katrin_d.

Fantastic - I love it.

<p>I'm ashamed to say it but Neil, this is an actual judge. Both litigants agree to drop their claims pending in whatever jurisdiction they were filed and "settle" this thing on TV. Since it's small claims, there aren't any attorneys present. Are you telling us that England doesn't have c r ap like this on TV?</p>

<p>Have you tried to find out why they're not ordering? Maybe they forgot about it, maybe they didn't like the photos all that much, maybe they've fallen on hard times and paying the mortgage is more important than ordering prints? Does your contract stipulate a specific date by which they would have had to order prints?<br>

Your post reads like you haven't delivered anything so you're not out any actual expenses (other than time for the session), so it is - as John already stated - a contract dispute but nothing a collection agency would bother with.</p>

<p>How soon is "getting married soonish"? Still enough time left to go on a Cup Rahmen diet to save up some money for photography? Any fellow photographers you can trade with, any special skills you have (plumbing, painting, car repairs ...) so you can barter with somebody you know? I know I'd happily shoot a wedding in exchange for proper pipes throughout the entire house. ;-)</p>

<p>Shawn, I can only say that I admire your attitude - you've been dragged into something you most certainly didn't ask for and are handling this more graceful than most people would ... kudos to you!!!! As far as "this snobby website" is concerned, I've never met a group of professionals more willing to share their experience and knowledge - not something that should be taken for granted.</p>

<p>Where do you all buy the SB-800? I'm assuming you suggest buying it used b/c last time I checked, it's been replaced by the SB-900 and no longer sold by retailers.</p>

<p>I would reconsider the champagne part. What happens if you provide the alcohol, they drive home and a) get pulled over or b) get into an accident. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. <br mce_bogus="1"></p>

<p>I don't know. I haven't seen a decrease in my bookings despite living in an area with an unemployment rate of nearly 20%. This year's bookings are more than 20% over what I had last year and brides book anywhere from 18 months to 1 month in advance. I don't compete with bargain-basement photographers and don't compete based on price and don't really have many "just shopping arounders" contacting me. The ones that contact me know what they want (me), we meet and I yet have to have a couple not book me after a meeting in person (knock on wood). The brides I'm dealing with are not rich by any means but they do see the value in having somebody with a good reputation/track record shooting their wedding as opposed to taking a gamble by hiring somebody for 200 bucks. Not sure if it's my style of photography or the way the site is worded, the advertising is targeted but I have very, very few of the "it would be good for your portfolio if you shot my wedding for almost nothing" brides and I wouldn't want those to be my clients to begin with. So it all works out.</p>

<p>Ditto to what everybody else already said. Don't lie. Keep in mind that this post will also be recorded by Google and will come up in searches for your name so thinking about deceiving prospective clients in a public forum is not only unethical (as Neil pointed out already) but it's also not a smart idea.<br>

Why not turn a negative (lack of experience) into a positive (fresh look on things)? Play to your strengths and if they book you, hooray. If they don't book you, that's cool, too - that's their right. Get in touch with your former/current primary shooters and ask them if they'd be your reference.</p>

<p>First of all: congratulations on your upcoming wedding.<br>

As with mostly everything, you get what you pay for. Experience and consistent quality don't come cheap. Cheap and good usually don't go hand in hand. Cheap and amazing even less so.<br>

You don't mention what style of wedding photography you are looking for so it's impossible to recommend any particular photographer. Traditional, photojournalistic, artistic, romantic, funky ....<br>

Also "cheap" is relative. Some people would say $2000 for wedding photography is a steal, some people would say it's expensive. What are your expectations? If price was not object, which photographer would you pick? What are you looking for in a wedding photographer? What kind of final product do you want (files on CD, prints, albums)?</p>

<p>Sounds fishy to me. It would be a different story if she had left a message along the lines of "I love your work, your style is similar to mine, why don't we meet and see if our personal styles/work ethic etc. mesh and be each other's back-up in case one of us is sick, the date is booked etc."<br>

Also, as a prospective client of yours, I'd be peeved if you forwarded my contact information to somebody I didn't consider as my wedding photographer and then receive unsolicited emails from them. Not saying that you would do it but that's what this photographer is suggesting. The way this currently reads, I would ignore it because it doesn't sound like she's interested in a mutually beneficial relationship but in you sending work her way.</p>

 

<p>Just to clarify: WW - my attorney being on vacation doesn't mean I can't reach him. Just means I won't do it unless it's an emergency (i.e. <strong><em>me</em> </strong> being in legal trouble), not over something that can wait a week or two. Veronica, thanks for the tip, I already have screenshots of everything.Mark: I'm credited on the blog, not the unseen, mysterious gallery so I have no clue if credit is given where credit is due. ;-)<br>

That being said, I know that despite the most well written contracts, once the CD leaves my hands, the smoke can't be put back into the cigarette and clients can pretty much do whatever.<br>

What makes me think my photos are up there is the fact that the blog contains one of my photos right above the header "order your photos here" - thus using my image to advertise her account. I don't mind clients posting images on FB without copyright information as they're raving about them - free advertising - so I don't mind in the slightest. But setting up a password protected gallery? In any case, I'll have my attorney follow up on this with SmugMug once he's back and see where that leads us.<br>

In the future, I'll probably do what Nadine does, skip the uploading of the files to my account alltogether and have clients host them with whomever they like, less work for me.<br>

Thank you all!!!<br>

I do have one more thought though: where do we draw the line when contracts are ignored by the clients? Do we measure in "is it worth my time, effort etc."? or worry about clients badmouthing and thus letting contract violations slide because it's the easy thing to do?</p>

<p>Let me preface this by saying that my attorney is currently on vacation and I know that none of your are lawyers - however, I would appreciate all of your input in this.<br>

I shot a client's wedding this last October and as per our contract, she has permission to print the photos from the CD she has for personal use only. My prices are structured in a way that I don't have to rely on print orders. I also provide clients with an online gallery on SM so their guests can order prints.<br>

I now came across the client's blog with my photos (photo credit given) along with the note: "We've got pictures! You can view them here (insert hyperlink) and you can easily purchase prints too if you'd like." However, the link doesn't direct to my SmugMug gallery but a SmugMug gallery of hers that is password protected. Given the other text in the blog (location of where photos were taken), I know that I was the only one taking photos in certain locations which leads me to assume that she's selling the photos I own the copyright to on SmugMug (only I can't prove it).<br>

Our contract states that "the images may be used on personal web site as well as networking sites such as Facebook/MySpace as long as a copyright notice appears near the images stating that they were taken by [insert photographer's name" as well as a web link to [insert photographer's website] is place onto the web site. Furthermore, the contract states "Client must obtain written permission from and compensate [insert photographer's name] prior to the Client or his friends and relatives publishing or selling the photographs for profit."</p>

<p >I emailed the client and asked for the pw and in a nice and casual way on Friday but haven't heard back from her. I emailed SmugMug and their response quite frankly stunned me. Here's their response in its entirety: Dear .... Thanks for contacting SmugMug. Sorry, I'm not able to determining if the images are being used within the scope of your contract. We don't provide any legal advice on these types of issues. What we can do is forward your request to the site owner if you like. Let us know and we'll forward your message to them. Other than that, you would need to resolve this in court or between you and the other party."</p>

<p >I would really, really appreciate your input on a) how to handle this with regards to contacting the client and b) dealing with SmugMug.</p>

<p > </p>

<!-- EndFragment-->

 

<p>Marc, WW., Dick and anybody else who took the time to see both sides of the coin and posted well written and well thought out responses without resorting to personal insults/derogatory comments: a tremendous thank you for your contributions to the art of photography and this forum!<br>

I think of it this way: if I had the chance to work with somebody whose work I admired (Bert Stern comes to mind), somebody to learn the tricks of the trade from ... it would be an honor and I'd be more than happy to pay <em><strong>them</strong> </em> for the experience and the opportunity.<br>

We can all agree to disagree but could possibly attempt to do so in a civil manner - which is what I believe the point of this thread was.</p>

<p>Mitch, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that WW as referring to the "picking up my ball and going home" attitude, not the learning experience for anybody reading this. But I might be mistaken.</p>

<p>I would guess the white stripe to be the sleeve of his shirt - right where he tucks his hand into his pocket, which would also explain the crumpled jacket.</p>

<p>While I understand your frustration, you're walking a fine line (legally) by saying <em>"In an email to her, it is mentioned that my company and my second shooter will maintain archival of her images as we see fit and will only grant prints/albums in the future if we have the time, resources, and still have her images.<br /> 3) I won’t have the time, resources or her images."</em><br>

This paragraph indicates that you're not entering into the agreement in good faith. Yes, you have the loophole "if we have the time ..." but at the very best, it's unethical to add this bit if you never plan on having the time, resources or the images. Just be honest and be done. Do you really want to open up this can of worms by having her come back in a couple of years/months/whenever and having to explain why you don't have the time, why you don't have the resources and what your policies are with regards to image storage in case you plan on destroying them.</p>

<p>No editing like you outlined. Usually, the bride/groom will ask "could you please take out this zit" which I always do - or take out a cut on their hands. Have worked in film restoration extensively, I still can't get the film studios' doctrine "don't mess with the integrity of the product" out of my head. So no, unless requested, I don't alter any features (which would be "extra").</p>

<p>You can't go back and sue over the same issue if you later feel that the compensation wasn't enough. Once it's done, it's done. Out of curiosity - what's on those 125 files? If it's formal portraits, you can always re-stage them with a <strong>reputable</strong> photographer. I used to work in digital film (movie) restoration a couple years back and would be surprised if the files were recoverable once burned onto CD in their corrupt/encrypted state.<br>

As somebody who had their own wedding photos botched, I hope you and your wife can do what my husband and I do seven years after the fact: we look at them and giggle madly at the many things that went wrong that day and how none of this really matters at this point. Yes, I'd still love to have photos that don't look like somebody's LSD dream but it is what it is.<br>

You could always renew your vows in a year and have that event photographed. Or save the money, go on a fantastic 2nd honeymoon and have a great time.</p>

<p><em>I think the problem is that most of the "professional" photographers are really mad that they can't process 1000 photos with Photoshop as quickly as the 18 year old punks can, but that is not their fault, they grow up in the age of the Photoshop, downloaded an illegal copy of it when they were 12 years old and since they had nothing better to do then "play with the computer" for the next 6 years they are now the Scott Colby (I think that is how you spell his name) of the Photoshop.</em><br>

<br /> Photoshop is just another tool. And a crappy photo will always be a crappy photo. You can't successfully make your living "putting lipstick on a pig". Being a photographer means knowing your lighting, knowing your subjects, what you call the "marketing thing" etc. It takes more than picking up a camera and pushing a button.</p><br>

<p><em>People hate change, people fear change, people will do everything to combat change</em></p><br>

<p>The photographers I know embrace change. You're making a very general assumption that is not backed up by facts (unless you have statistics on this issue with regards to wedding photographers).<em> </em> Yes, some people will resist change but others will be more than happy and excited to learn about new technologies.</p><br>

<p><em>I you are a man (not bashing women here) how many times in the last decade did you show your wife how to program the VCR? How many? How many times did she come back and said " Honey you play with that "thing" I just don't get it!</em><br>

Amusing sentiment but what does it have to do with this discussion?<br /> You are most certainly not doing any new photographers any service as the tone of your posts is exactly the cocky "here I come, move over and stop whining" attitude so many "older" (although I would call them more experienced) photographers resent. Kicking a football around on the weekends doesn't make one a professional football player either. Same for the field of photography.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Depends on what you want. If you want to "just" make money working for a big studio, then there's nothing wrong with that as long as you know that you're not shooting for yourself but for another entity that dictates the terms and pays the checks. Some people deal with that arrangement better than others.<br>

Personally, I've been independently working for too long to play by anybody's rules but my own. That being said, I completely understand where both of you are coming from. Your partner probably sees your pragmatic approach as "selling out" and you probably see her approach as "too idealistic in the current climate". ;-) No right or wrong really, just a completely different business model which you will have to figure out between the two of you. Or go your separate ways.</p>

 

<p>Thank you, Bob. Great advice as always.</p>

<p>I think Kay mentioned in one of her last posts that she didn't reply to the studio's email or did I misunderstand that?</p>

<p>I wouldn't tell any couple that I'm already booked when I don't have a contract nor a deposit in hand. I would tell the second couple that there has been interest in the date but that no contracts have been signed.</p>

<p>Kay, when responding, please use the paragraph David suggested, it is to the point and professional. Please do take out this section "1) The blog posts get placed back up on the website that you had taken down or 2) I personally submit the photos to every single wedding, blog, online publication that has ever existed. Please let me know what you decide." - it's a knee-jerk reaction that won't get you anywhere.</p>