fences' (IME) aren't a significant hurdle (IMO), and are largely avoided/mitigated with a good, well written, contract as well as excellent communication w/ clients. To me, those are far far more important than insurance (which is of course, not to be neglected)!</p>

[ellery_chua___singapore]

<p>At the chance of sound total silly, I suggest this. Find some one you know who is getting married but is tight on budget, offer to shoot their wedding, do a proper preplan- do all that could be done to prep for this go in prepared and do the dammest best you can. Edit and finished the photos to the best the images can be without unrealistic post production ( that can come after wards). Use these since that would be 100% your work.<br>

Using 2nd shooter work to show case a wedding is a little dangerous, 1. you will have an incomplete set - no 1st shooter will have you in for bride prep, you might get to do groom prep , 2. most of the couple shots would be controlled by 1st meaning that you did not handle the set up or directing of it hear me well there is a crucial difference when you have to do it yourself, 3. there are issues with getting approval from the 1st shooter and the couple who may be less than pleased at the exposure - they may have a black out request with the 1st shooter that you do not know about. <br>

Business matters also need to sorted out - a contract, how to structure the payment of feess, how much to charge - this is the biggie (get that wrong and in a short time you be bleed dry), insurance, the need for an assistant ? Shooting is relatively simple running the business is the hard part unless you were a business owner person first and a photographer latter. <br>

Maybe you could contact the MPA in UK, membership has some good points you can start to network and possible to find a mentor who has been in business long enough to be able to guide you. Your current guy seems to be a little green - it takes about 4 to 5 years being in the business full time before you are actually stable, the first 2 to 3 are elimination rounds. </p>

[ellery_chua___singapore]

<p>Sorry just to add I would avoid linking your site to your 1st shooter's it would start out by making yours look downgraded. </p>