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

[mike_b21]

<p>Once again, thanks for the replies everyone. I have an agreement with the couple and our friendship has not been affected. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't in the wrong is all.<br /><br /><br>

<br />Sometimes you have to give things away for free so you can get experience and learn from your mistakes. Luckily this mistake didn't cost me much, the experience was great and I at least enjoyed the day.<br>

My wife reminded me of why I shot the wedding in the first place 3 years ago, and that I had said it was a gift for them due to their circumstances.<br /><br />I guess his message just annoyed me a bit.<br /><br />Luckily they have let me keep the photos on Facebook, and will let me post a link to it on my website (still confuses me as to why I can't just put them up!!)<br /><br />Once again, thanks to those who have been kind, helpful and reassuring. It really does help.<br>

I am only 26, and have only been going at this for a year, and to be honest, with all the weddings I have done, I have more than enough for my website.<br /><br />Leszek, Katrin, Tom, Lex, Ellis and Wouter...thanks especially for your input.<br /><br />Michael</p>

[mike_b21]

<p>I only read the first page, apologies to those I didn't mention.<br>

Everyone has been very helpful!!</p>

[mike_b21]

<p>I think of all the advice, the best things I have taken from it are:<br>

1...HAVE A CONTRACT, even with friends (Which I have done since I started my business)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Avoid misunderstandings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>2...It was a very good experience as it encouraged me, showing me how much I enjoyed shooting and editing</p>

<blockquote>

<p>chalk this one up to experience </p>

</blockquote>

<p>3...Embrace it</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Just a thought for myself in the future...be encouraging, to new or old photographers<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>"Gracious words are a honeycomb,</strong></em><br /><em><strong> sweet to the soul and healing to the bones."<br />Proverbs 16v24</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>My wife reminded me of why<em><strong> I shot the wedding in the first</strong> </em><strong><em>place 3 years ago</em></strong>, and that I had said it was a gift for them due to their circumstances. I guess his message just annoyed me a bit. Luckily they have let me keep the photos on Facebook, and will let me post a link to it on my website . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> This added information puts the whole issue in a much better perspective. This information goes to explaining the probable meaning of this phrase in your OP: <em>“</em><em>even though they were up already”</em>. I expect that it was not only I who thought the wedding was shot much more recently.<br /> <br /> It is also possible that the Groom’s message to you, <strong><em>three years after the event,</em></strong> has little, or nothing at all to do with you.<br /> <br /> *</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I only <strong><em>read the first page</em> </strong>. . .<br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. Open “MY WORKPLACE” (top right hand corner of this page)<br /> <br /> 2. On the Right Hand Side of this new page under “Account Options” select the drop down menu and select ‘all’ here: <br /> "Show <strong>[all]</strong> posts on page in forums"</p>

<p>3. Click on [update]</p>

<p>After doing this procedure, all the subsequent threads which you open will be in “scroll mode”, that is to say, all the posts will be viewed on the one (and only) page of that particular thread.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

The OP seems satisfied and completed with responses to his question, so . . . <br>

<br>

On this (interesting) side discussion concerning UK Copyright Law; and whilst stating that I am neither a Solicitor nor a Barrister, however I note that I have dealt with very similar matters under similar Copyright Laws. <br>

<br>

If the Wikipedia Link which was cited is up to date and is Correct in Law, then, I would make a layperson’s comment expressing that consideration is necessary of the exact interpretation based upon CASE LAW, of the phrase (my bold for emphasis):</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I seems to me, based upon comments made, that it is very possible that neither the Bride, nor the Groom, nor any person who might have been captured in any image, made any act to: “<strong>commission</strong> the taking of a photograph”. Here: <br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p >“I asked these friends if I could shoot their wedding as I was starting out”</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p >And in a later post here: </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p >“I had said it was a gift for them due to their circumstances.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>My comments above are NOT suggesting that the OP or anyone should defy the Groom’s (or any 'Clients’) wishes. My purpose is simply to display the intricacies of one particular aspect of one of the <strong><em>many various Copyright & Right to Privacy Laws which are all DIFFERENT, around the world.</em></strong><br>

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

Further, I'd<strong> </strong>point out that, if one is really serious about leveraging ‘the law’, it is best to get all one’s facts clearly articulated and then employ a very expert (and talented) lawyer to align all the skittles in a row, knowing ALL the possible outcomes before action is initiated . . . <br>

<br>

And any legal argy-bargy has to be well worth one’s investment: and that ‘investment’ is not just limited to the money that is likely to be expended.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>We STILL don't know if the agreement specifically encompassed using the images for promotional sample use. Perhaps communication lapses are an ongoing issue. It doesn't matter much. in any event, to the question since the advice would likely be the same. At least in my case. Plus there are probably more samples to use now.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Under section 85, if the B&G do not give permission, there is infringement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, I meant, that, as an incidental part of an artistic work, it seems there is no infringement. The disclaimer is a statement that the gallery IS an artistic work and that any likenesses enclosed are merely incidental. My reading of UK law seems to indicate that this would likely not be found as infringement, however I'm no Barrister ;), and I don't have a comprehensive understanding of the torte involved. Certainly possible that I'm totally wrong, though perhaps a reference to case law here would be helpful, since the code is somewhat... ambiguous.<br>

(re sec 31) of the quoted code.</p>

<p>...and, as said, I'm not suggesting that the OP actually use the original photographs, just that, according to my interpretation of UK law (and I do not live there!) it seems there is no infringement if the OP were to use images as an incidental part of his gallery. (A pretty hard to case to make if those are the only photos in it... ;) )</p>

<p>...also, did the B&G commission the work? If so, then there is an implied verbal contract stating terms which the B&G are obligated to meet (perhaps including display?) (ie. an exchange is implied). If not (say it was a 'gift', as the OP states), then this seems to restrict the B&G's right to be infringed by a public display?</p>

<p> </p>

[de_isaacs]

<p>Mr. Bhatia -<br>

I agree that sometimes you should give things away for free to get experience.<br>

I have taken 10 weddings in my life so far (with study from these VERY pages) and do the following:<br>

1) make a SIGNED written agreement with all parties spelling out my rights to USE any/all of the images for my personal/professional use and giving the B&G complete ownership of printing and other rights.<br>

2) I request/ask politely to be included in Pre-wedding events (lets me meet & greet the participants/customers Before the ceremony) and get an idea of what I am dealing with.<br>

3) I work ONLY for whatever 'Gratuity' they decide upon (most of my weddings have been for friends or work-acquaintances. (No specific amount - most give something - some - nothing - but I get experience.<br>

4) when I am 'done with Light room and some Photoshop (hat-tip to this sites Digital Workflows pages, Bob Atkins and Bob Bernardo's postings, etc.) I provide B&G (and BOTH Sets of Parents) with CD's/DVD's for Pre-Wedding Pictures and the Wedding Photos.<br>

We all live Happily ever after. 3 Weddings have been for 1 family (a co-worker) and his kids decided after the first wedding that they wanted me to shoot all three!.<br>

Yes - LEARN from your mistakes - and those who post knowledge on this site(you know who you are).<br /> My main purpose is to help out others (due to their circumstances) and as a gift for them (and experience for me). <br>

Good luck - and use the force (of the knowledge at Photo-Net) to improve.<br>

Derek</p>

[herma]

<p>All the legal mumbo jumbo aside, from an emotional aspect I can understand the groom (& bride's) position. Their wedding has meaning to them and by you splattering them on your website cheapens their experience. I imagine it made them feel exposed and exploited. I don't know how many you used but maybe if you had just used a few shots?</p>