Is it illegal ? ?

[zacker]

to take a photo, as a guest of the posed wedding party AFTER the pro has taken his shot? Is it also ilegal to take in and use your DSLR to shoot at a wedding, even if your just a guest? I know its kinda wrong and annoying but I just want to know what kind of rights you as a wedding photog have? can you ask guest to leave? or take their images? or bill the couple for having guests with cameras?

[zacker]

also, can Poses like those in a wedding be copyrighted?

just trying to settle a silly argument.

[picturecrazy]

You can put anything into your contract. But in reality, neither you nor the couple can have full control of the guests. Just gotta roll with it.

[RiveraRa]

If its in your contract that guests can not take photos then you have the right to ask the guest to stop. If they dont, you have to take that up with the B&G. If they B&G doesnt take action I guess you could walk out. But I wouldnt want to be known as that photgrapher. As for the posing...thats a good question.

[kato1]

It's gonna happen.Guests are not going to wait for the oficial photogs prints/cds etc which may take at best days and at worst months to be produced. They want something to show friends and family immediately.

Technology has afforded the public instant results and pros are going to have to live with it whether they like it or loathe it. Sorry.

[mmahoney]

Anyone is well within their rights to photograph anyone else in a public place .. in legal-speak the person being photographed has "no reasonable expectation of privacy".
Mike

[zacker]

yeah but do they have that right in a Private Hall or wedding reception held on private property? does the photog have the right to tell you, you cant shoot and if you do, does he have the right to ask you to leave or hand over your camera? and does he OWN the copyright to a pose that he's using?

[g-money]

I wouldn't think the photog has any right to ask you to leave or hand over your camera. The bride and groom of course could ask you to stop I guess if that was their wishes though I doubt they would unless you were just being a total A$$. I think most pro's know in this day and age many of the guest's are going to have a camera. I carry mine to all my friends weddings (most of them ask me to and have placed orders of my pics as they said I got lots of things that the main photog didn't cover). Do I make sure I stay out of the pro's way, you bet I do. I respect that he is working and they have paid serious money for their time and work. They deserve that much respect.

Greg

[CyberPet]

Sounds like you were the guest at said wedding? I've never heard that you can have a copyright to a pose - a picture, yes - but not a pose. On the other hand, if the pro has in his/her contract that he/she is the main shooter and any poses is "his/hers", he could walk away and hold the B&G accountable for breaking the contract.

We could have a discussion as to why guests should be guests at a wedding, and leave their cameras at home and leave the photography to the hired gun, but I'm not sure that would be ideal (and a topic that has been up on this forum several times).

If the guests are nice, and I have set up a pose and have "an audience", I sometime offer them to take a picture of the scene as well. This since i know that I use another lens, another crop, etc, of the images, as I'm the one in control. But I would be *very* annoyed if someone stepped up behind me to "steal" a shot, even if it legally isn't stealing. That person is inside my comfort zone and I'm at work - I don't step behind the counter at Starbucks either to pour myself a coffee.

If you want to take a picture - ask the pro if it's ok. Usually it's no problems if you ask. If it is, then walk away and respect the person doing his/her job.

[MALI]

yeah but do they have that right in a Private Hall or wedding reception held on private property? does the photog have the right to tell you, you cant shoot and if you do, does he have the right to ask you to leave or hand over your camera? and does he OWN the copyright to a pose that he's using?

Sounds like you are in a fight with a photographer. Lemme guess: You were the guest and the photog has been giving you a hard time threatening you with legal stuff.. Is this right?

"AS FAR AS I KNOW", that means you cannot hold me legally responsible if anything happens to you if you act on my advice :);), the photog cannot sue you for anything like this. You can very well legally take any picture you want.

Like the others said, the photog may ask you not to take any pictures say during the formal posed shots because your flash kinda messes up his shots. You do not need to "LEGALLY" follow his request for the fear that you will be sued. The worst thing he can do is he can go to the BG and ask them to stop you. But again, he will not look very friendly in that case, which will not look very nice in his resume.

As a wedding photographer myself, I personally would not do much other than tell you to please not to keep firing your flash away because it destroys my shots. I would not ask you to stop taking pictures without flash or without being in the way even if I posed everybody in it.

So I do not think you have anything to fear. Just respect the photog, give him his space but be aware that you can take as many pictures as you want.

MALI

[TeeJay]

.... and does he OWN the copyright to a pose that he's using?

I'd don't think you stand a chance of "copyrighting" a pose! (if nothing else, you'd get a queue of people saying you were infringing THEIR copyright!!)

As for other people taking photo's.... Wedding togs generally have something in their contracts that says "guests will not impede the official photographer in carrying out his/her obligations under the terms of the booking...."

I don't see how you could "throw someone out" for taking photo's

TJ

[Bob Charnier]

Are there any original poses left???

[zacker]

Sounds like you are in a fight with a photographer. Lemme guess: You were the guest and the photog has been giving you a hard time threatening you with legal stuff.. Is this right?


no not at all... just a buddy of mine who is a photog was talking with a non photog who said that its illeagle because the wedding photog is under contract..lol amongst other things, and then he posed the question elswhere and another guy who isnt a wedding guy also said he was wrong and that the wedding photog would have the final say.. im just trying to back my opinion that there is no "legal" issue with bringing a camera to a wedding and theres no way a photog could copyright a pose.. just a photo .

[Roy Mathers]

The photographer has no right to stop anyone else taking pictures in a public place - and I include in this the church grounds. I've been doing weddings for about forty years and I shudder to think of the number (it must be thousands) of people who have taken pictures over my shoulder. It's just something you have to live with and, although you might try to put in your contract, it really isn't worth it, as the atmosphere on the day is far more important than legalities. And are you really going to insist that everyone else stops taking 'your' pictures?

As a matter of interest, I always used to try and position my subjects with their backs to the sun, where possible, and use fill flash. No only did I get some nice back-lighting effects, but I was fairly confident that the over-my-shoulder shooters would get nothing but nice silhouettes!

[LBaldwin]

deleted for edit

[daclozer]

I personally don't have a problem with guests taking shots, because it is theri loved ones getting married. I try to shoot the formals with no guests around, but if there are I try to be gracious to them and tlet them take a shot befor or after I am done. If it were my wedding and a photographer, videographer, waiter, host, etc was giving my favorite aunt bettie that flew a 1000 miles to help me celebrate my wedding a hard time, I would be pissed at them. A little kindness goes a long way and as long as they aren't firing flashes while I am shooting or standing in my way, I don't care what they do. I am still getting paid either way.

[mmahoney]

As a matter of interest, I always used to try and position my subjects with their backs to the sun, where possible, and use fill flash. No only did I get some nice back-lighting effects, but I was fairly confident that the over-my-shoulder shooters would get nothing but nice silhouettes!

Justice prevails ;)

[Padawan Dad]

The photographer has no right to tell ANYONE what they can and can't do with their cameras. The only thing that the photographer can do, is include whatever restrictions they so desire in their contract, and the consequences: i.e. walk away from the job if the B&G can't control things.

It basically effects the B&G ONLY. Personally, I wouldn't hire such a photographer, because I would be more concerned that they will take a hissy fit when uncle joe takes a few snaps with his new XT, and because of this would walk away with my money; I'd rather enjoy my wedding day. Photography happens... suck it up.

I'd encourage ANY B&G to BE AWARE of this in any photographers contract and WALK AWAY. The only reason I say this is because I recently saw it actually happen at a relatives wedding... Pretty pathetic... and pretty petty! I never thought much about it, until I saw it actually happen... I always thought it was just an urban legend.

[zacker]

well come to find out, what we were arguing about was that if another person at the wedding had a pro body and lenses had decided to follow the wedding party and hired tog to where ever they went to take the formal shots and then proceded to shoot his own.. That I would consider as being rude!

[zacker]

also, he's still saying that it is illeagle to shoot the posed shots as they are the copyrighted work of the hired photog.. I say no, just his prints will be his copyrighted work. a pose is a pose is a pose.

[tim]

People have been successfully sued for copying unique photos -ie poses and settings. Don't do it. Why copy? Take your own shots.

[Padawan Dad]

also, he's still saying that it is illeagle to shoot the posed shots as they are the copyrighted work of the hired photog.. I say no, just his prints will be his copyrighted work. a pose is a pose is a pose.

I'm no legal consultant. I would certainly find it rude and arrogant to shoot the photographers poses after he asked to please stop until he/she is finished with the formals, but to say that a pose before it is shot is copyrighted sounds like a heap load of BS to me. Where is the material proof to support this in a court of law? It would all be hearsay. I can see it now: Photog: "I set up a pose, and he shot pictures of it." Judge: "Do you have proof of this?" Photog.:"Yes! (to defendant: ) "Show the judge the photos you took..." Defendant: "What photos?" Real solid case he has there ;)

I can already hear Judge Judy chewing out the photographer for wasting her, and the courts time :D

[shareen]

Hi all
Just to show what .....look what the pro did at my sons wedding Effectively block our view.Weddings are for and about people
Cheers

[zacker]

People have been successfully sued for copying unique photos -ie poses and settings. Don't do it. Why copy? Take your own shots.

I can believe that but... say your a photog at a wedding at a very well known reception hall with a lake.. you trot the weddig party down to the lake, stand them between two huge trees and take the shot... can you be sued by the 100's of other photogs who did this before you? or the first photog who shot this same pose? I have a hard time believing you could!

[Teachflute]

Just a couple of thoughts...

First of all, the contract is between the B&G and the guests are not involved. The photog can put that the guests cannot bring professional equipment, but I really do not think that can be enforced because the guest did not sign the contract. The photog can put a clause in the contract that if a guest gets in the way because they are trying to get a picture they are not responsible for a poor quality shot.

Second, as far as copyrighting poses, I think there's a real fine line there. I can't imagine that you could copyright the pose. There is so much more to a photograph than just the pose. There's lighting, exposure, expression etc. That's what is copyrightable. The photog is responsible for capturing the perfect shot that encompasses all of those things. It is a creative expression of a moment in time. Even guests trying to duplicate the shot usually don't get it right. I think a few weeks ago it was on this site (it might have been another) that a guest showed her shot and the photogs shot and said something to the effect of look how good his/her shot looks compared to the professional and the bride's dress was neon blue instead of white. Yes, it was the same moment in time, but there was no comparison in the two shots. That's why the photog holds the copyright.

[Roy Mathers]

Hi all
Just to show what .....look what the pro did at my sons wedding Effectively block our view.Weddings are for and about people
Cheers

I'm not sure what this photograph is meant to show:rolleyes:

[overclock]

I have just finished filling out the copyright form for every known pose possible. I am submitting it within the hour. All of you are hosed.

Also, I am copyrighting the pose of the middle finger extended, other 4 contracted. This is also known as the bird. Now whenever someone flips off someone else I can collect a fee. It will be nominal, 5 cents per bird given. I'll be rich by the end of rush hour tonight.

[ctgirl]

LOL Zacker, like I didn't have to read enough on the other thread now you go and start another! :D

[Buckeye1]

Not to get off the topic, but I find here in American, you can sue anyone for anything however rediculous it might be. Just look at all those warning labels...we laugh at them because we don't think anyone would be stupid enough to do what the warnings said. I laugh especially hard at those warning labels obviously written by some Chinese...No I am not a racist...I am Chinese!
Now back to the topic... yeah, some photog can sue you for using his/her pose, but what will that look like in court...An ass talking out of the wrong hole!