Tasteful or Tasteless - Your opinion?

Hey guys, trying to get an opinion here. I'll try to make the story short. I was asked to video a wedding - I'm not a videographer, I'm a photographer but I just bought a new HD camcorder and they didn't have a videographer. I was going anyway and offered to help. Before I knew them, the bride and groom picked a wedding photographer, the photographer took their engagement shots. Well, the couple really disliked them and for good reasons. But they stayed with the photographer for the wedding - shrug.

I had a Strobist meetup planned and I invited them to come down and we'll make sure they get some shots. Good and good - I tried to be fair and balanced and make sure the images were not up for sale until the original photographer had their chance. I figured it was only fair since they are the paid photographer and they deserved any print sales.

As a wedding present, I took one of the better shots, did a little post processing on it and framed it nicely. Put on a little card stating who it was from and it went with all of the other presents.

Today, the photographers put in the web gallery for the bride and groom a photo of my shot, in the frame, with the card conveniently removed. Keep in mind that even though I did video the wedding, I took plenty of still images and even made sure to tell the photographers that if I were in their way to let me know. I've been sitting on the video and the images and haven't delivered anything to the bride and groom. I don't want to hurt the contract photographers' sales but this has got me baffled.

What does everyone else think? How would you feel? If you were photographing a wedding and someone gave the bride and groom a framed portrait, would you take a re-creation of it?

I'm on the fence, do I let it slide? Do I create a gallery of that one shot and sell it for a quarter a piece (taking a loss just to make sure nobody buys a stolen print from the original photogs?).

Is this an innocent location shot or an attempt at making a few bucks on an (if I do say so myself) awesome PP job? As soon as I gave that to the bride's mother she started crying and asked why I wasn't photographing the wedding. Whoops.

Thanks for your input, not trying to start trouble, step on toes or anything but really unsure how I should feel about it. I still feel burned because during the wedding and even a cookout a week later for the whole family I stood up for these people saying that I'm sure the photos will be fine. Even after they were sweating bullets and convincing themselves that they would be crummy - why I have no idea. I'm not about slamming anyone and have never said an unkind word about these people. Sure, I can (as we all could) nit-pick over every shot, but really, to the client they're fine.

-John

Sounds like a copyright infringement if they are selling it to them. I would send a polite notice asking the photographer to remove your picture from his website or give you credit as well as an acceptable use fee.

Also if he included your picture in the set he sold them it may be worth the small claims court cost to sue for copyright infringement (in most states small claim court fees are not that much, some less than 100.00, and here in Indiana any amount less than 6,000 is "small claims").

I'm sure though a polite letter would work but failing that a notice of intent to sue would probably get them to pony up a "reasonable" fee to you (that is if they profited off your photo by including it in the package given to their client - the people who asked you to attend their wedding).

Thanks for the information Bishopp, I'll ask the B&G (friends of a friend) if the print shows up in the book. They are also selling the print on their website under the passworded client gallery.

Need to consider formulating and firing off an e-mail. Still even shrugging the print, its not like its a complete duplicate, the frame takes up about 80% of the shot with a little bit of environmental in the background, tilted to hell and glare is preposterous. Still though, the subject is my print. I'm kinda flattered, but still, don't want anyone thinking that's their work.

What little bit of skewed common sense I have left makes me want to just drop it, bring my gallery online - sell the video and images for profit and move on. If my print makes it to their portfolio for instance, jump.

It sounds like it is just a photo of everyone admiring your picture. Don't know what the big deal is.

The big deal is if he is selling that photo to the B&G as well as misrepresenting it as his work.

The key here is "photo of my shot, in the frame, with the card conveniently removed"...

How big a deal is if he recreated the shot (not by posing the people) by actually either scanning or taking a picture of the picture). If the wedding photographer did that he is definately infringing upon the copyright and misrepresenting someone else's work as his own.

We're not talking about someone taking a picture of a b&g admiring another picture, but of the possible "theft" of the product and reselling it as his own creation.

Tim, thanks for the reply. Its a photo of the framed print, with a sliver of the background (wall, flowers, stair case) in the background. I wouldn't have heart burn if it was a photo of people looking at the print.

Still though, I think I'll just keep an eye on them, compile the DVD and send the bride the DVD and images. Still be nice and tell her to only order prints from me if her contracted photographer didn't get the same shots. Take a small profit from the DVD and any other images and move on. Most likely send a link to the Bride that she'll forward around offering the print at my-cost prices just to be sure people get the real print - after all, I can't use it anywhere else and I surely don't want the others making a dime off it!

Anyone interested in a photo of the print won't get any pleasure out of what they're offering anyway - glare and complete perspective distortion. Which is the only saving grace keeping me from sending off an e-mail or other legal steps that I'd rather keep clear of. It all really makes me think the photographer was just not too bright and didn't understand what they were doing, and not really trying to steal my work. Who knows.

-John

thebishopp wrote in post #5722759
The big deal is if he is selling that photo to the B&G as well as misrepresenting it as his work.

The b&g already have the picture. They were given it as a gift.

Did the photographers take photos of other gifts that were presented at the wedding? If not, was your print the only gift that was unwrapped so that the photographers would think it important to capture a photo of the present? It seems to me that if you're giving benefit of the doubt, they were just taking a picture of a gift that the B&G received at the wedding among hundreds of other photos of the event.

I think the original issue is if the photographer was trying to pass the photo off as his own on this website advertising also trying to sell reprints of the particular photo to the bride and groom as part of his "package".

People visiting his web gallery may assume that it was he who took that photo and not the rightful artist (the person who actually took a photo).

If he was just taking pictures of a gift that's one thing but if he is trying to pass it off as his own work then it is something else entirely.

Of course before any action is taken one most ascertain the photographers intention. One good, and easy, way to do that is find out if he has sold "reprints" of that photo to the client as part of the package (notice I say as part of the package and not if he is just running copies for them... if he is then he is acting just like a kinkos and that is fine). Though I think it suspicious that the card was removed from the shot (what is the point of a picture of a gift without the card tastefully positioned in the pic?).

In this age where people love to prey off of the blood, sweat and tears of others without recompense, it is always a good idea to be vigilant and optimisticaly pragmatic (or vice versa) - hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

I still think the photographer's are trying to pass it as their own. The card is gone and no other presents are around. And there were other presents around when that was put up! What is irritating is that they are selling the pic on their website without the photographer's card! So not right! If I were to come across the picture that they took - not knowing anything - I would of thought they did that portrait themselves.

- Michelle

It's all a tough call without 'seeing' exactly what we are talking about. Sounds like there's not a huge deal here if the quality of the pic is that bad with glare and perspective. However, I would definately send off an email to the other photog letting him know what you think, asking him to remove it and leave it at that. because if he/they feel this is acceptable practice, what are they going to do next? Maybe not your problem, but.........

Sorry, but this is much ado about nothing. Oftentimes at weddings, the b&g have childhood photos displayed. Many times there are parents wedding photos too. I take photos of all of that because it's part of the decor. Should I be tracking down those photographers and asking their permission? That's crazy.

I highly doubt the photog singled out his photo of your photo to sell prints of it. He likely has ALL of the wedding photos on a site and it lists the option to buy ALL of them, right? He just uploaded the batch and was done with it.

It isn't tasteful or tasteless. It's just a picture of something that was at the wedding. Nothing more, nothing less.