Odd Situation

I was approached by my publication today to shoot an outdoor wedding. The wedding is of a local businessman and my paper wants to run a shot.

They told me that the bride and groom do not have a photographer and would probably buy a few shots from me. They also said I could shoot the whole wedding if I wanted.

In your opinion, how far should I go to get shots that I could sell? I don't want to overstep my boundaries and make the B&G mad (they obviously dont care enough about the pictures to hire their own photographer).

Perhaps talk to the B&G beforehand to see what they're comfortable with you doing? That way it's clear (or relatively clear) to everyone involved what's desired.

Jim G wrote in post #5363856
Perhaps talk to the B&G beforehand to see what they're comfortable with you doing? That way it's clear (or relatively clear) to everyone involved what's desired.

Thats the problem, I don't know who they are....lol. They are going to be coming in a limo at the time of the wedding (thus, no opportunity to speak to them beforehand). Ill see if I can contact my editor to get some more info.

This doesn't sound like a good situation to me. Make sure they have the B&G's permission, perhaps a model release (though not sure if you need one if it's news), and just ask what they'd like. Put yourself in their position.

johnms88 wrote in post #5363852
The wedding is of a local businessman and my paper wants to run a shot.

If this guy is so important that they want to run a shot on him in the paper - why doesn't he have a photographer?

If the newspaper knows who the groom is, shouldn't you?

I'd get any agreement between you and your employer in writing, about the rights to sell the images. Unless you have an unusual contract in place, if you are a staff photographer, you don't own the copyright. Your employer does.

amfoto1 wrote in post #5367584
If the newspaper knows who the groom is, shouldn't you?

I'd get any agreement between you and your employer in writing, about the rights to sell the images. Unless you have an unusual contract in place, if you are a staff photographer, you don't own the copyright. Your employer does.

I freelance for the paper (even though I do most of the shooting). Its a small weekly so they don't exactly have a budget for a staff photographer. I own the copyright to all of my images (it is in writing already via. the freelance contract).

Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that it's the publication is saying he can shoot the entire wedding, and not the bride and groom?

Just got this from the publication:

"You're going to be the only photographer, as far as I know. They're
getting married outside in the gazebo. They'll probably want some
formal shots, but I think it will mainly be shots of them reciting
their vows. It's a small ceremony, so it shouldn't take too long or be
that elaborate. You can snap them before and after if you want/they
want.

So, prepare accordingly.

The good news is, they'll pay you for the formal shots and NFP will
pay you for the action shots we use in the Sentinel. So, you stand to
make out pretty well for a pretty straightforward assignment."

johnms88 wrote in post #5370430
Just got this from the publication:

"You're going to be the only photographer, as far as I know. They're
getting married outside in the gazebo. They'll probably want some
formal shots, but I think it will mainly be shots of them reciting
their vows. It's a small ceremony, so it shouldn't take too long or be
that elaborate. You can snap them before and after if you want/they
want.

And here is THE most important thing:

johnms88 wrote in post #5370430
So, prepare accordingly.

I'd be requesting the B&G's contact information to organise things through them. Who know's, you may be able to score a gig covering their whole day for them.