Shot 1st Wedding for free, B&G now saying I can't use on website

[mike_b21]

<p>I asked these friends if I could shoot their wedding as I was starting out. I originally asked the groom if I could put them up, even though they were up already.<br>

I was contacted by the Groom yesterday to take down the photos. He says:<br>

"Now I am going to ask you please take down our wedding pictures from you website, within one week from today. After asking me and I declined you went ahead anyway. You have breached the confidence we entrusted you with, with our data and I don't want it put to commercial use by you. Not at this time, I remember saying. I am disappointed, and I find it, honestly very disrespectful. I may be compelled to take other measures within the law, if you don't. Thank you"<br /><br />My issue is that I had asked to shoot their wedding so I can start a business, but now they're saying I can't use them...So I've basically lost out!!<br /><br />I am thinking that maybe I ask to be paid for my work.<br /><br />What should I do, I'm pretty pee'd off with them as they're great photos, and I would normally be charging them £1k for all the work I put in. I have not done a few weddings, but I still want to be able to use the work.<br>

We never signed a contract, but I was young and foolish, now, I have one.<br>

I still have the copyright don't I?<br>

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Chuck it to experience. If you had a contract, that would make a provision to display these photos, then you could. You may have a copyright, but you have no contract or permission to put it on your website....and B&G could go legally after you. Don't know what they are saying, but it sounds like they took an advantage of you....and there is nothing that you can do. Good luck next time.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[katrin_d.]

<p>Looking back in a couple of months, you won't want to showcase your first wedding ... most likely, you're going to look back and cringe.<br>

<br />You may not have a written contract but if you had an oral agreement, that is technically a contract. One that courts love because it involves "but he said". That being said, I doubt your "friend" is going to sue you. You're still the copyright holder so you own the rights ... and could be an ass and say "fine, since you're changing our oral agreement in which you allowed me to use the photos, I'm changing it as well and charge you for the photos". See where this is going??</p>

<p>Chalk it up to experience and don't work without a contract. A written one. And ditch these "friends". They used you.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>At this point, I'd be very tempted to engage a lawyer to send a cease and desist copyright violation warning to them. You <em>do</em> own the copyright, and it sounds as if they have nothing. That "breach of confidence" goes both ways.<br>

But there is a serious lesson to be learned in this... t</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Looking back in a couple of months, you won't want to showcase your first wedding ... most likely, you're going to look back and cringe."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This.</p>

<p>I've shot a few weddings free as gifts for family and friends. They were better than nothing, and better than average snapshots, but nothing I'd use to promote a portfolio. I might have two or three that are good enough to show off (a few of which I carry in print form in my portfolio, but don't have online), but the problem is getting the same results consistently.</p>

<p>On the plus side, I've always enjoyed good relationships with these folks and they were willing to let me show the photos online. But I've deleted most of them, other than a few shared on Facebook with family and friends.</p>

<p>Consider it a valuable lesson and move on.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I don't know about copyright or privacy laws in the UK, but morally and ethically I believe you should honor their wishes.

I'd be surprised if law in the UK does not also give legal rights (in the absence of signed model releases) to how their

likenesses are used in a commercial context.

 

 

 

Further it is not the case that "now you have nothing" as you complain.

 

-You have the real world experience of photographing a wedding.

 

-You have an inkling of why contracts and the language used in them is important.

 

-Assumng you posted under your real name, you now have an internet record of posting on a very widely read website of

being a wedding photographer who might not be trustworthy, andwho whines when he doesn't get his way.

 

As for asking now to be paid, the bag that cat was in is now empty, and the now cat less bag is on a ship that has sailed.

[mike_b21]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. I think I was just pretty pee'd off at the time he sent me that message. Still, I have honoured his wishes and taken the photos containing the B&G down.<br /><br />I guess I will write it off as an experience and be thorough with making sure contracts get signed.<br /><br />Once again, thanks for all your input!!</p>

<p>Michael</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I originally asked the groom if I could put them up, <strong>even though they were up already</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>(emphasis mine) Apart from legal reasons, in my view you should really think twice about what you did here. Even if without a contract you would be within rights to publicly show them without prior consent, it is not a smart way to deal with friends. Even less so with clients.<br>

I can understand his reaction - their wedding day is a private, not a public, event. You should have made crystal clear upfront that you wanted to use some photos public. Not ask permission after publication. Most people do not understand copyright, most of your clients will not. They seem to believe that their appearance in the photo supercedes your copyright. You must be utterly clear about who owns the photos, and what can and cannot be done with them. Timely, before.<br>

And in between friends, I hope the relationship can suffer a bit. With clients, this is the kind of thing that leads to bad word of mouth, bad reviews, bad publicity. That can kill your business easily - so think twice before doing something and asking permission afterwards.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry, maybe I've worded things a bit messy. Yes, you have copyright. Yes, in most parts of the world, what you did is legally sound. They have no case against you, realistically.<br>

But this isn't just about law and rights. It's about building and/or maintaining relationships - and that is cornerstone of the business you try to start.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>Serves you right. First of all, photography is NOT free. You invested in equipment, in labour, in processing and by giving it for absolutely free, no arrangements beforehand, you deprived another photographer of a gig and you gave the impression to yet some other people that photography is something to be taken lightly, that you don't have to pay for it.<br>

You should not give a wedding for free without making absolutely sure that you can get an advantage out of it. Write it down, nail it in a verbal agreement with witnesses, make absolutely sure. And DO NOT post the pictures online without their agreement. What if the bride thinks she looks bad in the pictures and decides to go after you ? What if there are people that don't want to show up on the internet ?<br>

Make a contract, pay taxes for it, work legal or at least make sure that you have some sort of mutual gain agreement. <br>

There's really not much you can do except learning from it and moving on.</p>

[qalam]

Since you are in the United Kingdom, you cannot put the photos on your Website without the consent of those who

commissioned the work.

 

"A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for

example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner,[34] irrespective of any

copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph[34] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and

domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the

public,[35] the work exhibited in public[36] or the work communicated to the public.[37] However, this right will not be

infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic

work, film, or broadcast.[38]"

 

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Photography_and_privacy

[rick_m.]

<p>Nicolaie has made some good points. You gave away something and the B & G treated it with the same respect as anything else free warrants. Do not be surprised.</p>

<p>I think that this wedding experience has been more valuable to you than the mythical "1K£" you seem to think a photographer with no experience is worth. You have learned that if you are going to do this for a living you have to pay attention to the "living" part of it. Take this away from the experience if nothing else. A professional photographer makes his/her living <em>selling</em> photography. FIRST comes the sale, then comes the fun part....shooting. So for the bargain basement price of only a couple of day's time and effort you learned to take your new job seriously. You learned a valuable lesson in running a business and that is the vital importance of a contract. You learned that you will have to balance what the law allows you to do if you get in a snit with what you ought to do if you are going to have a good reputation. You learned what it is like to shoot a wedding. You learned how hard it is do the post processing. You learned that you needed to "sell" this B & G on using their photos in a more definite way than just a casual question. You learned how important the subsequent product is to the customer. I hope you learned that a professional anything thinks of the client first, last and always. I hope you call the groom and make nice with him. You don't need him puffing out his chest and telling everyone how he "won" the battle with a newbie photog. </p>

<p>I also agree that unless you are a prodigy, some day you will look at those photos aghast that you were wanting to put them on like. Live long and prosper. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"My issue is that I had asked to shoot their wedding so I can <a id="itxthook1" href="/wedding-photography-forum/00cjE5?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">start a business<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>, but now they're saying I can't use them...So I've basically lost out!!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I say the opposite occurred. Just not in the way you expected. You learned an extremely valuable lesson in that getting in to a photography business means you need to learn how to run a business first. You wouldn't start a photography business without learning about photography. Why would you start any business without learning how you accomplish that? You don't even seem to know,with any confidence, if you own the stuff that you produce... The images. You don't seem to know about there being a difference in using someone's likeness in images vs. using images in general. THese are just legal issues. What's going on with the other business responsibilities and practices?<br /><br /><br />Its great to ask questions but asking, after the fact, on the most frequent and basic issues shows that you need to go back to square one and start over. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"photography is NOT free... ..,.you deprived another photographer of a gig and you gave the impression to yet some other people that photography is something to be taken lightly, that you don't have to pay for it.You should not give a wedding for free without making absolutely sure that you can get an advantage out of it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With all due respect, this is arrogance. No one has any duty or responsibility to avoid any of these things. You're not special just because you are a photographer. If I get an offer of help from a friend to prepare food for a party as a favor, they have no duty to caterers or bakery or anyone else whose profession is food preparation of some kind. If someone fixes my car as a favor, they have zero responsibility to other auto mechanics or auto service providers. None of those things are necessarily free either. None of these people are ever described as doing anything wrong towards anybody but for some reason, some photographers get huffy if it happens to occur with respect to their industry. No doubt these same photographers have accepted favors during their lives for things they could have paid someone to do. People can shoot for free for any reason they want without any need to justify it.</p>

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

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>@John H: You read me wrong. What I meant was, if he had discussed the esential aspect of the online portfolio permission before the wedding, with the bride and groom, and they would have not agreed, then the OP would have backed away from the wedding, since there would have been no gain for him. This way, a pro that makes a living would have probably been chosen, and he would have shot the wedding irrespective of the permission to feature the work online.<br /> <br />I criticised the OP for giving it for free, depriving himself of the fruit of his labour and another photographer of a possible gig. It was plain childish to come out of the whole thing empty handed, with only some bad memories and a lesson learned. <br /> <br />And if the bride and groom swiched story after the wedding and did not allow for the usage of the images, it just shows just how much respect people have for things they get for free. None !<br /> People will respect you the most when you have a good portfolio and recommendations, when you dress and act professionally and when they pay for you. The more money, the more they will get out of your way and go and do where/what you want them to.</p>

[savagesax]

This kind of sucks and there are so many posts directly related to your question.

 

Yes just let it go and move on as some of the others have said. I know very well that you are excited. All of

us fellow photographers are too. I've been shooting weddings since the late 1980's and I still can't wait to

see the results of the latest wedding. It's probably called passion and you have it.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I criticised the OP for giving it for free, depriving himself of the fruit of his labour and another photographer of a possible gig... ...if the bride and groom swiched story after the wedding and did not allow for the usage of the images, it just shows just how much respect people have for things they get for free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is all based on idle speculation. There's no proof that free shooting was the cause for not being able to use the work samples. There are many other potential reasons. Moreover, people change their mind about wedding photos being used for promotional use when paying photographers as well. Situations discussed here before incidentally. Had there been a written contract then any arrangement would have been enforceable. The friendship issue being the only part left to deal with.<br /> <br />Also speculative (and acknowledged as such) is that a pro would so likely get a paid job here but for the poster declining the job. The couple may have found someone else to step in that would not charge pro level fees or charge a fee at all. Indeed, the fact that they used someone so new may show that they were disinclined to go the full pro route to begin with. Its all just a guesswork here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The more money, the more they will get out of your way and go and do where/what you want them to."<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily at all. Indeed, some people paying a lot of money for services are quite demanding on account of it. So this claim is speculative as well. There is no proof that the resistance to allowing use of the images for promotion was because the shoot was free. Its just one of various potential factors or reasons.<br /><br /></p>

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

[savagesax]

By the way, you can still take the photo's you like and perhaps make a large 8X10 album, a 16X20 framed

enlargement or bigger, a proof album, pretty much anything you can think of. This is always great for

advertising. I have a few 40x60 framed prints hanging around the house and when couples see the size of

the prints, plus the quality, that often is all you need to book their wedding.

 

So it's really not a big deal. Hope this helps. You will do great in this fun and wonderful business. bob

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess <em>I will <strong>write it off</strong> as an experience</em> . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably better to <strong><em>embrace</em></strong> all aspects of it as a very inexpensive yet WORTHWHILE multifaceted lesson.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>It <strong><em>was plain childish</em></strong> to come out of the whole thing <strong><em>empty handed, </em></strong>with only some bad memories <strong><em>and a lesson learned</em></strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disagree on both points.<br>

Firstly, it would only be a childish act if the lesson were NOT learned.<br>

Secondly, if the lesson was learnt, then the OP did NOT come out ‘<em>empty handed’</em>.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>+1 WW.</p>

<p>Yes, chalk this one up to experience. </p>

<p>That said, you can still use many of the images from the wedding. I would say that any picture which does not show their faces (or is obviously specifically identifiable as them) would be free game. You may even be able to crop/PS some stuff to use the images.</p>

<p>That said, you should be able to still use the pictures as is, in accordance with UK law. If you specifically point out in the gallery introduction that their likeness is not the point of the images, but is merely incidental to the artistic capability shown in the image (composition, exposure, lighting, etc), and that the demonstration proves that you could make such glorious art with any subjects, I can't think of any legal restriction to the use.</p>

<p>.... which doesn't mean you <em>should</em> use the pics as is, though in your shoes, I'd probably go the crop/PS route...</p>

<p>While it does sicken me just a bit that you've been taken advantage of so egregiously, frankly you put your own head in the guillotine. No contract, and no firm agreement that you'd be even allowed to post the images, just some vague 'I'd do it for the experience!'... if you used the 'experience' moniker, you don't even have the implication that they'd allow you to use the images!</p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>nasty people to take the free job then do that</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>you deprived another photographer of a gig</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It is not anyone's responsibility for the photographer that doesn't get a gig. If the pro can't get the job, then it's only the pro's responsibility. This idea that people have to "back away" to allow a pro to get a job is the kind of attitude that can cause resentment of photography as a profession.</p>

[DrBen]

<p>To Marcus Ian :<br>

Your suggestion that a gallery of the wedding pictures can be used without permission provided there is a disclaimer of some sort is <strong>NOT</strong> in conformity with the U.K.'s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988). Under section 85, if the B&G do not give permission, there is infringement.<br>

==========================================</p>

<h5 >85 Right to privacy of certain photographs and films.</h5>

<p >(1)A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have—</p>

<p >(a) copies of the work issued to the public,</p>

<p >(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or</p>

<p >© the work communicated to the public;</p>

<p >and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.</p>

<p >(2)The right is not infringed by an act which by virtue of any of the following provisions would not infringe copyright in the work—</p>

<p >(a)section 31 (incidental inclusion of work in an artistic work, film or broadcast);</p>

<p >(b)section 45 (parliamentary and judicial proceedings);</p>

<p >©section 46 (Royal Commissions and statutory inquiries);</p>

<p >(d)section 50 (acts done under statutory authority);</p>

<p >===========================================<br />The exception provided for in (2)(a) does NOT apply to your interpretation. Publishing a gallery of photos that prominently features the B&G and is intended to solicit business is hardly incidental. <br /></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"it does sicken me just a bit that you've been taken advantage of so egregiously"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is that really the case? Michael said, "I originally asked the groom if I could put them up, even though<strong> they were up already</strong>", He tells us that he merely wanted to "start a business" and told the friends he would do it because he was "starting out". Rather vague descriptions. It sounds like the story the friends perceive is that he would did the shoot for experience, posted the images and THEN asked about using them. Indeed, Michael did not say permission was granted and revoked. <br /><br />One of the reasons to use a contract. Avoiding misunderstandings.</p>