Ethics question.
Joe Addona
Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up by
the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
Assuming there is no intent to sell or profit from such pictures, what is
the harm of taking pictures posed by the photographer for your own souvenir?
If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
Your insight on these questions is more than welcome.
The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and give
them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
Joe
photo35744
politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop speak to the bride and
groom and remind them what is in the contract they signed.
It works.
--
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:wimt9.9245$OF3.3...@weber.videotron.net...
Joe Addona
And in addition to myself at least 3 other family members were taking the
same shots?
Joe
"photo35744" <REMOVE-ME...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5omt9.10489$U97.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Matt Clara
feel challenged by Aunt Ethel and her Kodak cardboard box camera? Get over
yourself, it's wedding photography, and not important to anyone except the
bride and groom.
My problem with other photographers moving in on my set is that they
distract my subjects, so that 1 out of every shot ends up looking at Aunt
Ethel instead of me. So, I organize it. First I get mine, then they have
their chance. I try and make a game of it. It makes if fun for everyone,
even me.
"photo35744" <REMOVE-ME...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5omt9.10489$U97.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
LEDMRVM
>photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and give
>them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
>
Yes. You are certainly infringing from an ethical standpoint. If the poses were
the photographer's setup, you may be cutting him out of an order. Why not wait
until they have ordered, received, and paid the pro, and then give them the CD?
Alternately, give them a CD with only your original poses on it.
Ed
Joe Addona
cardboard box camera :)
"Matt Clara" <no.email@thisguy's.expense> wrote in message
news:YEmt9.62146$La5.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Al Denelsbeck
Joe Addona <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:wimt9.9245$OF3.3...@weber.videotron.net...
Not at all, knock yourself out. There is no control, stated, contracted,
or implied, that any photographer could possibly wield over any guest taking
pics.
As for "If it's in my camera, then it's my picture!", well, if you
*took* it, then it's your pic :-). But no, there's no copyright applied to
poses or instruction.
A guest shooting over the photographer's shoulder would have to be damn
good to get any real benefit from the hired photographer's poses. I know
when I'm shooting a wedding, the angles, backgrounds, and depth-of-field are
carefully figured for *my* vantage point alone.
If any photographer feels threatened by Joe Weddingguest with a
Walgreen's Free-Film-For-Life camera, perhaps they should look into a little
something called 'technique'.
And as a small aside, I got my start in wedding photography when my
candids, as a guest, were better than the hired photog's :-). It's called
competition, and you gotta hustle to do well.
- Al.
--
Remove 'block' for direct reply.
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Matt Clara
"LEDMRVM" <led...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021022212320...@mb-fs.aol.com...
Perhaps I am in the minority, here, but it seems silly to think that the
amateur's photos are going to be as good as mine, so I don't worry about it.
There's more to composition than posing, certainly. Moreover, there's the
work the pro shop does developing the pictures. That puts you ahead of the
rest all by itself. Now, if the amateur is planning on bringing all of his
or her equipment, and doing some serious shooting, then it's a time issue,
and there just ain't enough of it for two "serious" photographers to go at
it during a wedding.
Matt
georgio
but as long as the photographer gets paid and he delivers..
voila!!
georgio
--
Remove the *NOSPAM* part in my email if you reply..
McEowen
them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues? >>
No.
McEowen
politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop speak to the bride and
groom and remind them what is in the contract they signed.
It works. >>
You get a lot of recommendations from satisfied customers? To me, the most
important thing in a wedding photographer is that they not be an ass. No one
will look at the photos in 20 years but they'll all remember the jerks. I'm not
saying your practice of limiting also-shooter borders on jerkiness but it does
seem a tad pissy . . .
RDKirk
blo...@wading-in.net says...
> If any photographer feels threatened by Joe Weddingguest with a
> Walgreen's Free-Film-For-Life camera, perhaps they should look into a little
> something called 'technique'.
>
Right. One should expect that when they see cousin Walt's photos and
then see the pro's work that they'd still prefer the pro.
If not, there's nothing unethical about Walt providing them with better
shots...there's more unethical about the pro charging them for inferior
work.
--
RDKirk
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
The Dave©
> When I photograph a wedding no one takes the same poses
> I do. If they try I politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop
> speak to the bride and groom and remind them what is in the
> contract they signed. It works.
It is also very short-sighted. If my photographer "tattled" on a guest of
mine, I would NEVER hire or recommend that photographer again.
Skip Middleton
grouses about "amateurs" getting in the way, he'd never dream of taking
steps to stop them. Way to disruptive. Same with my wife when she shot his
wedding.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"The DaveŠ" <thed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:urc75ui...@corp.supernews.com...
StillMan
interfered with what you are doing. The photographer has been paid to be
there, if he doesn't perform, he loses valuable reputation "points."
Imagine yourself at the office on a stressful day - corporate management is
in town and your performance today can very well have an effect on your pay.
Some guy walks up to your desk, opens his notebook computer, and starts
copying the stuff on your screen. He isn't going to sell it, he just wants
to make a few prints of this info for his own enjoyment (he is really into
widget sales numbers - don't ask.) Even if it is OK for him to know the
info, his being there is going to hinder you as you try to work. Now imagine
that every time you finish entering a few lines of data, he stops you and
turns the screen a little so he can see it better, then you have to turn it
back to continue working. How are you going to feel about that guy?
I don't care if someone shoots my poses from a print sales standpoint, I
charge what I want to make up front. (Anything that is going to be a big
money enlargement will have been taken in the bridal session well before the
wedding day - or will have been shot from my tripod, not too much chance of
uncle Harry's handheld on camera flash shot going to 16x20.)
What does bother me is when I am trying to have everyone look at me for the
picture and half of them are looking at a relative, or if it gets so noisy
that no one can hear my instructions, or the bride and groom don't have good
expressions because the people shooting after me prolong everything, or
several other things...
So - go ahead and shoot the hired guy's poses, just remember that he has
been paid to do a job, the bride and groom want him to take pictures, and
they probably want you to put down that camera you are chasing everyone with
all the time.
--
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:wimt9.9245$OF3.3...@weber.videotron.net...
StillMan
Unless someone is causing problems, I do not care if they shoot everything I
do. If someone is causing problems, I will speak to them directly, not
involving the bride (her job is to look pretty and get married, not control
a situation they have paid me to control.) When I speak to someone it is not
with any prima-donna attitude, but a "Please let me get my shot first - it's
for the album." or "Everyone is ready to get to the reception, so I am going
to have to hurry things along, I know you understand that Jack and Jill are
ready to cut the cake and head for the honeymoon."
--
"StillMan" <stil...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:urc9n9a...@corp.supernews.com...
William E. Graham
"Al Denelsbeck" <blo...@wading-in.net> wrote in message
news:Zwnt9.146318$S8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
I intend to shoot some pictures at my wife's granddaughter's wedding. I
will be taking B&W's, and I will give them to the father of the bride to
develop and print in his own darkroom. He would take them himself, but
he is part of the wedding party, and won't have the time. I don't expect
any opposition from the hired pro, but then, I will be taking natural
light, and don't expect to be in the way at all. Most of them will be of
wedding guests, and not the posed pictures of the pro.....
Mark Morgan
and that if you are truly feeling threatened by grandma and her
point-and-shoot camera, then you obviously don't have any skill worth paying
for.
Don't "steal my" **pose**????
Please.
I have never seen a wedding photog be that much of an ass.
Wedding photogs need to remember that they are merely recorders of an event.
They are paid to do this, but they do not have contracts with people as
"posers". Anyone and everyone at a wedding is free to smile for any camera
they want to.
As a courtesy, it is proper to wait until the wedding photog is through with
his shot(s) before others shoot, but that's more so that all eyes are
looking at the correct camera, for Pete's sake.
Wedding photogs are NOT what the event is about.
They are only a small piece of an important event...where many people will
rightly want to take pictures.
"photo35744" <REMOVE-ME...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5omt9.10489$U97.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark Morgan
computer"!!
You did not "produce" the wedding party, the relationship, the event, or
it's participants.
Unless you walked around and had every single person in the church sign an
exclusive contract (which may not even be legal), you have ZERO say over who
can snap memory photos!
What is with these wedding photographers who seem to think they are in
charge of **anything**???
You sell an album--and if you're worth your salt, you've already agreed
before hand what the minimum purchase of pictures will be. You are assured
of that. Anything beyond that is absolutely not up to you.
You are a recorder of a wedding who has agreed to sell pictures to the bride
and groom.
You have made no such agreement with other bystanders, and they are free to
do whatever they like.
You are a wedding **photographer.**
Don't confuse that with being **the wedding**.
"StillMan" <stil...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:urc9n9a...@corp.supernews.com...
ChrisPlatt
Don't be shy. Just shoot!
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
Michael Benveniste
> If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
Leaving aside issues of model releases, right to publicity, right to
privacy, and appropriation of image and likeness aside, yes.
> The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
> wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
> photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and give
> them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
One often has both a legal and ethical right to be a boor. This doesn't
mean you should be one. My personal guidelines for taking photographs
as a wedding guest are as follows:
-- Stay out of the sightlines of the other guests. I'm not a VIP
just because I showed up with some glass.
-- Don't get in the way of people while they are trying to work. The
bride and groom are paying these people to make their day perfect;
anything I do that interfers with anyone from doing their best
is a disservice to the new couple. The wedding photographer is
not an exception.
-- The wedding ceremony itself, no matter how informal, deserves
my utmost respect.
-- There's not much point in duplicating the shots the pro is already
taking. If I want to try a different angle or effect, _and_
it doesn't violate points one or two, I'll try to ask permission
ahead of time.
-- If one "accidentially" takes a close shot of the bride or the
bride's mother with a wide-angel lens, don't ever let anyone
see it. Ever.
As you show your results to the bride and groom, what you want to
hear is: "These are wonderful! I didn't even notice you taking
pictures!"
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@clearether.com
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Scott M. Knowles
> politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop speak to the bride and
> groom and remind them what is in the contract they signed. It works.
I agree. On occasion I have been asked to shoot informal/candid
photos, sometimes while the pro works even with the group shots. I
always recommend they hire pro since it's not my photography area, and
I also always ask the family to inform the professional that I'm
shooting and to let me know if the pro has problems with it or I'm
interferring. It works for me (never had a problem).
--Scott--
Ed
object?
> And in addition to myself at least 3 other family members were taking the
> same shots?
If the photographer is graceful enough to allow you to do it, then be
graceful enough not to take business away from them. If you look at it from
the hired photographer's viewpoint, any picture you take is potentially a
picture that the photographer doesn't sell. This is their bread & butter,
and something they were hired to do. Giving those pictures to the bride &
groom are even more pictures he may not be able to sell. Keep in mind that
only about half of the money a photographer makes comes from the wedding
shoot itself, they depend on the other half coming from enlargements and
reprints. The bride & groom wouldn't have hired a professional if they
didn't expect to pay quite a bit for enlargements as well.
I recently attended the wedding of a cousin, where the bride's mother asked
me to get a couple of pictures of her with her daughter. The bride & groom
initially asked if I wanted to shoot their wedding, but I have a personal
policy to stay away from doing work for family or close friends. Instead, I
suggested they go with a particular local professional who I had not
personally met but carried a decent reputation for good work. Lots of other
people had cameras at the wedding, some even had Rebel2000 SLR's. While I
was taking my few shots of the bride with her mother, the pro photographer
went haywire and told the bridal party that he didn't want my camera being
there, as it was "pro-level equipment". I found it ironic since he wouldn't
have the business to begin with if it weren't for my referral. Sure, it is
a better setup than the Rebel2000, but it was still 35mm compared to him
shooting 6x4 in a Hasselblad. I respected his request and stopped taking
pictures. That wasn't good enough, as I still had my camera in the building
and he voiced further disapproval to the bride & groom. He was actually
causing such a commotion that my wife and I left to prevent any conflict
within the family and detract from the most important thing - the wedding.
It boils down to the agreement/contract the bridal party and photographer
had up front. If the photographer's signed contract states that nobody else
can take pictures, then it's entirely at the photographer's discretion as to
who does and doesn't take pictures. If their requirements aren't met, they
can legally walk away from the wedding, keep the money and give nothing in
return.
Peter Smithson
<caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
I've got a slightly different but related question.
I was surprised that wedding photographers keep the negatives.
Although I've seen adverts for photographers who give out the
negatives, this discussion shows that it might be a bit rare.
Someone tried to make a comparission with office work. I work as a
programer and any programs I produce are the property of the company I
work for.
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge more for the time and give them
the negatives? After all, you hire the expertise of a photorgrapher
for taking pictures - not for making albums or making prints. Or is
this actually quite common? Just wondering.
--
http://www.wadmag.org.uk
http://uk.geocities.com/ukwebring - UK Motorcycle site webring
Bruce Murphy
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:45:11 -0400, "Joe Addona"
> <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>
> I've got a slightly different but related question.
>
> I was surprised that wedding photographers keep the negatives.
> Although I've seen adverts for photographers who give out the
> negatives, this discussion shows that it might be a bit rare.
>
> Someone tried to make a comparission with office work. I work as a
> programer and any programs I produce are the property of the company I
> work for.
If you're a full-time employee, sure. What if you're a contractor
brought in briefly? In that case you'll find that it's whatever the
contract says.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to charge more for the time and give them
> the negatives? After all, you hire the expertise of a photorgrapher
> for taking pictures - not for making albums or making prints. Or is
> this actually quite common? Just wondering.
Becuase humans are stupid, they are frequently lured by lower up-front
costs and forget about or ignore the higher costs further down the
track. As this is an established business practice, the only way to
achieve it is to keep hold of the negatives.
Of course, who actually retains copyright of the photos is a big and
complex issue that varies over time, and from state to state and country
to country. Most people have explicit contracts to avoid messiness.
B>
StillMan
I agree with you completely. All I said, in a rather verbose way, is that
the people who are attending the wedding need to give the photographer who
is working at the wedding enough consideration not to hinder his work.
People who are considerate of the fact that I am working do not bother me at
all.
--
"Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zout9.51111$o.31...@news1.west.cox.net...
StillMan
very personal day for the couple. As long as I get paid what I want to make,
I don't mind the idea of them making their own reprints. I don't release the
negatives, but I supply a CD that they can use with a good inkjet or
Frontier for the photos for their thank you notes or whatever.
My office work example was not to show a correlation between widget sales
data and photographs, but rather that it was big day for you and someone
hindered your workflow by copying your work.
That being said, there is an intellectual property argument here. Despite
the fact that what you write belongs to the company, it does not belong to
the guy who sits at your desk and wants to copy the work. Good posing is a
skill, and maybe even an art - in that sense the photographer has created
something that is uniquely his. Most people can not pose one person
properly, much less a whole group of people. I understand the photogs who do
not want anyone shooting over their shoulder - if they were hired because of
their posed formals, then this is the most important part of their work and
it is really something they have created. I am under no illusion that I am a
great poser of groups, I am no "stand over there and smile" guy, but I do
not put my emphasis there - this is probably why I have the attitude that as
long as I am not hindered in doing my job, you can follow me all day.
Making the album and the prints is a big part of why a photographer is
hired. The albums and printing that are available to pros are not readily
available to people not in the trade. If the photographer sells by showing
an album, that is what the B&G expect to have delivered.
--
"Peter Smithson" <Peter_Smithson....@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:3db6c396...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Vince
>rading photographic ethics.
>
>Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up by
>the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
OH YES
>Assuming there is no intent to sell or profit from such pictures, what is
>the harm of taking pictures posed by the photographer for your own souvenir?
YES you're stealing his work.
>If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
>
>Your insight on these questions is more than welcome.
>
>The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
>wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
>photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and give
>them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
Well I'll tell you Joe I have in in "MY" contract that no other photographer
may copy my posses or interfere with my work, (Its there doesn't always means
it works)
I started this from some years back when another pro (A friend of the couple)
who
was jealous he didn't get the job started getting in the way, setting his own
poses etc.
By giving shots to your cousin the offical pro will get less of an order so in
that case YES you are infring period.
--------------------------------------------------------
Vince
Check it out
www.holvbphoto.com
Mark Morgan
"Vince" <holvb...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20021023163430...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
Never hire Vince.
Salts2001
>so in
>> that case YES you are infring period.
Hog wash! With rare exceptions, the pictures that the family are snapping
during the formals are low to average quality. Maybe good as snaps, but not
professional quality. I say the more photos the better.
When I got married we specifically asked the photog for his policy. He asked
that all formals be taken with no other shooting. Then during the last five
minutes he put down his camera and posed us...telling our friends where to
shoot from and giving advice. He even pulled out a small flash and loaned it
to my uncle to keep him from using a slow shutter. What a business man! I
know that he got 4 jobs from my wedding alone...before they had seen the
prints. When the time came to order, we purchased all the books that we had
planned, never giving consideration to the family shots. They made for great
memories, but even the untrained eye can see the difference in quality.
Alan Browne
reprint sales? Doubtful.
One of the regular posters here has a great wedding site and his 20 or
so years of wedding photography is refelcted in his simple, no-nonsense
attitude towards weddings. He only asks that he have primacy, and then
he actually encourages the "hangers on" to take their shots too, even
after a formal set up.
Cheers,
Alan
Joe Addona wrote:
> That's a fair statement, but what if the hired photographer did not object?
> And in addition to myself at least 3 other family members were taking the
> same shots?
>
> Joe
> "photo35744" <REMOVE-ME...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:5omt9.10489$U97.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>>When I photograph a wedding no one takes the same poses I do. If they try
>>
> I
>
>>politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop speak to the bride
>>
> and
>
>>groom and remind them what is in the contract they signed.
>>It works.
>>
>>--
>>
>>"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>>news:wimt9.9245$OF3.3...@weber.videotron.net...
>>
>>>I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>>>
>>>Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up
>>>
> by
>
>>>the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
>>>
>>>Assuming there is no intent to sell or profit from such pictures, what
>>>
> is
>
>>>the harm of taking pictures posed by the photographer for your own
>>>
>>souvenir?
>>
>>>If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
>>>
>>>Your insight on these questions is more than welcome.
>>>
>>>The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
>>>wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
>>>photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and
>>>
>>give
>>
>>>them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal
>>>
> issues?
>
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
StillMan
party is only looking at one photographer at a time, everyone gets pictures
they enjoy, and the hired photographer gets to be a nice guy for a change.
To be honest, some pros are jerks, but the vast majority of pros I know only
try to hold to some set of rules so they can produce a product they are
proud to present to the people who hired him. They have experienced the
pitfalls of not keeping some semblance of order and paid for it dearly.
--
"Salts2001" <salt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021023175825...@mb-cs.aol.com...
JCulp
bent over the contract, sure I signed, but you slapping me with that
would mean you wouldnt see me or any of my friends or relatives again.
OTOH, if you had mentioned that the other photographers were
distracting the subjects and the likelyhood of getting excellent
keepsake photos was going toward zero, I would kick out all the
amateurs myself.
OTOH #2, if you helped organize an amateur shoot after your setup, I
would guess that you get a lot of repeat business. It's not much of a
risk to you, because their point and shoots cant compare with what you
have.
Mark Morgan
suggests...right?
:)
You and I are in agreement on this issue.
"Salts2001" <salt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021023175825...@mb-cs.aol.com...
Salts2001
>suggests...right?
Meant to respond to Vince. Sorry. Quoted off the wrong post.
Dave Farmer
Peter_Smithson....@hotmail.com (Peter Smithson) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:45:11 -0400, "Joe Addona"
><caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>
>I've got a slightly different but related question.
>
>I was surprised that wedding photographers keep the negatives.
>Although I've seen adverts for photographers who give out the
>negatives, this discussion shows that it might be a bit rare.
In my experience, if the photographer 'loses' the negs, then provides
you with the proofs that were handed round at the reception, then
finds the negs, then makes awful prints, then disappears for 18
months, then, when you track him down, claims to not have negs or
pictures, then finds them, then cannot afford to have pictures made as
he's broke, then disappears again for another few months... well, when
you track him down again you make sure you get the negatives!
Dave.
Dave Farmer
None of the hand-held 35mm guests can hope to compete with a
tripod-mounted medium format operation - and the bride and groom will
select their photos from the official stuff regardless of what 6x4
offerings a guest may show them. Their special day will be represented
by those high-quality images they sought out in the first place. And
even if a guest has a few good shots too they are extra - not part of
the wedding album or the family hand-outs.
Dave.
T. P.
>Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up by
>the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
Yes, of course they are. Especially if they didn't ask first.
Mark Morgan
"T. P." <t...@noemailthanks.com> wrote in message
news:4peerusalcio6bo51...@4ax.com...
No no no.
-Never ask permission of those without the right to dispense or withhold it.
Bruce Murphy
I'd have to weigh in and ask what you think a wedding photog who has
guests actively getting in the way and ruining/delaying set shots (or
even worse, the bridal procession) is supposed to do?
Lay down and get sued for non-performing?
B>
Mark Morgan
> > -Never ask permission of those without the right to dispense or withhold
it.
>
> I'd have to weigh in and ask what you think a wedding photog who has
> guests actively getting in the way and ruining/delaying set shots (or
> even worse, the bridal procession) is supposed to do?
>
> Lay down and get sued for non-performing?
Certainly not.
If you read some of my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I've
commented on this.
Barrett Benton
the few weddings I've shot. You never know who among the wedding party
might call on you to shoot *their* wedding. It pays to be cordial.
- Barrett
In article <ure7j23...@corp.supernews.com>, "StillMan"
Bruce Murphy
All I can find is your comment that of course guests should be polite
and not distract people during formals, but what if they do? further
what about the other non-recoverable cases I've mentioned above?
B>
The Dave©
> It boils down to the agreement/contract the bridal party
> and photographer had up front. If the photographer's
> signed contract states that nobody else can take pictures,
> then it's entirely at the photographer's discretion as to
> who does and doesn't take pictures. If their requirements
> aren't met, they can legally walk away from the wedding,
> keep the money and give nothing in return.
Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Ask yourself this question:
Knowing what you now know about this particular photographer, will you ever
recommend him again?
The Dave©
> It boils down to the agreement/contract the bridal party
> and photographer had up front. If the photographer's
> signed contract states that nobody else can take pictures,
> then it's entirely at the photographer's discretion as to
> who does and doesn't take pictures. If their requirements
> aren't met, they can legally walk away from the wedding,
> keep the money and give nothing in return.
If the contract is between the bride and groom and photographer, and the
guest is a 3rd party, and the invitations say nothing about "no cameras",
how can the photographer stop a 3rd party from taking their own pictures?
Just curious.
Vince
<thed...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>It is also very short-sighted. If my photographer "tattled" on a guest of
>mine, I would NEVER hire or recommend that photographer again.
>
>
Say what?
Vince
<no.email@thisguy's.expense> writes:
>
>My problem with other photographers moving in on my set is that they
>distract my subjects, so that 1 out of every shot ends up looking at Aunt
>Ethel instead of me. So, I organize it. First I get mine, then they have
>their chance. I try and make a game of it. It makes if fun for everyone,
>even me.
I've got a better one you're trying to do the formals and the guests keep
coming over to talk to the couple right in the way of your shot(s), can you say
bunch of morons?
I had this at a wedding I was doing for another studio, I'm glad it wasn't
mine.
Vince
<no.email@thisguy's.expense> writes:
>Perhaps I am in the minority, here, but it seems silly to think that the
>amateur's photos are going to be as good as mine
Well unless you're using radio flash he/she'll will have the advantage of YOUR
extra flashes.
Vince
<mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>
>Never hire Vince.
>
And what do you mean by that?
Salts2001
>guest is a 3rd party, and the invitations say nothing about "no cameras",
>how can the photographer stop a 3rd party from taking their own pictures?
The photog would have a tough time pressing the third parties. He would have
few options... stop taking pictures until they quit, go after the newlyweds in
court for breech of contract or go postal on the guests...all making him look
like a jerk and a lousy businessperson who should probably turn in his
equipment and apply at the KMart studio.
A good business person would find a productive way of working out this problem
in advance, since we all know it occurs. Don't forget that most "point and
shooters" haven't a clue what a dozen extra flashes will do to an exposure, or
how a shot can be ruined when just one of 12 is distracted.
At our wedding we had a family member hold off the private shooters until the
proper time. The photog didn't have to be the heavy and looked like the hero
when he helped them all with their pics. A simple solution that works and lets
the couple be in charge of their own wedding. Way to many photogs present
themselves as the boss of the show. Yes, they have a responsibility to produce
a quality product. But they have to remember that they are the employee, not
the boss.
It's a business like any other. You have to approach it with a customer
friendly attitude or close shop.
Salts2001
>Knowing what you now know about this particular photographer, will you ever
>recommend him again?
Couldn't agree more! Many wedding photographers are getting themselves a bad
name over this exact issue. When checking out their work,
"bossy"..."arrogant"..."controlling" are words you frequently hear. I don't
photograph weddings, but I do a lot of them from the front of the church. I
have been fascinated over the years to watch how different photogs work.
Doesn't take long to tell which ones will make it and which ones will be
delivering pizza to make ends meet.
BTW...keep in mind that the minister does a lot of weddings and is one of the
people asked for a recommendation. It never hurts to impress him/her.
Lewis Lang
>From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
>Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 12:39 PM
>Message-id: <urdk6cb...@corp.supernews.com>
SNIP
No matter how you feel about posing and intellectual property, poses are not
copyrightable, regardless of whose they are:
"...A photograph that is an infringement of a copyrighted work is not
copyrightable"... but, as the book continues ..."Ideas are not copyrightable,
although the creative expression of an idea is. The idea to photograph the
subject in a special way is not copyrightable, for example, but the photograph
itself definitely would be copyrightable."...
Quoted (under Fair Use provision of copyright law I might add) from pg. 181 of
the book "SELLING YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY The Complete Marketing, Business and Legal
Guide" by Arie Kopelman and Tad Crawford, Š 1980 by Arie Kopelman and Tad
Crawford.
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Lewis Lang
>From: dave-...@bigfoot.com (Dave Farmer)
>Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 7:41 PM
>Message-id: <3db732b5...@news.freeserve.net>
I either smell DektolTM or another "The Fugitive" sequel -now where did that
man w/ the Hassy and the prosthetic arm go to?... "Paging Dr. Richard
Kimbal"... ;-)
StillMan
a legal sense. I meant it is his idea, his work, and should be respected as
such. I wouldn't feel like much of a photographer if all I did was push the
button on someone else's posing.
--
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021024001637...@mb-co.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Ethics question.
> >From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
> >Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 12:39 PM
> >Message-id: <urdk6cb...@corp.supernews.com>
> No matter how you feel about posing and intellectual property, poses are
Mark Morgan
"Bruce Murphy" <pack...@rattus.net> wrote in message
news:m21y6gp...@fuscipes.rattus.net...
When it is hindering the interest of the Bride and Groom's pictures, then it
would certainly be appropriate to ask them to wait. My only objection is to
the wedding photog acting solely to bolster his own after-contract/after
event sales. That is a different matter entirely. As I said before...He's
contracted for a minimum purchase. Anything above that is optional, and he
has no "right" to further salesmanship. If the guests are hindering the
Bride and Groom's album creation, then fine. Beyond that...DOWN BOY! (to
the ravenous photog, of course).
Lewis Lang
>From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
>Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2002 1:01 AM
>Message-id: <urevlma...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>I should have chosen my words better. I didn't mean intellectual property
>in
>a legal sense. I meant it is his idea, his work, and should be respected
>as
>such. I wouldn't feel like much of a photographer if all I did was push
>the
>button on someone else's posing.
>
But I would (feel like much of a photographer) if I modified the same pose and
took it from a different perspective and w/ a different lens, which is exactly
what happened at the last wedding (my brother's) I photographed where both I
and anpther photog was hired (I was in the weird position of being both a
photographer and a groomsman). You'd have to look at the shots she and I took
and I believe you would say there was a significant difference and that my shot
was indeed mine and her shot was indeed hers, despite the legalities involved
(sorry, don't own a scanner and I wouldn't reproduce her finished shot either
w/o her approval anyways).
>
>
>--
>"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20021024001637...@mb-co.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Ethics question.
>> >From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
>> >Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 12:39 PM
>> >Message-id: <urdk6cb...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>> No matter how you feel about posing and intellectual property, poses are
>not
>> copyrightable, regardless of whose they are:
Regards,
Mark Morgan
"Vince" <holvb...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20021023235725...@mb-cs.news.cs.com...
> In article <PlEt9.82104$o.39...@news1.west.cox.net>, "Mark Morgan"
> <mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Never hire Vince.
> >
>
> And what do you mean by that?
I mean...knowing how you would conduct yourself were you a wedding photog,
I'd say look elsewhere for a more reasonable attitude.
That's all.
;-0
Bruce Murphy
> When it is hindering the interest of the Bride and Groom's pictures, then it
> would certainly be appropriate to ask them to wait.
And if you're a wedding photographer who was going ot ask people to wait
when they jumped out in front of the bridal procession with point and shoots
preventing you from getting important shots, what then?
You can't ask them to wait, you've just blown the wedding photography.
> My only objection is to
> the wedding photog acting solely to bolster his own after-contract/after
> event sales. That is a different matter entirely.
Yes, that's being a complete bastard, but very few of the people here have
had a problem with this.
> As I said before...He's
> contracted for a minimum purchase. Anything above that is optional, and he
> has no "right" to further salesmanship. If the guests are hindering the
> Bride and Groom's album creation, then fine. Beyond that...DOWN BOY!
So the question remains. What would you do if a guest was actively
preventing you getting the wedding shots. Be polite and wait, then
lie down and get sued?
B>
Mark Morgan
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >Subject: Re: Ethics question. - infringement
> >From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
> >Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2002 1:01 AM
> >Message-id: <urevlma...@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >I should have chosen my words better. I didn't mean intellectual property
> >in
> >a legal sense. I meant it is his idea, his work, and should be respected
> >as
> >such. I wouldn't feel like much of a photographer if all I did was push
> >the
> >button on someone else's posing.
> >
>
> But I would (feel like much of a photographer) if I modified the same pose
and
> took it from a different perspective and w/ a different lens, which is
exactly
> what happened at the last wedding (my brother's) I photographed where both
I
> and anpther photog was hired (I was in the weird position of being both a
> photographer and a groomsman).
Heeheehee...
The last wedding I was in, I was the best man...AND...I was asked to shoot
candid pictures on my D30.
There was a wedding photog who looked at me with a tad of a look, but I
wasn't trying to compete with her at all, or jockey for position. I gave
the family members a disc of candids and they loved it. The photog didn't
even attempt to shoot candids, so it was appreciated.
Mark Morgan
> "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > When it is hindering the interest of the Bride and Groom's pictures,
then it
> > would certainly be appropriate to ask them to wait.
>
> And if you're a wedding photographer who was going ot ask people to wait
> when they jumped out in front of the bridal procession with point and
shoots
> preventing you from getting important shots, what then?
At that point, the wedding coordinator...seeing the difficulty should step
in--in the interest of the bride and groom.
That is what she is there for, and she has no alterior motives.
>
> You can't ask them to wait, you've just blown the wedding photography.
If you're going to argue only extreme examples, then I'll respectfully exit
this conversation.
Don't go there Bruce...or if you wish to, you'll go without me.
:)
>
> > My only objection is to
> > the wedding photog acting solely to bolster his own after-contract/after
> > event sales. That is a different matter entirely.
>
> Yes, that's being a complete bastard, but very few of the people here have
> had a problem with this.
You think? Good!
I've been reading and responding to those like Vince who take offense at
people "cutting into his business possibilities" (or something like that).
>
> > As I said before...He's
> > contracted for a minimum purchase. Anything above that is optional, and
he
> > has no "right" to further salesmanship. If the guests are hindering the
> > Bride and Groom's album creation, then fine. Beyond that...DOWN BOY!
>
> So the question remains. What would you do if a guest was actively
> preventing you getting the wedding shots. Be polite and wait, then
> lie down and get sued?
You mean if I were the photog?
Then in that case (if my polite requests were ignored), I would talk to the
wedding coordinator, and make sure she/he took care of it. Anyway...the
kinds of shots we'd typically be talking about are posed. If some idiot
gets in the way, the shot isn't lost...it's just slightly postponed. We're
not talking about people jumping up in the middle of the ceremony.
Actually...If some did have the gall to do that...then unfortunately, that's
out of anyone's control, and would go down in history as what one of the
bride and groom idiot friends did to their album. :) I have NEVER seen
that happen, however, so I think you're just arguing for fun if you're gonna
go there. Fun fun fun!!
Mark Morgan
> Then in that case (if my polite requests were ignored), I would talk to
the
> wedding coordinator, and make sure she/he took care of it. Anyway...the
> kinds of shots we'd typically be talking about are posed. If some idiot
> gets in the way, the shot isn't lost...it's just slightly postponed.
We're
> not talking about people jumping up in the middle of the ceremony.
> Actually...If some did have the gall to do that...then unfortunately,
that's
> out of anyone's control, and would go down in history as what one of the
> bride and groom idiot friends did to their album. :) I have NEVER seen
> that happen, however, so I think you're just arguing for fun if you're
gonna
> go there. Fun fun fun!!
I would add to that...
If a wedding photographer doesn't have good enough people skills to deal
effectively in the polite and reasonable prevention of these catastrophes,
then that person should NOT be a wedding photog at all.
Some photog jobs require special abilities. If one doesn't have them...get
the heck out of that segment.
What would you do, Bruce?
Whatever it is...I'm sure it's a far superior plan than anything this
'merican could come up with.
:)
:)
:) (Note the smiley)
Bruce Murphy
> I would add to that...
> If a wedding photographer doesn't have good enough people skills to deal
> effectively in the polite and reasonable prevention of these catastrophes,
> then that person should NOT be a wedding photog at all.
Funny, but I got the impression that the photographers who really
didn't want other people taking photographs were the ones who had
been screwed in the past by just this sort of incident.
> Some photog jobs require special abilities. If one doesn't have them...get
> the heck out of that segment.
I'm not sure that being lucky enough that noone screws it up for you
can be considered a 'special ability' in this sense. I also submit
that if you were doing a big-ticket wedding, and some idiot got in
the way and destroyed the bridal procession photos, you'd still get
sued over it. At least in your country.
> What would you do, Bruce?
Taking a leaf from the american book, I would ask my Texan assistant to
shoot them, and then stand behind me looking threatening so noone
else tried it.
Hopefully it wouldn't spatter the bride's dress too much.
For the record, I don't shoot weddings, and I don't want to shoot
weddings, because I'm not allowed to shoot mothers-in-law.
B>
Mark Morgan
> didn't want other people taking photographs were the ones who had
> been screwed in the past by just this sort of incident.
More likely, they just plain suck eggs with the camera, and are trying to
rationalize why nobody want to buy more than the minimum number of pics from
them. :)
> > What would you do, Bruce?
>
> Taking a leaf from the american book, I would ask my Texan assistant to
> shoot them, and then stand behind me looking threatening so noone
> else tried it.
Ah! Now you're catching on! We may make a 'merican gunslinger out of you
yet, Bruce.
Do you own guns over yonder in the outback? -Or have you been neutered over
there like the Brits.
> Hopefully it wouldn't spatter the bride's dress too much.
Ya... Then they REALLY wouldn't buy more wedding pics, huh.
> For the record, I don't shoot weddings, and I don't want to shoot
> weddings, because I'm not allowed to shoot mothers-in-law.
Neither do I. Too much begging...carping...whining (whining as the photog,
apparently) and being an ass (according to some annoying wedding photogs in
this thread).
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2002 1:23 AM
>Message-id: <dtLt9.102056$o.55...@news1.west.cox.net>
Hi Mark:
I shot on film, would have loved to have shot it on digi for the lack of film
changing, but Minolta (and Pentax) don't have digi SLRs for when I need to
shoot lots of images (those bastards! :-)), though I'd still prefer the film
for most fine art stuff, I feel it would be more permanent than the digi (I
really hate having to re-copy something every 5 years to assure no degradation
of the digital media). Both film and digi have their place - unfortunately digi
is beyond my wallet while film drains/bleeds my wallet - choose your poison ;-)
:-). Color neg is also a dubious medium, I see no detailed Pop Photo longevity
articles for many years on which color neg films are most stable, most of the
films they list in 1990 are either gone or so modified that who knows what the
current generation is like... Henry Wilhelm where are you?... :-)
On a side note, saw some Frontier prints from a Fuji S2 last week , great up to
10x15" (and I mean great by my hard assed standards of looking at the print
closely not from an average 4x6" snapshooters standards) but at larger sizes
than 10x15" there is definite pixelization. I figure I'll get a very decent
image from a 12mb camera and those have essentially arrived w/ the new Canon
and Kodak models (11 and 14MP respectively), though ideally I figure I'd need
about 24MP for a 16x20" (approx.) print. None of this matters to me, of course
unless I either earn a heck of alot more or prices come down into the 35mm
prosumer range for me ($500-$1,000) for either a new or used 12MP digi body.
And then again, there's that Nikon/Canon thing... those bodies are just too
damn big for lugging around all day long (Rebels and lower two digit Nikon N
series bodies excluded of course - L zooms and pro level Canon SLRs should come
w/ their own assistant or hip replacement surgery ;-)). Too bad Contax doesn't
release a G3 and a G3 digital that would make it a blessing to use and carry
lightweight film and/or digital rangefinder (w/ manual focus patch confirmation
and a 25mm viewfinder and a 25mm G lens, YIPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEE!!!!). Even better,
or at least as good would be an Aria sized Contax SLR that would accept both
the N lenses, the G lenses, and the older MF MM and AE lenses. Hey, it doesn't
cost anyhting to dream... Hasselblad just came out w/ a 645 AF camera so
anything's possible (except, perhaps, me being able to afford any of these
beasties ;-))
Bruce Murphy
> > Funny, but I got the impression that the photographers who really
> > didn't want other people taking photographs were the ones who had
> > been screwed in the past by just this sort of incident.
>
> More likely, they just plain suck eggs with the camera, and are trying to
> rationalize why nobody want to buy more than the minimum number of pics from
> them. :)
Probably, yes, but as long as you admit that there is probably *one* who
acts like that becuase they've been burnt! haha! admit defeat, you scoundrel!
I am not really left-handed! etc! :>
> > > What would you do, Bruce?
> >
> > Taking a leaf from the american book, I would ask my Texan assistant to
> > shoot them, and then stand behind me looking threatening so noone
> > else tried it.
>
> Ah! Now you're catching on! We may make a 'merican gunslinger out of you
> yet, Bruce.
Gods, no. Anyway, I don't like peanut butter enough to an american.
> Do you own guns over yonder in the outback? -Or have you been neutered over
> there like the Brits.
Interesting point. There isn't much private gun ownership in the city
since everything is licensed. (now) Some states as little as 30 years
ago only required licenses for weapons which were concealable, so rifles
weren't. THis has changed now.
They've pushed semi-automatic rifles out of circulation in fairly
recent times too. As far as gun ownership goes, very few large
properties outside the city don't have a couple around for various
purposes. It's a little difficult to have a million-acre sheep
property in Britain, so they have less need.
Oh, and assault rifles and suchlike have never been among the
licensable weapons. Unlike your country where your Congress has just
started making noises about making illegal guns capable of shooting
down helicopters, and lightly armoured vehicles and industrial
facilities.
B>
Mark Morgan
I'm thinking maybe we should start the world over.
Make all the things like cabbage and broccoli taste like cream cheese and
sugar...and make things like chocolate taste like some other brown stuff
that don't smell so good.
Hey God?
.
.
.
.
Are you listening????
...OK then. Now then...
...Get it RIGHT next time for Pete's sake!!
Oh, and while you're at it--could you please bring down the price of those
danged digital SLRs for pooooor Lewis?
Thanks.
:)
Mark Morgan
> recent times too. As far as gun ownership goes, very few large
> properties outside the city don't have a couple around for various
> purposes. It's a little difficult to have a million-acre sheep
> property in Britain, so they have less need.
>
> Oh, and assault rifles and suchlike have never been among the
> licensable weapons. Unlike your country where your Congress has just
> started making noises about making illegal guns capable of shooting
> down helicopters, and lightly armoured vehicles and industrial
> facilities.
What did that wicked bloody fool use to shoot all those folks the other day
in ausie land?
Very sad.
Bruce Murphy
Semi-automatic pistol. the ones that reduce crime apparantly. An
economics major, which is practically a liberal art.
B>
Mark Morgan
I have three semi-automatic pistols, and they have yet to kill anyone.
I keep them locked in a safe so as to not allow them to jump out and shoot
everyone.
Guns do that, ya know.
Bruce Murphy
> > Semi-automatic pistol. the ones that reduce crime apparantly. An
> > economics major, which is practically a liberal art.
>
> I have three semi-automatic pistols, and they have yet to kill anyone.
> I keep them locked in a safe so as to not allow them to jump out and shoot
> everyone.
> Guns do that, ya know.
Guns don't kill people, americans kill people.
B>
Dallas2
venture off to a remote shoot location directly after the service, while the
guests make their way to the reception.
That way there is a reduced chance of uncle Bob & aunt Betsy elbowing their
way into the posed shots.
I don't know if the same thing happens in other parts of the world.
--
© Dallas
www.eastcoast.co.za/dallas
There is no such thing as cheap photography
.
"Joe Addona" <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:wimt9.9245$OF3.3...@weber.videotron.net...
> I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>
> Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up by
> the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
>
> Assuming there is no intent to sell or profit from such pictures, what is
> the harm of taking pictures posed by the photographer for your own
souvenir?
>
> If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
>
> Your insight on these questions is more than welcome.
>
> The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
> wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
> photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and
give
> them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
>
> Joe
>
>
Mark Morgan
Hmmm... Unfortunately, some ausies shoot and kill as well...even with no
guns!
Tony Parkinson
news:6nMt9.104513$o.57...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> Ah! Now you're catching on! We may make a 'merican gunslinger out
of you
> yet, Bruce.
> Do you own guns over yonder in the outback? -Or have you been
neutered over
> there like the Brits.
>
or start a long thread on Libertarianism vs. liberalism, but with all
due respect it's not so much a case of being "neutered" as a different
history and philosophy.
Whereas the USA being a fairly young country had a time when people
were living on the frontier of civilisation, Here in Britain we have
not really had that, at least within the past few generations
Consequently where gun ownership was a necessity for survival and
defence in the USA (and indeed enshrined in your constitution) and is
within the relatively recent collective racial memory of your nation,
this is not the case in Britain where gun ownership has pretty much
been restricted to the criminal element, those who wished to use guns
for recreational/sporting purposes and those who may have had a
legitimate need for them in their work (farmers, gamekeepers, etc).
As a result of this gun ownership has never been that common in
Britain (at least not within our recent collective racial memory)
other than returning WWI & II veterans returning home with "keepsakes"
and has always been more closely regulated here (with the exception of
such "keepsakes"). I understand it is still possible for those who
have a legitimate need to own a weapon to do so, though it is closely
controlled. Also, given the number of grouse & pheasant shoots which
take place, it appears that it is also still possible for those rich
enough (given that the cost in £ for a days shoot will be well into 3
figures and sometimes runs to 4 figures) to own or at least use) a
gun. I suspect the majority of the electorate here are quite happy
with the current legislation (though perhaps not with the way it is
operated) especially if it prevents further tragedies such as those at
Hungerford and the place in Scotland whose name escapes me.
I'm not saying one way is better than the other but merely why I
believe these 2 very different positions came about.
Mark Morgan
"Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ap88pd$3u6$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:6nMt9.104513$o.57...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >
> > Ah! Now you're catching on! We may make a 'merican gunslinger out
> of you
> > yet, Bruce.
> > Do you own guns over yonder in the outback? -Or have you been
> neutered over
> > there like the Brits.
> >
> Mark, I don't wish to criticise the American view on gun control here
> or start a long thread on Libertarianism vs. liberalism, but with all
> due respect it's not so much a case of being "neutered" as a different
> history and philosophy.
Tony,
It was a silly thing to say, and not reflective of my thoughts on the
matter.
You make valid points I do not disagree with.
No...Brits haven't been neutered.
I do own guns, BTW, but I don't kill people or even animals with them.
So why have them?
Some people like darts for the same reason.
:)
History has played a huge role in establishing a great many of the the
things associated with terrible 'mericans.
There is certainly a long-festering belief that guns will somehow protect us
from tyranny. That may have once been true.
But alas...I am far too tired to carry on with anything requiring brain
power tonight! (Bruce, Tony Paper, and others...that was your cue to chime
in with some rude remark--Sheesh...I gave you a perfect set-up line after
all...)
I'm gettign sleeeeepy. Very very
sleee...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz.....beebeebeebeebee......ZZZZZzzzzzzzzz........be
ebeebeebeebeebeee....
Snort, drool, ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz........beebeebeebee......
Goodnight.
And I apologise for the silly remark, Tony.
Bruce Murphy
First we confirm that he was actually an Australian, and then we'll
talk.
B>
Tony Parkinson
> "Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ap88pd$3u6$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
here
> > or start a long thread on Libertarianism vs. liberalism, but with
all
> > due respect it's not so much a case of being "neutered" as a
different
> > history and philosophy.
>
> Tony,
> It was a silly thing to say, and not reflective of my thoughts on
the
> matter.
> And I apologise for the silly remark, Tony.
>
to apologise for, I merely wanted to try and clarify this
misconception that some American posters here (though not yourself)
have that we Brits meekly gave up our rights to bear arms like a bunch
of wimps. At the same time I do not believe that Americans are all a
bunch of wannabe wild west gunslingers looking for the opportunity to
recreate the OK Corral (though I dare say, like any society, you have
your fare share of nutters). Having lived in Arizona I have t say that
having lived in a state with liberal gun control laws (Arizona) I did
not feel any less safe in either society though, probably due to my
background, I feel more comfortable in a gun free society
T. P.
>"Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:ap88pd$3u6$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>> "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:6nMt9.104513$o.57...@news1.west.cox.net...
>>
>> > neutered over there like the Brits.
<snip>
>No...Brits haven't been neutered.
The first quote carries the strong message that you think Brits have
been neutered by not having the legal right to carry guns. The second
quote is a diametrically opposite statement.
Both have been quoted from the same posting.
Which of these totally conflicting statements do you believe?
Why make both?
ajacobs2
--
(B>)# I wish you well,
Al Jacobson
Website: www.aljacobs.com
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3DB71DAE...@videotron.ca...
> Why should you care about uncle Bob's shots? Will it *really* hurt your
> reprint sales? Doubtful.
> One of the regular posters here has a great wedding site and his 20 or
> so years of wedding photography is refelcted in his simple, no-nonsense
> attitude towards weddings. He only asks that he have primacy, and then
> he actually encourages the "hangers on" to take their shots too, even
> after a formal set up.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
> Joe Addona wrote:
>
> > That's a fair statement, but what if the hired photographer did not
object?
> > And in addition to myself at least 3 other family members were taking
the
> > same shots?
> >
> > Joe
> > "photo35744" <REMOVE-ME...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:5omt9.10489$U97.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>When I photograph a wedding no one takes the same poses I do. If they
try
> >>
> > I
> >
> >>politely ask them to stop, if they don't then I stop speak to the bride
> >>
> > and
> >
> >>groom and remind them what is in the contract they signed.
> >>It works.
> >>
> >>--
Bruce Murphy
> "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote:
> >"Tony Parkinson" <NOSPAMar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:ap88pd$3u6$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >> "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6nMt9.104513$o.57...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >>
> >> > Do you own guns over yonder in the outback? -Or have you been
> >> > neutered over there like the Brits.
>
> <snip>
>
> >No...Brits haven't been neutered.
>
>
> The first quote carries the strong message that you think Brits have
> been neutered by not having the legal right to carry guns. The second
> quote is a diametrically opposite statement.
Good comprehension skills.
> Both have been quoted from the same posting.
No they haven't. The second was quoted from a posting which restated
the position of the first.
> Which of these totally conflicting statements do you believe?
>
> Why make both?
I think you need to work out how quoting works.
B>
Ed
question:
> Knowing what you now know about this particular photographer, will you
ever
> recommend him again?
I'm not disagreeing at all. My personal viewpoint is that I do have that in
my contract when I'm the hired guy. I've never exercised it, and would only
mention something directly to an individual that is obnoxiously distracting.
The bride & groom shouldn't have to be pulled into any of that.
And the answer to your question is obvious. It figures that after the
wedding is over, other people came up and said "I could have told you he was
like that." I always just reply, "Well, why didn't you then?!?"
I just chalked it up to a lesson learned, but I did make some really nice
enlargements out of spite. ;->
Ed
> If the contract is between the bride and groom and photographer, and the
> guest is a 3rd party, and the invitations say nothing about "no cameras",
> how can the photographer stop a 3rd party from taking their own pictures?
> Just curious.
The only risk that the B&G run is that the photographer could pack up &
leave if his contract were violated. That leaves the burden of keeping the
guests in line up to the B&G, whether through invitations, word of mouth,
etc. If the photographer decides to exercise that right, then the most
graceful approach would be in talking directly to the individual in question
and explain that he is contractually the *only* photographer on the
premises, and that the bride & groom are in agreement with that. The worst
way is to go to the bride & groom and complain about "seven people have
cameras, tell them to put them away or I'm leaving." Then the B&G aren't
focusing on their most important day together, they're catering to a
temperamental photographer.
Elber
some sorta "art" and that your negatives are the key to future generations'
appreciation of your immortal greatness.
You're tradespeople. Wedding photographers hold the same social standing as
wedding singers. It's a job, but don't confuse it with art.
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20021024001637...@mb-co.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Ethics question.
> >From: "StillMan" stil...@nospam.com
> >Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 12:39 PM
> >Message-id: <urdk6cb...@corp.supernews.com>
> >
> >I tend to treat wedding photos differently than other photos I take. It
> >is a
> >very personal day for the couple. As long as I get paid what I want to
make,
> >I don't mind the idea of them making their own reprints. I don't release
> >the
> >negatives, but I supply a CD that they can use with a good inkjet or
> >Frontier for the photos for their thank you notes or whatever.
> >
> >My office work example was not to show a correlation between widget sales
> >data and photographs, but rather that it was big day for you and someone
> >hindered your workflow by copying your work.
> >
> >That being said, there is an intellectual property argument here. Despite
> >the fact that what you write belongs to the company, it does not belong
> >to
> >the guy who sits at your desk and wants to copy the work. Good posing is
> >a
> >skill, and maybe even an art - in that sense the photographer has created
> >something that is uniquely his. Most people can not pose one person
> >properly, much less a whole group of people. I understand the photogs who
> >do
> >not want anyone shooting over their shoulder - if they were hired because
> >of
> >their posed formals, then this is the most important part of their work
> >and
> >it is really something they have created. I am under no illusion that I
> >am a
> >great poser of groups, I am no "stand over there and smile" guy, but I do
> >not put my emphasis there - this is probably why I have the attitude that
> >as
> >long as I am not hindered in doing my job, you can follow me all day.
>
> SNIP
>
> No matter how you feel about posing and intellectual property, poses are
not
> copyrightable, regardless of whose they are:
>
> "...A photograph that is an infringement of a copyrighted work is not
> copyrightable"... but, as the book continues ..."Ideas are not
copyrightable,
> although the creative expression of an idea is. The idea to photograph the
> subject in a special way is not copyrightable, for example, but the
photograph
> itself definitely would be copyrightable."...
>
> Quoted (under Fair Use provision of copyright law I might add) from pg.
181 of
> the book "SELLING YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY The Complete Marketing, Business and
Legal
> Guide" by Arie Kopelman and Tad Crawford, Š 1980 by Arie Kopelman and Tad
> Crawford.
David Gaudine
Salts2001 <salt...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>A good business person would find a productive way of working out this problem
>in advance, since we all know it occurs. Don't forget that most "point and
>shooters" haven't a clue what a dozen extra flashes will do to an exposure, or
>how a shot can be ruined when just one of 12 is distracted.
I was at a wedding as a guest a couple of months ago and I wanted to take
pictures but was all too aware of those problems. Fortunately the
photographer had his video lights on all the time, so I didn't need a flash.
There were a dozen other guests using flashes, so I felt sufficiently
invisible. The downside is most of my pictures weren't that great
(the video lights were marginal for the purpose), but the few good ones
I got all had nobody looking at the camera, which is nice since they had
a different look from the official ones. I used a digital camera, so the
family had pictures the next day (which they wouldn't have otherwise) but
they still had to order all their prints from the photographer. (Or other
guests, but I can't help that.) All in all I think it worked out nicely.
The photographer didn't seem at all bothered, even by the flash cameras.
(the video lights probably made the flashes less annoying.)
Gregory L. Hansen
Salts2001 <salt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Just because they can doesn't mean they should. Ask yourself this question:
>>Knowing what you now know about this particular photographer, will you ever
>>recommend him again?
>
>name over this exact issue. When checking out their work,
>"bossy"..."arrogant"..."controlling" are words you frequently hear. I don't
>photograph weddings, but I do a lot of them from the front of the church. I
>have been fascinated over the years to watch how different photogs work.
>Doesn't take long to tell which ones will make it and which ones will be
>delivering pizza to make ends meet.
>
>BTW...keep in mind that the minister does a lot of weddings and is one of the
>people asked for a recommendation. It never hurts to impress him/her.
From this discussion I've been starting to think the wedding photographer
should just assume that part of the service he provides is choreographer
for the amateur photographers. He should definitely ask for some
exclusive time until he gets his own pictures done. But then he could
either make the wedding a little more fun, or a little less fun.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Pudentane
>
> I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>
> Are the dozen or so "amateurs" taking pictures of wedding poses set up by
> the "professional" photographer at a wedding "ripping off" the pro?
>
Not as long as they don't get in the way of the pro doing the job he's
being paid for.
> Assuming there is no intent to sell or profit from such pictures, what is
> the harm of taking pictures posed by the photographer for your own souvenir?
>
> If it's in my camera, then it's my picture! Is this a fair statement?
>
> Your insight on these questions is more than welcome.
>
> The reason I am asking is that I took a bunch of pictures at my cousin's
> wedding. Some are my original shots and some were shot while the hired
> photographer was setting up some poses. I want to burn them on a CD and give
> them to my cousin - for FREE. I am infring on any ethical or legal issues?
>
> Joe
As long as the free photos don't lead to your cousin stiffing the pro
for his fee, you're not in any ethical difficulty.
Even if it does, I don't think you're in any legal difficulty.
--
I do not speak for any government, corporation or organization.
These are MY opinions. No one else is to blame.
Pudentane
>
> I agree. My wife's cousin shoots a fair number of weddings, and while he
> grouses about "amateurs" getting in the way, he'd never dream of taking
> steps to stop them. Way to disruptive. Same with my wife when she shot his
> wedding.
OTOH, I think it IS reasonable to expect the amateurs not to "get in the
way." And if necessary, you can politely ask the bride to have a word
with the guests.
The paid photographer shouldn't keep guests from taking pictures, but he
should be afforded the courtesy of being able to do the work he's being
paid to do without undue interference.
Pudentane
>
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 20:45:11 -0400, "Joe Addona"
> <caddi...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >I have a question regrading photographic ethics.
>
>
> I was surprised that wedding photographers keep the negatives.
> Although I've seen adverts for photographers who give out the
> negatives, this discussion shows that it might be a bit rare.
>
> Someone tried to make a comparission with office work. I work as a
> programer and any programs I produce are the property of the company I
> work for.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to charge more for the time and give them
> the negatives? After all, you hire the expertise of a photorgrapher
> for taking pictures - not for making albums or making prints. Or is
> this actually quite common? Just wondering.
To compare it to programming, the negatives do end up as the property of
the company the photographer works for, himself.
At least some of the income a wedding photographer makes comes from
selling additional prints. That's kind of hard to do if you give away
the negatives.
McLeod
quality of my work by making the wedding party hold poses for interminable
amounts of time I have a remedy that works every time. I let the Bride and
Groom know about the problem and the reasons why it's an issue and I remind
them how much they are paying me. The problem is usually solved very
publicly and quickly by the Bride to the embarrassment of the amateur
photographer.
"Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jlLt9.102052$o.54...@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> "Bruce Murphy" <pack...@rattus.net> wrote in message
> news:m21y6gp...@fuscipes.rattus.net...
> > "Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
> >
> > > > > No no no.
> > > > > -Never ask permission of those without the right to dispense or
> withhold
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > I'd have to weigh in and ask what you think a wedding photog who has
> > > > guests actively getting in the way and ruining/delaying set shots
(or
> > > > even worse, the bridal procession) is supposed to do?
> > > >
> > > > Lay down and get sued for non-performing?
> > >
> > > Certainly not.
> > > If you read some of my other posts in this thread, you'll see that
I've
> > > commented on this.
> >
> > All I can find is your comment that of course guests should be polite
> > and not distract people during formals, but what if they do? further
> > what about the other non-recoverable cases I've mentioned above?
>
> When it is hindering the interest of the Bride and Groom's pictures, then
it
> would certainly be appropriate to ask them to wait. My only objection is
to
> the wedding photog acting solely to bolster his own after-contract/after
> event sales. That is a different matter entirely. As I said
before...He's
> contracted for a minimum purchase. Anything above that is optional, and
he
> has no "right" to further salesmanship. If the guests are hindering the
> Bride and Groom's album creation, then fine. Beyond that...DOWN BOY! (to
> the ravenous photog, of course).
>
>
The Dave©
> It's amazing how many of you wedding photographers
> think that what you do is some sorta "art" and that your
> negatives are the key to future generations'
> appreciation of your immortal greatness.
>
> You're tradespeople. Wedding photographers hold the
> same social standing as wedding singers. It's a job, but
> don't confuse it with art.
Some are better at what they do than others, obviously. But, you're right
in one sense. Wedding photography will probably never be displayed in the
best art galleries. They are, in effect, a contractor hired to do a job.
Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure that may cut at a few egos, but it's
the truth. I think the ones who do object are primarily motivated by money
and are merely trying to protect their payday.
Lewis Lang
>From: "Mark Morgan" mjmo...@cox.net
>Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2002 2:51 AM
>Message-id: <VLMt9.104538$o.58...@news1.west.cox.net>
Chocolate and beer, however you "slice" it, one of the few foods that look
almost exactly the same going in as they do coming out -- Contax G3 for a
$1.33______________
WHOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
:-)
Mark Morgan
"McLeod" <wmcle...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:kwZt9.61303$%h2.5...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> If the guest photographer is actually slowing me down or endangering the
> quality of my work by making the wedding party hold poses for interminable
> amounts of time I have a remedy that works every time. I let the Bride
and
> Groom know about the problem and the reasons why it's an issue and I
remind
> them how much they are paying me. The problem is usually solved very
> publicly and quickly by the Bride to the embarrassment of the amateur
> photographer.
I'm sure that works quickly.
I'm just as sure that those bystanders you have intentionally and publicly
embarrassed will neither hire you nor recommend you to others. The result?
You sabotage a prime source of future business.
McLeod
1) I haven't done anything. I leave it in the hands of the Bride who knows
exactly what she is paying me and decides it is in her best interest to keep
things moving.
2) If you don't have the courage of your own convictions in business no one
will hire you anyway. There are diplomatic ways of dealing with people:
like letting the Bride deal with what is usually her friends and relatives
her way.
You don't seem to be speaking from any wellspring of experience here, just
unfounded personal opinions, Mark.
"Mark Morgan" <mjmo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2t0u9.150312$o.77...@news1.west.cox.net...
Mark Morgan
> Two points.
> 1) I haven't done anything. I leave it in the hands of the Bride who
knows
> exactly what she is paying me and decides it is in her best interest to
keep
> things moving.
And in the process...you have injected unnecessary concern into that bride's
head.
This is uncalled for.
>
> 2) If you don't have the courage of your own convictions in business no
one
> will hire you anyway. There are diplomatic ways of dealing with people:
> like letting the Bride deal with what is usually her friends and relatives
> her way.
If you want to express the "courage of your convictions" as a photog, then
may I suggest photojournalism?
Weddings are special, and benefit from people who are willing to put off
their pet peeves long enough to promote as little anxiety as possible. YOU
may be feeling anxiety as the photog...but YOU are being paid to face the
stress. They are paying YOU so that THEY don't have to deal with that
stress.
>
> You don't seem to be speaking from any wellspring of experience here, just
> unfounded personal opinions, Mark.
You sound offended. That was not my intention.
I am not a wedding photog (nor do I want to be one), but I do have
considerable experience dealing with people of all kinds as a part of my
job. One does not have to be a wedding photog to make informed observations
about human nature and professionalism.
As to wedding "experience", in addition to my own wedding, I've been Best
Man 4 times, a groomsman no less than 9 times, and ushered 4 more. I have
been included in the middle of every one of the above wedding shoots, and
have observed a different wedding photog each event. I have witness
everything from shy point-and-shooters to obnoxious clods. I have also
noted the ways these people were handled...for good or ill. I have hired a
wedding photog for about $2.8K, and helped in the selection of two
others...etc. etc. etc.
As a result of the above, I have had more than enough opportunity to make
observations and formulate opinions that are not without base. You are free
to disagree...but once in a while, it does most professionals good to stop
and listen to those people they provide their services to. You are getting
your chance here in this thread.
Agree? Disagree? Whatever pleases you. You are free to please, pressure,
piss of or stress out as many Brides as you like. The only thing you need
to decide is whether or not you care about their experience as much as you
do your "convictions".
Vince
<mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>
>I mean...knowing how you would conduct yourself were you a wedding photog,
>I'd say look elsewhere for a more reasonable attitude.
>That's all.
Whats wromg with my attitude, why because I called someone(s) a moron?
--------------------------------------------------------
Vince
Check it out
www.holvbphoto.com
RDKirk
@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, wmcle...@rogers.com says...
> Two points.
> 1) I haven't done anything. I leave it in the hands of the Bride who knows
> exactly what she is paying me and decides it is in her best interest to keep
> things moving.
>
> 2) If you don't have the courage of your own convictions in business no one
> will hire you anyway. There are diplomatic ways of dealing with people:
> like letting the Bride deal with what is usually her friends and relatives
> her way.
>
The bride's mother has been the one running every wedding I've ever
attended.
Of if she isn't, she'll welcome any opportunity. Don't bother the
bride--just put a word in Mom's ear that she can help you by holding
back Uncle Earnie.
--
RDKirk
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves
up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
The Dave©
> 2) If you don't have the courage of your own convictions
> in business no one will hire you anyway. There are
> diplomatic ways of dealing with people: like letting the
> Bride deal with what is usually her friends and relatives
> her way.
Putting the bride in the awkward position of having to "scold" her friends
and guests is not diplomatic.
Mark Morgan
"The Dave©" <thed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:urhe8e5...@corp.supernews.com...
Bingo.
Plus...She is the one who is posing, for garsh sakes!!
Sure! Have the **Bride** shoo them away...now THAT will make her smile for
the camera.
Vince
<pack...@rattus.net> writes:
>
>So the question remains. What would you do if a guest was actively
>preventing you getting the wedding shots. Be polite and wait, then
>lie down and get sued?
Its up to the couple to put this guest in their place period!
Vince
<mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>More likely, they just plain suck eggs with the camera, and are trying to
>rationalize why nobody want to buy more than the minimum number of pics from
>them. :)
>
Tell me Mark do you shoot weddings or are you any kind of pro at all?
Since it looks like you don't know what you're talking about.
Vince
<mjmo...@cox.net> writes:
>I mean...knowing how you would conduct yourself were you a wedding photog,
>I'd say look elsewhere for a more reasonable attitude.
One other thing Mark "YOU" don't know how I conduct myself at a wedding.
Don't assume!