October 21, 2014, 06:56:47 AM

Author Topic: The Bride chose my images instead of the photographer, how much should I charge?  (Read 17742 times)

seekn

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

+1

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P]

WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted.  BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register.  I mean just WOW.  I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post.  It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are seriously questionable. 
After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!?  That everyone is biased against you?!? 
Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that?  You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional.  You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise.  I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest!  Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. 
You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by trying to undermine him now you have made it yours. 
You really need to think about what people are telling you here.  However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. Wow I am just stunned.........

edit:  also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter.  You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest.  Just unbelievable.

First of all WOW and just WOW I already told the pro about the issue WOW and I also asked to the bride if she told the pro that she contacted me asking for my photos and she said yes. 

You guys have to be calm and relaxed I'm not here to scam or undermine anyone, I already told you and I don't want to say it again, I just wanted to ask an opinion and yes maybe I was wrong to write the topic in that way and I've should have wrote: How can I handle this situation?
You are sadly accusing me for something that it didn't happen.
I don't know the law neither the business very well that's why I came here looking for the right thing to do and not to be sentenced.

Weapons down my dear pros.

What you said is fine and dandy - but you quoting the other poster saying that it is other shooters feeling "insecure" rather than trying to give you good advice, does not jive with what you say....  WOW
« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 07:38:02 AM by seekn »

canon rumors FORUM


chriswolf

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Canon 6D
    • View Profile
Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

+1

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P]

WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted.  BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register.  I mean just WOW.  I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post.  It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are seriously questionable. 
After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!?  That everyone is biased against you?!? 
Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that?  You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional.  You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise.  I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest!  Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. 
You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by trying to undermine him now you have made it yours. 
You really need to think about what people are telling you here.  However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. Wow I am just stunned.........

edit:  also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter.  You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest.  Just unbelievable.

First of all WOW and just WOW I already told the pro about the issue WOW and I also asked to the bride if she told the pro that she contacted me asking for my photos and she said yes. 

You guys have to be calm and relaxed I'm not here to scam or undermine anyone, I already told you and I don't want to say it again, I just wanted to ask an opinion and yes maybe I was wrong to write the topic in that way and I've should have wrote: How can I handle this situation?
You are sadly accusing me for something that it didn't happen.
I don't know the law neither the business very well that's why I came here looking for the right thing to do and not to be sentenced.

Weapons down my dear pros.

What you said is fine and dandy - but you quoting the other poster saying that it is other shooters feeling "insecure" rather than trying to give you good advice, does not jive with what you say....  WOW

Because there are some angry persons who are replaying me with hate instead of telling me what to do in a polite way.
Canon 6D, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

Chisox2335

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

+1

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P]

WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted.  BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register.  I mean just WOW.  I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post.  It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are seriously questionable. 
After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!?  That everyone is biased against you?!? 
Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that?  You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional.  You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise.  I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest!  Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. 
You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by trying to undermine him now you have made it yours. 
You really need to think about what people are telling you here.  However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. Wow I am just stunned.........

edit:  also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter.  You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest.  Just unbelievable.

First of all WOW and just WOW I already told the pro about the issue WOW and I also asked to the bride if she told the pro that she contacted me asking for my photos and she said yes. 

You guys have to be calm and relaxed I'm not here to scam or undermine anyone, I already told you and I don't want to say it again, I just wanted to ask an opinion and yes maybe I was wrong to write the topic in that way and I've should have wrote: How can I handle this situation?
You are sadly accusing me for something that it didn't happen.
I don't know the law neither the business very well that's why I came here looking for the right thing to do and not to be sentenced.

Weapons down my dear pros.

What you said is fine and dandy - but you quoting the other poster saying that it is other shooters feeling "insecure" rather than trying to give you good advice, does not jive with what you say....  WOW

Because there are some angry persons who are replaying me with hate instead of telling me what to do in a polite way.

This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

Hey fir0002...so for your first post on CR you have decided to:

1. Call other posters comments "laughable"
2. Call other members/posters "insecure"
3. Express a view that the wedding pro is at fault and not the OP? Really?

Stay in school kid, you have a lot to learn.

« Last Edit: April 06, 2014, 08:16:03 AM by Northstar »
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

chriswolf

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Canon 6D
    • View Profile
This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.

Thank you for all your advice, what I read was very interesting and inspiring.

I sent the pro an email telling him about the bride approaching me and that she seriously like my images.
Canon 6D, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 85mm 1.8

seekn

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
that would've been a nice ending, if you hadn't continued on and bashed everyone else who tried to help you.
And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical.  It's legal to stand in front of a child at a parade - but is it the right thing to do? Hopefully as an attorney you learn the difference.

Orangutan

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 745
    • View Profile
And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical. 

This is an unfortunate confusion that many lawyers have, it seems as though many law schools actually teach that nonsense.  Some lawyers will eventually outgrow it. 

canon rumors FORUM


jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.

If you are going to solicit advice... and you receive a majority opinion that you may not agree with, you should say thank you... and then go and make your decision... and even if it wasn't meant with malice... not offend of disparage those you asked advice from. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
Hey fir0002...so for your first post on CR you have decided to:

1. Call other posters comments "laughable"
2. Call other members/posters "insecure"
3. Express a view that the wedding pro is at fault and not the OP? Really?

Stay in school kid, you have a lot to learn.

I've dealt with many a lawyer in my professional career... I hate to say this... but he has the right attitude.  There is a certain hubris that accompanies a specific knowledge of the law...

If he decides to be a workers comp rep working on behalf of claimants... then he is going to have some problems with customer service... but outside of that... he'll fit right in.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
that would've been a nice ending, if you hadn't continued on and bashed everyone else who tried to help you.
And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical.  It's legal to stand in front of a child at a parade - but is it the right thing to do? Hopefully as an attorney you learn the difference.

Depends on what time the kid got there.  If you were camping out for 6 hours to get the right shot... and then some kid gets there an hour after the parade begins... Ummm... I've been here with my tripod and my prime lens and I have the perfect framing for my background and foreground... kid... get on your parents shoulders and don't bother me...
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2434
    • View Profile
And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical. 

This is an unfortunate confusion that many lawyers have, it seems as though many law schools actually teach that nonsense.  Some lawyers will eventually outgrow it.

It take a certain moral ambiguity to represent a murderer, rapist, or tax dodger... but I think we are starting to digress about what is wrong with the legal profession... Keep in mind you don't want to be guilty of a crime and your lawyer throws you under the bus.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2564
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.

I have a spaced out cow. I know who I'd rather be, but I also know I fall so short, maybe in time Chris will too.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

IMG_0001

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Amateur photon abductor
    • View Profile
First of all Chris, I'd like to congratulate you on keeping your mentor in the loop, that was obviously the thing to do. You came in as a collaborator  to the wedding photographer and this would make it obviously wrong to turn yourself into a competitor for the same event, wouldn't it?

It seems to me that the take away from this thread is that in such professional situations, it pays to be diligent and to make each parties expectations clear beforhand. That and not to confound being confident and being confrontational or arrogant. Being confident will move you forward. Being arrogant might also move you forward, but you also risk having to drag a burden on the way.



What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!

canon rumors FORUM


danski0224

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • View Profile
    • Some of my Work in Progress
I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.

It's no different from any other business using Christian symbols or references to give the impression that they do good, honest work when many do not.
Some of my Work in Progress..... www.dftimages.com

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14709
    • View Profile
I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P]

There are few professional wedding photographers on this forum and few in this thread.  Rather, I think a lot of the comments here are fueled by people with a moral compass.  I'd trust a lawyer for legal guidance, but not for ethical guidance (and I wouldn't trust a law student for either!).

Frankly, your original post and subsequent comments (including the ones that are obvious backpedalling) say much about your sense of ethics.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM