there is a time and place to give up a few...not all but a few...pics for free....I still do.....but with this person....there is no way I would give him or his bride one more single image for free........or I would resize the images to a mere 4x6 at 72 or 90 dpi and put a watermark right through the middle of the image and I would also put a copyright statement on the outside of the CD and a text file on the inside with a copyright statement....one thing going for you is Walmart will no longer print images if they look pro,unless you can prove it is yours to print, I do not know about CVS as I do not know of any in my area.... ...in my area there are 6 walmarts and I am on file at each store with my signature and also with my photo signature..so if a file shows up and has my name across the bottom of the image, it does not get printed with out a phone call to me making sure it is alright to print.......I have started going one step further and I have a jpg image of my copyright statement as the 1st photo on the disk.....that way if they take it to some other processor who tosses it onto his computer that is the first image they see...its title is copyright statement, in large bold letters........and I no longer put burn the images to the disk, it goes into a folder like this: main folder" so and so wedding" (or name of even or whatever is on the disk.....2nd folder (inside 1st) titled copyright statement and images.....open this and now you see 2 more folders one named copyright and the other titled either just images or so and so's wedding....having a folder hierarchy makes the processor aware that the images are copyrighted.....
This type of client would never recommend you to any one even if you gave him several 30x40's for free, He is the type that will bash you no matter what....he will say that he had to threaten a lawsuit to get what he wanted...yadda...yadda ..yadda
So you did not hurt yourself by not giving in to him ...........
You must not have read all the OP's posts in the thread. This was definitely that kind of case at all. The pics the OP took originally were not even for the bride & groom, who she didn't even know. She clearly was not going to be getting any kind of good work or even good vibes out of this creep, and I have to say, I could sniff that out from the beginning. I agree with many of your points & have done some similar things, but this was just not remotely related to the experiences you're describing.
Guys, if this client / host was such a bad apple, or at least just a dead-end for referrals, and you KNEW this in advance, would you say it'd be a good idea to just put away your camera and not shoot any additional photos? Sounds like a good way to avoid the whole situation to me. Of course the problem is, how do you know in advance?
My point is, just don't go down that road if you know where it leads. But if you do go down that road, and you smell a land mine up ahead, maybe just have a heart and give the "happy couple" a wedding gift, pre-emptively? They may not thank you profusely, but at least they're out of your hair asap. If you took the time to snap photos, you should take the time to handle the situation before it blows up on you. To me that's just good business.
They let you, a stranger, be at their wedding. Even if they have a bad attitude etc. I would just PLAN on dropping a disc in the mail as a a thank-you. Thanking them for letting you be at their wedding, for practicing a little, (assuming the photographer is new and needs practice) ...and of course for the time those images spent in your portfolio, consent-less..
Of course it's just a judgment call and we'll never get it right 100% of the time, but hopefully this discussion will give Kat (and the rest of us) a little more wisdom for next time...
Either way the world isn't going to end if you give a gift to someone, even if they don't deserve it. And a polite note about copyright is much more well-received that way, compared to witholding the disc and playing the copyright card THEN.
Also, and I don't mean to offend, but Art: you're on a first-name basis with all the Wal-Mart labs in your area? That's not really a good sign of the prestige of your business, is it? I hope it happens a lot less then you make it sound like it does. Although I also don't know if you're currently part-time or full-time, or what packages you deliver etc, either.
But as I said, while I firmly believe that the industry is actually getting BETTER and growing, I also believe that it is less and less safe to play such hardball. The trick is to figure out how to be generous while still making a good living. I dunno, maybe I'm leaving money on the table by making my watermark very low-key and mostly just for promotion, but either way my bills get paid so
No matter what is done now the entire opportunity was blown on the first phone call. I wouldn't have given them a digital copy with unlimited reproduction abilities with the digital image. I would have instead took a little more time and patience on the initial phone call and asked them to order off the web and explain that the pricing is not for profit, just covers the expense of the prints. If you were just awoken and your head was not clear a simple, Im sorry I just woke up can you give me your number so I can call you back to discuss this later?
From a legal standpoint photos in a public place where no privacy is expected is perfectly legit.
Pulling them from the web is purely a decision of morality where there is no right answer.
From what I have read this person probably would have yielded zero referrals but instead would have yielded more phone calls from his friends asking for free services or free images if they were also in the photos. My experience with similar situations is once you give it up for free your name is mudd. If you want to provide complimentary prints and use the photos for marketing purposes that should be handled in advance so you are not leading into a FREE environment. They are still paying with allowing you to photograph and use the images in an unlimited fashion, to sell as stock or whatever and you ALWAYS retain the digital copies with the understanding that any further prints will be charged at a customary rate.
The whole free service is killing the photography business as a whole. Even corporate entities ask for free photos now and insist if you dont give it up for free then someone else will.
My point is, just don't go down that road if you know where it leads. But if you do go down that road, and you smell a land mine up ahead, maybe just have a heart and give the "happy couple" a wedding gift, pre-emptively? They may not thank you profusely, but at least they're out of your hair asap. If you took the time to snap photos, you should take the time to handle the situation before it blows up on you. To me that's just good business.
They let you, a stranger, be at their wedding. Even if they have a bad attitude etc. I would just PLAN on dropping a disc in the mail as a a thank-you. Thanking them for letting you be at their wedding, for practicing a little, (assuming the photographer is new and needs practice) ...and of course for the time those images spent in your portfolio, consent-less..
Of course it's just a judgment call and we'll never get it right 100% of the time, but hopefully this discussion will give Kat (and the rest of us) a little more wisdom for next time...
Either way the world isn't going to end if you give a gift to someone, even if they don't deserve it. And a polite note about copyright is much more well-received that way, compared to witholding the disc and playing the copyright card THEN.
I agree with a lot of this. You're never going to get it right 100% of the time, especially when "right" is subjective. Maybe a compromise would have been sending them a disc with 20-30 images on it rather than all of them without being asked. But that's all hindsight and just a lesson for the future. Every scenario is different.
But I don't blame Kat for feeling the way she did after the fact. Based on what she said, it sounds like using the word "ask" is an understatement. It seems like "threatened" or "demanded" might be more appropriate terms. Sometimes you just have to acquiesce and cut your losses even though you're essentially rewarding bad behavior and sometimes you have to stand up for yourself a bit. My father taught me that you teach people how to treat you. Always try to be kind and many times they will be in return, but also don't be a doormat when they try to bully you. You don't have to be aggressive in return, but you don't want to have the reputation of someone who is easily walked all over. There's a grey area and most everything in life is just a series of judgment calls.
And on a side note: Who wants to bet that the customers that essentially throw adult temper tantrums until they get what they want, learned how well that works as a child and have never really had anyone stand up to them for most of their life?
The groom started out nice and said he wanted some pics and I had some nice shots that no one else had taken. I told him he can purchase them on my website and as soon as I said "purchase" he turned into a jerk like I owed him the pictures
I take a lot of motocross and soccer photos, I charge and I give them away. However, on more than one occasion I have been "told" I need to give them photos. I politely tell them that if I give away photos to everyone that tells me I need to I'd be working for free. Then I tell them my website and I would be happy to send them a few free .jpgs of the photos they order. That way I'm giving them something away for free, but not until they've committed to buying a photo. At almost 43, I get really pissy when people tell me what I "need" to do.
I think OP had the correct instincts when taking the initial call. If the groom was really interested in her photos, he would have contacted her immediately after the wedding. He probably looked at them dozens of times over the past 18 months and began to stew on them thinking "she's making money on me, I got squat, I want something out of it". Or something like that. I don't believe his intentions were all that honorable.
I see no reason to give the guy the pics and plenty of reasons not to.
Guest or not seems irrelevant to me. What point in law does that have?
It wasn't even a private location and anywone with a camera could have walked by and taken shots.
I also fail to see any correlation between the shooter putting them on her site and any claim by the couple. the couple would have been very aware of the shooter taking the pics and should have questioned their end use then and there if they had any concerns
All the couple want now is something for nothing and are clutching at straws to get it because they were too damn tight a$$ed to hire someone and now probably regret it.
I have had jerk clients that hired me to do their wedding turn up on the doorstep 18 months later and demand their negs and even come back with a friend to try and intimidate me. It didn't work and I made pretty sure they wouldn't be that stupid again.
To me this is no different to me doing event work.
I go to the fields, shoot the competitors and offer them for sale. Because I was a guest there, what right does that give anyone to free pics?
The op is not demanding payment of the couple, the couple are demanding photos from the shooter. If they don't want to pay, they don't have and are under no obligation to. If they wanted pro photos, they should have hired someone to take them which they would have had to pay for.
IMHO the OP should stick to her guns and offer the pics at whatever price she wants and and they couple are free to purchase or not. If she caves and gives them the pics, you can bet you bottom dollar it will send a message to all their friends that you can scam free pics off a shooter just by the fact your in them.
Should the shooter be entitled to free pics of any the guest took that she is in??
That would entitle every guest at a wedding to free pics as well as anyone at an event that is photographed. Dosen't work that way.
I too would take the pics down just to remove the opportunity for them to view them but if they want them, they pay.
Also, and I don't mean to offend, but Art: you're on a first-name basis with all the Wal-Mart labs in your area? That's not really a good sign of the prestige of your business, is it? I hope it happens a lot less then you make it sound like it does. Although I also don't know if you're currently part-time or full-time, or what packages you deliver etc, either.
=Matt=
I am not on a first name basis with JUST walmart, but also Wal green, Sam's Club....If you own or run or work in a lab I have met and become acquainted with you and yes it is on a 1st name basis with most.......I learned the hard way.....wondering why people who praised my work and referred the hell out of me were not buying reprints and enlargements......I no longer have that problem...............
Guys, if this client / host was such a bad apple, or at least just a dead-end for referrals, and you KNEW this in advance, would you say it'd be a good idea to just put away your camera and not shoot any additional photos? Sounds like a good way to avoid the whole situation to me. Of course the problem is, how do you know in advance?.......
=Matt=
Well, this is where you're just getting it wrong or not listening to the OP. This guy wasn't a client, and wasn't exactly the host, either. (not in any traditional sense). This was an informal thing w/ nothing in writing, & they guy w/ the problem was not the person the pics were taken for. And obviously, she didn't know in advance-- when I was saying I could tell from the beginning that this groom-guy was gonna turn out to be a jerk, I meant I could tell from the first quotes Kat gave us of their conversation. That convo was the one where the guy suddenly turns ugly when she's simply asking him to cover the cost of his own prints, something that is, in fact, completely within reason!! No, there was no reason she shouldn't have taken the pics in the first place-- the situation during the shooting was fine-- she showed up when asked by the bridesmaid, took their pics in the park, posted them for them so that they could buy prints. Nothing wrong w/ that. So she didn't know in advance. I'm saying that a bunch of you were making it sound like she should have wasted her own time & money giving this groom discs of her originals, after already having given him a free print immediately after the shoot. And I'm saying there's no reason she should have done that.
She did the right thing, because her intuition, like some of ours, said, "Ok, if this groom is gonna turn ugly just because I tell him he's welcome to buy whatever prints he wants (which were basically at cost!), then I don't need to bend over backwards for him because it's not going to move anyone forward". Nor would bending over backwards for someone who's already being a jerk help the general cause of photography display online, or wedding photography, or photography for friends... it would have just given the guy the wrong impression on all counts. So I support how she handled it in the end, and was not one bit surprised at what she eventually found out about that guy.
No, there was no reason she shouldn't have taken the pics in the first place-- the situation during the shooting was fine-- she showed up when asked by the bridesmaid, took their pics in the park, posted them for them so that they could buy prints. Nothing wrong w/ that. .
ummm..there is a lot wrong with that. It is wrong for a bridesmaid to invite a photographer to a wedding to have their pictures taken..it's not her wedding. It is wrong for a photographer to show up at a wedding that he/she was not invited to and take pictures. Even if the bride and groom had no photogrpaher..you don't just show up to someone elses wedding univited. I don't care if it was in a public park and it was down time. It's all fubar from there.
ummm..there is a lot wrong with that. It is wrong for a bridesmaid to invite a photographer to a wedding to have their pictures taken..it's not her wedding. It is wrong for a photographer to show up at a wedding that he/she was not invited to and take pictures. Even if the bride and groom had no photogrpaher..you don't just show up to someone elses wedding univited. I don't care if it was in a public park and it was down time. It's all fubar from there.
I believe they are only moral issues not legal ones and as such have no bearing on the responsibility for the shooter to provide free images.
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
...No, there was no reason she shouldn't have taken the pics in the first place...
...She did the right thing, because her intuition, like some of ours, said, "Ok, if this groom is gonna turn ugly just because I tell him he's welcome to buy whatever prints he wants (which were basically at cost!), then I don't need to bend over backwards for him because it's not going to move anyone forward". Nor would bending over backwards for someone who's already being a jerk help the general cause of photography display online, or wedding photography, or photography for friends... it would have just given the guy the wrong impression on all counts. So I support how she handled it in the end, and was not one bit surprised at what she eventually found out about that guy.
My point remains- Don't take pictures at a complete stranger's wedding, un-invited by the couple themselves; it only leads to trouble.
I'm NOT saying that all professionals should be terrified of upsetting people, I'm not saying they should always hurriedly burn a disc and drop it in the mail every time they shoot casual photos of someone else. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. Trust me, I'm all in favor of promoting respect for professionals, and copyright education, etc. But in my opinion and professional experience, this couple isn't going to "learn a lesson"....they're just going to hate you. Maybe I'm wrong, and they DO respect professional copyright now? Probably not. It will probably be a long time before this couple, and some of their friends, ever spends a dime on professional photography. Maybe that was already inevitable just because they're that kind of people, but I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
In my opinion this particular situation was simply not the right place to go and shoot portfolio images of complete strangers, and then try to charge them for a disc. You're welcome to think otherwise but I can tell you now that this type of encounter will happen again. Whereas I've never had anything like this happen, and I do just fine in business. Like I said, maybe I'm living money on the table...
What did you have in mind when you began shooting the wedding couple? Did you have in mind that you wanted to give them to the couple or that you wanted to sell them. The groom was rude, no doubt, but if he had not been rude what was your intent?
I'm going to give you the most simplest advice here. I see people writing paragraphs after paragraphs.
1. Give them the pictures FREE. You have the release signed so you are using them for your own advertising. So think of it as an exchange. They gave you the wedding. You got the pictures for your use. This will probably generate good business for you, through words of mouth. Think about it.
2. Don't do it again. You were not hired. You just showed up for your interest and wanting to make quick cash. If you want to be successful down the road, you have to eat it sometimes. Just the way it is.
I'm going to give you the most simplest advice here. I see people writing paragraphs after paragraphs.
1. Give them the pictures FREE. You have the release signed so you are using them for your own advertising. So think of it as an exchange. They gave you the wedding. You got the pictures for your use. This will probably generate good business for you, through words of mouth. Think about it.
2. Don't do it again. You were not hired. You just showed up for your interest and wanting to make quick cash. If you want to be successful down the road, you have to eat it sometimes. Just the way it is.
None of this is what happened. There was no release. Also, your #2 is completely wrong... that's not what she did. Just read the very first post in this thread, people. You're making statements that simply have nothing to do w/ the original situation. Don't bother replying if you haven't read post #1. ANyway, the situation has already been resolved. She's not going to give the jerk anything more.
What did you have in mind when you began shooting the wedding couple? Did you have in mind that you wanted to give them to the couple or that you wanted to sell them. The groom was rude, no doubt, but if he had not been rude what was your intent?
I did read it wrong, thought it said he signed a release form for her. With that I'm going to stick to my answer but edit it to say have a release form signed so you are both in the medium here.
"Anyway, the situation has already been resolved. She's not going to give the jerk anything more." Great way of doing business. If it works for her/you. I agree with VayCayMom, what was her reason? Seems like from reading the first post over and over again, she was hoping to go there for a friend and make a quick buck. But then again I already said similar on my reason 2. I don't know about you but I don't just show up to a random wedding for a friend and start shooting. Unless one, I have discussed with the B&G or if I just want to do free work. I don't go in hopes of taking pictures so I can later sell to them.
Anyway, it's been resolved so no point in arguing about it. I simply posted my opinion. If you don't like it, then don't. We all have our own opinions and our own ways of doing business. G'luck
I will just add my 2 cents for what little it's worth.
I have a friend that has burned some bridges, he had a shot from a football game and the team wanted to use it his first response was what will I get for it? This was an indoor football team not NFL they never called back. I was in the same situation and I said yes they could use my shots, I became the team photographer (for my expenses) and have been asked by two other teams to shot for them.
I have also been a guest at weddings brought my camera to shoot pictures of friends, I just gave a copy of all that I shot to the bride and groom. I was not hired by them so I did not feel I could charge them, I have been asked to shoot two weddings.
not really. watching the failure in reading comprehension go hand-in-hand with lack of using brain cells is ... devolving. and just SAD. Fortuntely there have been some VERY good and insightful comments here about how giving/restricting use can benefit everyone and I hope people focus on those excellent parts.
//Leah
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I will just add my 2 cents for what little it's worth.
I have a friend that has burned some bridges, he had a shot from a football game and the team wanted to use it his first response was what will I get for it? This was an indoor football team not NFL they never called back. I was in the same situation and I said yes they could use my shots, I became the team photographer (for my expenses) and have been asked by two other teams to shot for them.
I have also been a guest at weddings brought my camera to shoot pictures of friends, I just gave a copy of all that I shot to the bride and groom. I was not hired by them so I did not feel I could charge them, I have been asked to shoot two weddings.
I use some of my Photo's to open doors.
^ I rest my case. ^
I understand if you feel like you're "past that phase" of giving away free stuff, but I've been in business for a few years full-time and I still consider generosity (or at least tact) to be one of my greatest tools / selling points.
Comments
Guys, if this client / host was such a bad apple, or at least just a dead-end for referrals, and you KNEW this in advance, would you say it'd be a good idea to just put away your camera and not shoot any additional photos? Sounds like a good way to avoid the whole situation to me. Of course the problem is, how do you know in advance?
My point is, just don't go down that road if you know where it leads. But if you do go down that road, and you smell a land mine up ahead, maybe just have a heart and give the "happy couple" a wedding gift, pre-emptively? They may not thank you profusely, but at least they're out of your hair asap. If you took the time to snap photos, you should take the time to handle the situation before it blows up on you. To me that's just good business.
They let you, a stranger, be at their wedding. Even if they have a bad attitude etc. I would just PLAN on dropping a disc in the mail as a a thank-you. Thanking them for letting you be at their wedding, for practicing a little, (assuming the photographer is new and needs practice) ...and of course for the time those images spent in your portfolio, consent-less..
Of course it's just a judgment call and we'll never get it right 100% of the time, but hopefully this discussion will give Kat (and the rest of us) a little more wisdom for next time...
Either way the world isn't going to end if you give a gift to someone, even if they don't deserve it. And a polite note about copyright is much more well-received that way, compared to witholding the disc and playing the copyright card THEN.
Also, and I don't mean to offend, but Art: you're on a first-name basis with all the Wal-Mart labs in your area? That's not really a good sign of the prestige of your business, is it? I hope it happens a lot less then you make it sound like it does. Although I also don't know if you're currently part-time or full-time, or what packages you deliver etc, either.
But as I said, while I firmly believe that the industry is actually getting BETTER and growing, I also believe that it is less and less safe to play such hardball. The trick is to figure out how to be generous while still making a good living. I dunno, maybe I'm leaving money on the table by making my watermark very low-key and mostly just for promotion, but either way my bills get paid so
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
From a legal standpoint photos in a public place where no privacy is expected is perfectly legit.
Pulling them from the web is purely a decision of morality where there is no right answer.
From what I have read this person probably would have yielded zero referrals but instead would have yielded more phone calls from his friends asking for free services or free images if they were also in the photos. My experience with similar situations is once you give it up for free your name is mudd. If you want to provide complimentary prints and use the photos for marketing purposes that should be handled in advance so you are not leading into a FREE environment. They are still paying with allowing you to photograph and use the images in an unlimited fashion, to sell as stock or whatever and you ALWAYS retain the digital copies with the understanding that any further prints will be charged at a customary rate.
The whole free service is killing the photography business as a whole. Even corporate entities ask for free photos now and insist if you dont give it up for free then someone else will.
I agree with a lot of this. You're never going to get it right 100% of the time, especially when "right" is subjective. Maybe a compromise would have been sending them a disc with 20-30 images on it rather than all of them without being asked. But that's all hindsight and just a lesson for the future. Every scenario is different.
But I don't blame Kat for feeling the way she did after the fact. Based on what she said, it sounds like using the word "ask" is an understatement. It seems like "threatened" or "demanded" might be more appropriate terms. Sometimes you just have to acquiesce and cut your losses even though you're essentially rewarding bad behavior and sometimes you have to stand up for yourself a bit. My father taught me that you teach people how to treat you. Always try to be kind and many times they will be in return, but also don't be a doormat when they try to bully you. You don't have to be aggressive in return, but you don't want to have the reputation of someone who is easily walked all over. There's a grey area and most everything in life is just a series of judgment calls.
And on a side note: Who wants to bet that the customers that essentially throw adult temper tantrums until they get what they want, learned how well that works as a child and have never really had anyone stand up to them for most of their life?
This is the point at which all this went south.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
I think OP had the correct instincts when taking the initial call. If the groom was really interested in her photos, he would have contacted her immediately after the wedding. He probably looked at them dozens of times over the past 18 months and began to stew on them thinking "she's making money on me, I got squat, I want something out of it". Or something like that. I don't believe his intentions were all that honorable.
Guest or not seems irrelevant to me. What point in law does that have?
It wasn't even a private location and anywone with a camera could have walked by and taken shots.
I also fail to see any correlation between the shooter putting them on her site and any claim by the couple. the couple would have been very aware of the shooter taking the pics and should have questioned their end use then and there if they had any concerns
All the couple want now is something for nothing and are clutching at straws to get it because they were too damn tight a$$ed to hire someone and now probably regret it.
I have had jerk clients that hired me to do their wedding turn up on the doorstep 18 months later and demand their negs and even come back with a friend to try and intimidate me. It didn't work and I made pretty sure they wouldn't be that stupid again.
To me this is no different to me doing event work.
I go to the fields, shoot the competitors and offer them for sale. Because I was a guest there, what right does that give anyone to free pics?
The op is not demanding payment of the couple, the couple are demanding photos from the shooter. If they don't want to pay, they don't have and are under no obligation to. If they wanted pro photos, they should have hired someone to take them which they would have had to pay for.
IMHO the OP should stick to her guns and offer the pics at whatever price she wants and and they couple are free to purchase or not. If she caves and gives them the pics, you can bet you bottom dollar it will send a message to all their friends that you can scam free pics off a shooter just by the fact your in them.
Should the shooter be entitled to free pics of any the guest took that she is in??
That would entitle every guest at a wedding to free pics as well as anyone at an event that is photographed. Dosen't work that way.
I too would take the pics down just to remove the opportunity for them to view them but if they want them, they pay.
I am not on a first name basis with JUST walmart, but also Wal green, Sam's Club....If you own or run or work in a lab I have met and become acquainted with you and yes it is on a 1st name basis with most.......I learned the hard way.....wondering why people who praised my work and referred the hell out of me were not buying reprints and enlargements......I no longer have that problem...............
She did the right thing, because her intuition, like some of ours, said, "Ok, if this groom is gonna turn ugly just because I tell him he's welcome to buy whatever prints he wants (which were basically at cost!), then I don't need to bend over backwards for him because it's not going to move anyone forward". Nor would bending over backwards for someone who's already being a jerk help the general cause of photography display online, or wedding photography, or photography for friends... it would have just given the guy the wrong impression on all counts. So I support how she handled it in the end, and was not one bit surprised at what she eventually found out about that guy.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
ummm..there is a lot wrong with that. It is wrong for a bridesmaid to invite a photographer to a wedding to have their pictures taken..it's not her wedding. It is wrong for a photographer to show up at a wedding that he/she was not invited to and take pictures. Even if the bride and groom had no photogrpaher..you don't just show up to someone elses wedding univited. I don't care if it was in a public park and it was down time. It's all fubar from there.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I believe they are only moral issues not legal ones and as such have no bearing on the responsibility for the shooter to provide free images.
I'm NOT saying that all professionals should be terrified of upsetting people, I'm not saying they should always hurriedly burn a disc and drop it in the mail every time they shoot casual photos of someone else. QUITE THE OPPOSITE. Trust me, I'm all in favor of promoting respect for professionals, and copyright education, etc. But in my opinion and professional experience, this couple isn't going to "learn a lesson"....they're just going to hate you. Maybe I'm wrong, and they DO respect professional copyright now? Probably not. It will probably be a long time before this couple, and some of their friends, ever spends a dime on professional photography. Maybe that was already inevitable just because they're that kind of people, but I prefer to give folks the benefit of the doubt.
In my opinion this particular situation was simply not the right place to go and shoot portfolio images of complete strangers, and then try to charge them for a disc. You're welcome to think otherwise but I can tell you now that this type of encounter will happen again. Whereas I've never had anything like this happen, and I do just fine in business. Like I said, maybe I'm living money on the table...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
I'm going to give you the most simplest advice here. I see people writing paragraphs after paragraphs.
1. Give them the pictures FREE. You have the release signed so you are using them for your own advertising. So think of it as an exchange. They gave you the wedding. You got the pictures for your use. This will probably generate good business for you, through words of mouth. Think about it.
2. Don't do it again. You were not hired. You just showed up for your interest and wanting to make quick cash. If you want to be successful down the road, you have to eat it sometimes. Just the way it is.
Gear List: Canon 5D Mm2 | T1i (backup) | 16-35 2.8L | 27-200 2.8L Mk2 | 24-105 4L | Sigma 85mm 1.4 | Canon 580ex flash
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
"Anyway, the situation has already been resolved. She's not going to give the jerk anything more." Great way of doing business. If it works for her/you. I agree with VayCayMom, what was her reason? Seems like from reading the first post over and over again, she was hoping to go there for a friend and make a quick buck. But then again I already said similar on my reason 2. I don't know about you but I don't just show up to a random wedding for a friend and start shooting. Unless one, I have discussed with the B&G or if I just want to do free work. I don't go in hopes of taking pictures so I can later sell to them.
Anyway, it's been resolved so no point in arguing about it. I simply posted my opinion. If you don't like it, then don't. We all have our own opinions and our own ways of doing business. G'luck
Gear List: Canon 5D Mm2 | T1i (backup) | 16-35 2.8L | 27-200 2.8L Mk2 | 24-105 4L | Sigma 85mm 1.4 | Canon 580ex flash
I have a friend that has burned some bridges, he had a shot from a football game and the team wanted to use it his first response was what will I get for it? This was an indoor football team not NFL they never called back. I was in the same situation and I said yes they could use my shots, I became the team photographer (for my expenses) and have been asked by two other teams to shot for them.
I have also been a guest at weddings brought my camera to shoot pictures of friends, I just gave a copy of all that I shot to the bride and groom. I was not hired by them so I did not feel I could charge them, I have been asked to shoot two weddings.
I use some of my Photo's to open doors.
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
Only moral issues? No bearing on responsibility?
Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices. If one has no moral values laws are useless.
Sam
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Yes but it's fun.
Sam
not really. watching the failure in reading comprehension go hand-in-hand with lack of using brain cells is ... devolving. and just SAD. Fortuntely there have been some VERY good and insightful comments here about how giving/restricting use can benefit everyone and I hope people focus on those excellent parts.
I understand if you feel like you're "past that phase" of giving away free stuff, but I've been in business for a few years full-time and I still consider generosity (or at least tact) to be one of my greatest tools / selling points.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum