- Messages
- 6,729
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nothing you can do - IMO you are blowing this way out of proportion - but we're all different.
and the site receives a small commission
Wedding Day hijacked by a photographer...
- Thread starter BalSanghera
- Start date
Nothing you can do - IMO you are blowing this way out of proportion - but we're all different.
- Messages
- 6,729
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not sure if anyone else answered this but you are wrong. The guy can use the images to promote himself without a model release. I don't see whyt the guy was out of order? If he'd been approached and asked to stop fair enough but that does not seem to be the case and was just a relative enjoying snapping the day.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have to say it's not at all uncommon these days for wedding guests to distribute shots they've taken to family, including the couple, long before you (the pro) present your shots. Most wedding guest snappers will just print out straight from the camera, whereas you'll take a lot more time over the processing and probably send off for professional printing, so this happens a lot.
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can sell a picture, just not use it in a derogatory way.
There was a shot of a football crowd with one person highlighted. I think the tagline was something along the lines of 1 in ten men suffer from erectile disfunction.
Then of course the Virgin Ad in Australia using a photo taken from Flickr with the tagline Dump your penfriend. It wasn't a problem with the photo but with the derogatory text.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20896643/
Pic is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/in/pool-379879@N24
Or just have it stolen from your facebook page
http://www.extraordinarymommy.com/blog/are-you-kidding-me/stolen-picture/
Last edited:
- Messages
- 289
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree.
No offence to the OP, but as is pointed out elsewhere in the thread, most guests would be taking pics at the wedding and sharing them, so why is this guy different, just because he presumably takes better pics with a DSLR? :shrug:
I do agree that it is highly disrespectful for him to beef up his portfolio without even a word though. Thats a poor show.
OP
- Messages
- 1,241
- Name
- Bal Sanghera
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My response was in jest and I have since spoken with him and cleared the air
oh yeh and im going to Cancún for 14 nights If I had the chance I would have asked him to stop but as it was my wedding I didnt quite get the chance to stop the ceremony and sort this wolly out.
Nothing to do with the fact he was shooting with a DSLR mate, the issue was the pics he took were not your everyday pics of family at the wedding... They were wedding shots of the bride and groom which he openely admitted he is planning to use for his own portfolio, but since changed his mind
The other reason I was annoyed was the fact he actually come in way of my own photographers who I paid a hefty sum.
Anyway I dont see this no longer being an issue as I have spoken to him and cleared the air.
- Messages
- 822
- Edit My Images
- Yes
a happy ending- well done
Just an observation to all who said legal or not- model release or not etc the paps take celeb pics on private land/ through your home window/ back garden etc in fact anywhere and sell it commercially whether you like it or not- just an observation
Just an observation to all who said legal or not- model release or not etc the paps take celeb pics on private land/ through your home window/ back garden etc in fact anywhere and sell it commercially whether you like it or not- just an observation
- Messages
- 1,041
- Edit My Images
- No
ok here's my perspective.
- Im in a similar situation (i think) to the family member. I went to my cousins wedding 2 weeks ago and decided i'd take some photo's, see how they came out, put together an album for the newly wed's, see what the whole process is like and see if i enjoyed shooting a wedding.
- There was a 'pro' there and i made sure i stayed out of her way.
- Now my intention is to put together an album for my cousin and if any of my family want some of the shots i've taken (if they think they're any good) printed i'll happily do so.
- My cousin will get 1st look at the shots (i think thats only right) as an album
- Now if i get a good response to my shots i'll ask my cousin if she minds if i use them to start my portfolio (i did enjoy shooting a wedding and hope to persue it over the next 12 months)
- I agree with you about asking your persmission to use the photo's for the portfolio but as for someone taking shots and the family seeing them and possibly printing/ suing them im not sure thats such a big issue?
- If he didnt have a dslr or if his shots where average would you be bothered?
- It maybe different if the guy is a distant relative (you know the kind, 2 removed on the dogs side)...i think that would **** me off.
glad its been sorted out .....weddings are stressful eh!!!!
Dan
- Im in a similar situation (i think) to the family member. I went to my cousins wedding 2 weeks ago and decided i'd take some photo's, see how they came out, put together an album for the newly wed's, see what the whole process is like and see if i enjoyed shooting a wedding.
- There was a 'pro' there and i made sure i stayed out of her way.
- Now my intention is to put together an album for my cousin and if any of my family want some of the shots i've taken (if they think they're any good) printed i'll happily do so.
- My cousin will get 1st look at the shots (i think thats only right) as an album
- Now if i get a good response to my shots i'll ask my cousin if she minds if i use them to start my portfolio (i did enjoy shooting a wedding and hope to persue it over the next 12 months)
- I agree with you about asking your persmission to use the photo's for the portfolio but as for someone taking shots and the family seeing them and possibly printing/ suing them im not sure thats such a big issue?
- If he didnt have a dslr or if his shots where average would you be bothered?
- It maybe different if the guy is a distant relative (you know the kind, 2 removed on the dogs side)...i think that would **** me off.
glad its been sorted out .....weddings are stressful eh!!!!
Dan
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
And a model release changes this how? It doesn't make a difference because they're not legally required in the UK. Even with a model release you cannot use an image in a "derogatory" way. And it's all subjective, it's a civil suit filed by the person who feels they have been done harm and is down to the judge to decide what's derogatory. Whether the photographer has a signed model release or not doesn't change anything.
And? What happened?
Ok, and if you read the article you linked, the family was in Dallas. That's in Texas, the one in America (a country in which model releases *ARE* required in the majority of states). It just says they were sued. It doesn't mention the outcome, can you link to that article?
Again, and? I don't know if model releases are required in the Czech Republic or not, but there's the copyright theft issue there as well, assuming the photographer didn't sell the image as stock behind ber back for sale in countries that don't require a release. The woman says the photographer signed a release saying that she could use the images on her website and such, but did she actually read the release to see if it allowed him to do anything? She is also in America (it's the "mommy" bit in the URL that gives it away).
- Messages
- 21,341
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry - I was supporting you about the model releases, they aren't needed in the UK. I was pointing out issues where there was a problem with photos taken and used.
The erectile disfuntion one was an advert in this country, with a shot from a uk football ground. Model releases weren't required but the company got sued for isolating one member of the crowd and the implications of the tagline.
As to the OP - storm in a t-cup? A wedding guest, distant relative takes shots at your wedding and shown them to some other relatives (possibly those they are closely related to?). So you're upset because you haven't seen them, and people have seen photo's of your wedding before you?
I really can't see what the problem is? You've paid a lot of professionals to produce a professional service, which I'm assuming will blow away what this relative will produce and you'll be happy with that (hopefully). Someone else's shots shouldn't be an issue but may be an added extra.
As to using them in his portfolio, why not? There may be an issue of truth (and ettiquette) if your photographers arranged the shot and this person has shot over the shoulder of the pro, so to speak and is then passing off the shots as examples of his wedding work (which includes the positioning, posing etc etc) rather than just of his photography.
The erectile disfuntion one was an advert in this country, with a shot from a uk football ground. Model releases weren't required but the company got sued for isolating one member of the crowd and the implications of the tagline.
As to the OP - storm in a t-cup? A wedding guest, distant relative takes shots at your wedding and shown them to some other relatives (possibly those they are closely related to?). So you're upset because you haven't seen them, and people have seen photo's of your wedding before you?
I really can't see what the problem is? You've paid a lot of professionals to produce a professional service, which I'm assuming will blow away what this relative will produce and you'll be happy with that (hopefully). Someone else's shots shouldn't be an issue but may be an added extra.
As to using them in his portfolio, why not? There may be an issue of truth (and ettiquette) if your photographers arranged the shot and this person has shot over the shoulder of the pro, so to speak and is then passing off the shots as examples of his wedding work (which includes the positioning, posing etc etc) rather than just of his photography.
- Messages
- 7,985
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is exceedingly common for guests to take professional quality photographs at weddings.
It has always been so.
Many of them give copies to friends and family.
There is nothing you can do about such things, as you have no "rights" in the matter neither legal nor moral.
a vast majority see no problem with this situation.
We have seen many recent stories of security guards , "picking" on people with DSLR cameras, and not users of compacts. You seem to be falling into the same trap. There never has been a law that singles out a type of camera, or class of photographer.
Some celebs try to "Protect" their personal image at weddings by banning photography with in private grounds, and selling exclusive rights. This sometimes has had the support of the courts, but has required individual notices of the ban to guests, and a secure perimeter. Even then the ban does not extend to shots taken with "normal" lenses in or from public places.
Generally we have no rights in our personal image in the UK.
It has always been so.
Many of them give copies to friends and family.
There is nothing you can do about such things, as you have no "rights" in the matter neither legal nor moral.
a vast majority see no problem with this situation.
We have seen many recent stories of security guards , "picking" on people with DSLR cameras, and not users of compacts. You seem to be falling into the same trap. There never has been a law that singles out a type of camera, or class of photographer.
Some celebs try to "Protect" their personal image at weddings by banning photography with in private grounds, and selling exclusive rights. This sometimes has had the support of the courts, but has required individual notices of the ban to guests, and a secure perimeter. Even then the ban does not extend to shots taken with "normal" lenses in or from public places.
Generally we have no rights in our personal image in the UK.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
show me the law that says you can use a photo of someone in advertisment without their permission?
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,108
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
OK Agreed
woooa.. but this guy wants to use them in a portfolio to help him get jobs as a wedding photographer... slightly different surely? still not much can be done but hardly a case of a happy snapper.
It's one of my favourite websites, that one that lists every single thing that doesn't break the law.
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,404
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How can he if there is no laW?:shrug:
BEEN READING THROUGH THIS THREAD FOR SO LONG, SHOULD HAVE REFRESHED BEFORE POSTING! ;-)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
They don't write laws about things you're allowed to do. Go show me the law that says I can go do my shopping on a Saturday.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Apologies, I misread.
You'd think in an instance like that, it would've been easy enough just to photoshop somebody else's face in there that did consent to the advertisement. Would've saved a lot of hassle. You'd also think an experienced ad agency would've thought of this beforehand.
- Messages
- 10,071
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesn't work that way, you can't assign rights you don't own, if the other togs in a public place theres no legal way of stopping him shooting, the contracts not worth the paper it's printed on in those situations.
If it's on private property it's slightly different, he can be asked to stop shooting or asked to leave (by the landowner) but thats about as good as it gets. Strictly speaking he (and all the guests) should be made aware of the no photography rule before the wedding starts even for that to apply.
karmagarda
Good between the sheets
- Messages
- 2,821
- Name
- Conor
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Got to agree on the whole Model release thing. In the UK they are only really used to "smooth over" the whole use of their photo and also if you plan on submitting it into stock photography. So it's not a lack of a model release, it's what you use the photo for that can get you in trouble. For example, with this guy it's a grey area to me. It will depend on what and how he displays the photograph. E.g. I'm not sure if he can get away with using your photographs in a manner that claims that he was the official photographer at your wedding. I would hedge a bet that you could pursue legal action against him due to false claims or something. On the other hand, if he just stuck them on his profile as an example of what he can do, but never claimed to have been your photographer then... well, not much you can do.
Anyway, seems you've managed to somewhat sort this out. Congrats with the marriage! And hope you have a cracking honeymoon
Anyway, seems you've managed to somewhat sort this out. Congrats with the marriage! And hope you have a cracking honeymoon
- Messages
- 1,310
- Name
- Amir
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bal - you are SO missing a trick bro. He's from your wife's side of the family right? Oh my god - do you realise how much leverage this buys you!!! You are all loved up now but just remember - next time you step out of line and she tries to have a go at you then you can simply bring up HER relative who ruined YOUR wedding day - if you can burst in to tears at this point it will only help.
Cheers,
Dub
Cheers,
Dub
They're also sensible to obtain for future-proofing, in case there is a change in the law.
But that's all.
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
While that is probably the most sensible argument I've ever seen for getting a model release signed, I would imagine that anything before the date that potential law was implemented would be grandfathered in and not require it.
Of course, even if that happened, you might have a hard time proving the date on which the images were taken.
- Messages
- 7,985
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can use any photograph in a portfolio, of which you own the copyright.
That the picture came from a wedding also shot by a professional changes nothing.
However he would have been better talking to you first, saying that he would be taking photographs, and would perhaps use some of the better ones in his portfolio, and that he would be happy to make them available to you.
I suspect you would then have been pleased to take him up on his offer.
As a retired professional I have often taken shots at private weddings to which I have been invited. However I make a point of shooting those things most Professionals do not. including a full set of the decorations and flowers. a close up of the Brides flowers aginst her dress. general views of the locations, and guests, Place settings and table service; plus any normally off camera situations that arise. I might take shots during the groups if I feel the official shooter is missing something. I give a copy of the disc to the Bride and Groom and no one else, to do with as they wish.
- Messages
- 3,769
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm glad you sorted it out with him and trust it didn't involve a baseball bat.
Just because model release forms aren't, technically, required doesn't mean this he's aware of the detail of the law in this area. I would have formally written to him stating that you understand he intends to use the photos (of YOUR wedding) in a portfolio. As this is for commercial purposes, you anticipate receiving from him a model release form. If one turns up, throw it away.
Just because model release forms aren't, technically, required doesn't mean this he's aware of the detail of the law in this area. I would have formally written to him stating that you understand he intends to use the photos (of YOUR wedding) in a portfolio. As this is for commercial purposes, you anticipate receiving from him a model release form.
If one turns up, throw it away.Duties of the best man?
smooth
Threebrows
- Messages
- 5,553
- Name
- Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would have sent the mother of the bride
Baseball bat wouldn't have been needed... but probably preferable for the guy taking pics to attempt to defend himself
OP - nicely handled. Definitely think a gentle point out the error of his ways and make him feel guilty was the way to go.
That would have to be the case legally, but lots of places that use them would make providing one with an image standard process so it would make life a lot easier to have one ready.
Plus an image might suddenly need to be used somewhere else in the world. If an American company buys a publication, perhaps?
It's a good idea really, in short. Certainly not saying it is a necessity...just a good idea.
- Messages
- 32
- Edit My Images
- Yes
My own personal experience says you need the model to sign a release form if the work in commercial or being published in print or TV. This is outside of news broadcasting.
And as for exclusivity? Who are you David Bheckham? [I dont mean that rudely] But honestly be flattered people are taking pics of your wedding for you for free. Im sure you paid some other photographer. But the few extra free ones are still cool.
The term exclusive should only be used in celebrity magazines not personal events
In any case Congratulations.
And as for exclusivity? Who are you David Bheckham? [I dont mean that rudely] But honestly be flattered people are taking pics of your wedding for you for free. Im sure you paid some other photographer. But the few extra free ones are still cool.
The term exclusive should only be used in celebrity magazines not personal events
In any case Congratulations.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,108
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Source of your advice ?
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Experience from what? Have you been prosecuted for using a subject's images without a signed model release?
Why? And who's to say who's a celebrity?The term exclusive should only be used in celebrity magazines not personal events
Closest I can find to the law is the following article
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/law/090602intrusive.shtml
Specifically this paragraph of interest (as the photo could have been used for commercial use)
"Add to this mix the fact that European judges decided in February this year that the taking and retention of photographs of a newborn baby boy, Anastasios Reklos, in a Greek hospital without his parents' consent, as part of a commercial photography service operated by the hospital, infringed the child’s privacy rights even though no photograph was published. "
Not sure if a hospital is exactly a public place but the English law Right to Privacy (as part of the Human Rights Act) is derived from European law so its a bit of a minefield taking photographs in a public place and then trying to commercially exploit them without the subject's (or subject's guardian's) consent. Either way it doesn't bode to well if this gets picked up more as time goes by.
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/law/090602intrusive.shtml
Specifically this paragraph of interest (as the photo could have been used for commercial use)
"Add to this mix the fact that European judges decided in February this year that the taking and retention of photographs of a newborn baby boy, Anastasios Reklos, in a Greek hospital without his parents' consent, as part of a commercial photography service operated by the hospital, infringed the child’s privacy rights even though no photograph was published. "
Not sure if a hospital is exactly a public place but the English law Right to Privacy (as part of the Human Rights Act) is derived from European law so its a bit of a minefield taking photographs in a public place and then trying to commercially exploit them without the subject's (or subject's guardian's) consent. Either way it doesn't bode to well if this gets picked up more as time goes by.
- Messages
- 1,310
- Name
- Amir
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Out of interest, how come you had 4 pro togs and 3 videographers? Sounds a bit OTT?:shrug:
You've never been to an Asian wedding have you
OP
- Messages
- 1,241
- Name
- Bal Sanghera
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Out of interest, how come you had 4 pro togs and 3 videographers? Sounds a bit OTT?
You've never been to an Asian wedding have you
Its all about multi-cam babey!!!
It was a big fat indian wedding and anything less would be a waste IMO not over the top at all
I have read all of your comments and will not get in to a debate over what the law says and whether a model release form is required or not. Because that would be the least of worries as I doubt he had any insurance.
Yes the original post may have been in the heat of the moment but I have since cleared the air and politely informed the guy that he should have really asked permission from the brides father (not from a legal point of view but just out of respect) and given the discs to him first before giving it to other family members. Common sense really as the shots he was taking was of the bride and groom not the people who were attending.
No harm done, I am sure his intentions were inncocent and the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.
The good news is the pre-shoot photos look amazing and I cant wait to see the wedding pics!
Last edited:
