# DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers



## Vtec44

For my fellow wedding photographers...

DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers After Shooting and Sharing Wedding Photos


----------



## Designer

"It is understood Carly Fuller Photography is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested on this Contract."


----------



## 480sparky

Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?

That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer.  The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.


----------



## pixmedic

Photographer should have gone to the bride and groom and had them ask the dj to stop photographing...as per their contract


----------



## Derrel

The DJ, Mr. Rochon, states in his written on-line response to this that he has photographed over 1,000 events over the past four years, and has used them to market his business, and the business of photographers. And this is the first time he has run into a big deal with exclusivity. Seems strange to me though that he uploaded 232 photos from the event, and he "gifted" those photos to the bride and groom. He alleges that the only way to market wedding-related businesses is by using photography...

This is a weird situation. The way I read the short excerpt was that the photographer's contract was between her, and the wedding couple; of course we did not get to see the entire contract, but the quoted excerpt mentioned "the parties"...but did  not mention OTHER parties. Who knows if the contract the photographer used was iron-clad and really legally bulletproof; from what *I* read, it's not...seems to me that if that's all it said, there could be other contracts. I'm not sure on the legality of  one service provider being able to legally bar any other vendor from doing things that are legal, like clicking a shutter.

As is always the case on f/stoppers, the reporting and fact checking is of very amateurish level. I've seen so much useless clickbait from them that I do not consider anything they write to be reliable.


----------



## pixmedic

I wonder how the dj would have felt if the photographer plugged their ipod into some bose speakers and started playing some song's


----------



## Derrel

480sparky said:


> Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?
> 
> That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer.  The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.



HERE is the very little bit that F/stoppers wrote about this, beginning with an excerpt from the contract the photographer had the bride and groom sign:

"_This agreement contains the entire understanding between Carly Fuller Photography and the CLIENT. It supersedes all prior and simultaneous agreements between the parties. It is understood Carly Fuller Photography is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested on this Contract._"

Rochon says he was indeed photographing at the wedding, but believes that this whole thing was a “huge misunderstanding.”

“Either the bride and groom didn’t know of the clause, or they knew and didn’t tell me,” he tells PetaPixel. “The client was the bride and groom, and the bride and groom never told me I couldn’t bring a camera. The photographer wasn’t my client, and I didn’t have a contract with the photographer. I do have the right to take pictures.”

“When she delivers the photos she shot, she’s still delivering what she was hired to deliver,” he adds.
                                                               ##################
Without more information, it's pretty difficult to say if there has been a real breach of contract. Lawyering skills and actual laws in place would probably determine what damages or legal remedies might apply in this case, if it ever gets to court or to arbitration.


----------



## robbins.photo

It will be interesting to see how this all sorts out.  Quite a few interesting legal issues here.  My guess is the photographer will likely win this one, while the DJ did not have a contract with the photographer the bride and groom did, and the DJ was in the bride and grooms employ at the time of the event.


----------



## dcbear78

I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?


----------



## 480sparky

dcbear78 said:


> I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?



Depends on if his contract with the bridge & groom (not YOU!) says he's the only one allowed to play music with "professional audio equipment".


----------



## robbins.photo

dcbear78 said:


> I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?



If he did you could always use it as a weapon in self defense.  Those things weighed a ton.


----------



## Vtec44

Personally, I don't think the contract has been breached since he is not the client.  However, as a professional curtesy you don't overstep your boundary and should just do what you're hired to do best.  I've had make up artists/DJ/coordinator that brought their own photographer without issues.  However, they didn't share 200+ photos and have a photography side gig like this DJ.  It's a great way to get back listed.  LOL


----------



## robbins.photo

Vtec44 said:


> Personally, I don't think the contract has been breached since he is not the client.  However, as a professional curtesy you don't overstep your boundary and should just do what you're hired to do best.  I've had make up artists/DJ/coordinator that brought their own photographer without issues.  However, they didn't share 200+ photos and have a photography side gig like this DJ.  It's a great way to get back listed.  LOL



I think the only thing that might override that is the fact that he was in the employ of the client who did sign a contract stating that the only pictures that could be used commercially from the event were that of the photographer.  It's a bit murky legally, but I'm guessing that most likely the fact that he was there in the employ of the couple that signed the contract will obligate him to not use the photos commercially.

It will be interesting to see what a judge decides though, that's really my best guess from what I've read thus far.


----------



## rexbobcat

This guy has the audacity to write a passive-aggressive letter about how they're the victims in all this. They were hired to DJ. They weren't hired to "promote" the event or the photographer. He wasn't taking photos in the context of his DJing. He was photographing the actual wedding itself. If it was for "promotion," then he would have been taking photos to promote what he was hired to do.

Posting *230* watermarked photos on Facebook and offering them as a gift to the bride isn't just promoting.

It seems to me that he was taking photos in a professional capacity, but he's trying to point all the attention to the mean old photographer.


----------



## rexbobcat

480sparky said:


> Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?
> 
> That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer.  The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.



Then what would be the point of the clause? The contract was between the couple and the photographer. The contrast stipulations extend to the event itself, since that is what the contract covers. Hence, the the way I see it, the contract umbrella's over every aspect of the event. The contract isn't between the couple and the DJ, but the DJ is part of the event that the contract concerns.

This isn't a case of uncle Jeb bringing his fancy camera to snap a few photos for the scrapbook.

This guy was a paid professional who basically offered a service outside of what they were hired to do and in violation of the couple's contract with the photographer (not blaming the couple, though, they meant no harm I'm sure), used the photos to promote what appears to be the photography side of their business, and then went on social media fishing for sympathy.

Thankfully their pity party isn't going so well.

EDIT: It also seems that the photographer isn't pursuing legal action anyways - that would look awful for her business - She's just calling out unprofessional behavior, and the DJ is doing terrible damage control in the wake of his hurt feelings and business image.


----------



## robbins.photo

rexbobcat said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?
> 
> That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer.  The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what would be the point of the clause? The contract was between the couple and the photographer. The contrast stipulations extend to the event itself, since that is what the contract covers. Hence, the the way I see it, the contract umbrella's over every aspect of the event. The contract isn't between the couple and the DJ, but the DJ is part of the event that the contract concerns.
> 
> This isn't a case of uncle Jeb bringing his fancy camera to snap a few photos for the scrapbook.
> 
> This guy was a paid professional who basically offered a service outside of what they were hired to do and in violation of the couple's contract with the photographer (not blaming the couple, though, they meant no harm I'm sure), used the photos to promote what appears to be the photography side of their business, and then went on social media fishing for sympathy.
> 
> Thankfully their pity party isn't going so well.
> 
> EDIT: It also seems that the photographer isn't pursuing legal action anyways - that would look awful for her business - She's just calling out unprofessional behavior, and the DJ is doing terrible damage control in the wake of his hurt feelings and business image.
Click to expand...

So the pity party is cancelled?  Great.  What are we supposed to do with all these balloons?

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

What hasn't been brought to light in the matter is the following:

1. Did the DJ actually interfere with this self-righteous photographer's duty to the couple?  Did she somehow miss a critical shot or two, to the detriment of her obligations?  And did this make the newlyweds upset with her? Are they threatening to sue her, or demanding a refund?

2. Did this self-appointed PhotoGod even _notice_ said DJ and his alleged 'professional camera equipment' *while at the event*?  If she's the one that's going to be so anal about others taking photos that she feels the need to include such language in her contracts, then perhaps she needs to be on her game a bit more and not complain about it after the fact when she notices someone in the background of a photo (blurry as the background is) holding 'professional camera equipment' and THEN raising a stink about it.

3. This may be nothing more than a fake media event.  Remember the motel that wanted to charge the newlyweds a fine if any of their guests left negative comments about them on their site?

4. Suppose the DJ had a clause in his contract (with the couple, mind you) that forbade anyone else from taking photos of the couple during their first dance together at the reception except the DJ himself?  How would she feel, act and react to that?


----------



## Designer

Derrel said:


> Who knows if the contract the photographer used was iron-clad and really legally bulletproof; from what *I* read, it's not...


From the excerpt quoted in the article, it seems like a very poorly-written contract.  If Carly Fuller wanted to be the only photographer recording the wedding, then she should have had a better contract.  

She needs to sue her own lawyer.


----------



## 480sparky

Designer said:


> .........She needs to sue her own lawyer.



I got a dollar that says she wrote the contract herself.


----------



## pixmedic

480sparky said:


> What hasn't been brought to light in the matter is the following:
> 
> 1. Did the DJ actually interfere with this self-righteous photographer's duty to the couple?  Did she somehow miss a critical shot or two, to the detriment of her obligations?  And did this make the newlyweds upset with her? Are they threatening to sue her, or demanding a refund?
> 
> 2. Did this self-appointed PhotoGod even _notice_ said DJ and his alleged 'professional camera equipment' *while at the event*?  If she's the one that's going to be so anal about others taking photos that she feels the need to include such language in her contracts, then perhaps she needs to be on her game a bit more and not complain about it after the fact when she notices someone in the background of a photo (blurry as the background is) holding 'professional camera equipment' and THEN raising a stink about it.
> 
> 3. This may be nothing more than a fake media event.  Remember the motel that wanted to charge the newlyweds a fine if any of their guests left negative comments about them on their site?
> 
> 4. Suppose the DJ had a clause in his contract (with the couple, mind you) that forbade anyone else from taking photos of the couple during their first dance together at the reception except the DJ himself?  How would she feel, act and react to that?



in one article I read, the photographer mentioned the DJ on multiple occasions "photobombing"  shots trying to get his own.
the DJ claimed that he only took pictures from his DJ booth, but some of the pictures I saw showed the DJ in other locations as well getting right in front of where the actual photographer was taking pictures.
while this is not a contractual matter between the DJ and the photographer, it IS a contractual matter between the photographer and the bride/groom. IF the photographer wanted to pursue anything, it would be against the bride and groom. this is assuming of course, that the contract is legit and lawyered up. 

so far though, the only thing I got from the "news" articles were a bunch of sob stories and online mud slinging by two alleged "professionals"


----------



## 480sparky

pixmedic said:


> .........so far though, the only thing I got from the "news" articles were a bunch of sob stories and online mud slinging by two alleged "professionals"



I got another dollar that says us peons will never know the entire truth about the matter.


----------



## pixmedic

480sparky said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .........so far though, the only thing I got from the "news" articles were a bunch of sob stories and online mud slinging by two alleged "professionals"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got another dollar that says us peons will never know the entire truth about the matter.
Click to expand...


im fairly certain that we arent getting even  20% of the _*real*_ story from either side. 
but the online news rags do a good job of fluffing it up and making it into a real hatfield -vs- mccoy feud.


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> im fairly certain that we arent getting even  20% of the _*real*_ story from either side.
> but the online news rags do a good job of fluffing it up and making it into a real hatfield -vs- mccoy feud.



So cage fight then?

At least that way we wouldn't have blown up all these balloons for nothing.


----------



## 480sparky

robbins.photo said:


> ............So cage fight then?
> 
> At least that way we wouldn't have blown up all these balloons for nothing.



Wait........ what?!?!?


Gorillas can blow up balloons?


----------



## robbins.photo

480sparky said:


> Wait........ what?!?!?
> 
> 
> Gorillas can blow up balloons?



Of course.  We use a.. umm.. slightly less than conventional method though.  BTW you might want to wash those before you handle them.  Oh, and probably best to keep them away from open flames.

Lol


----------



## Designer

480sparky said:


> I got a dollar that says she wrote the contract herself.


NO! 

She found it on the internet!


----------



## robbins.photo

Designer said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a dollar that says she wrote the contract herself.
> 
> 
> 
> NO!
> 
> She found it on the internet!
Click to expand...


So she'd have to sue the internet then?


----------



## Braineack

pixmedic said:


> IF the photographer wanted to pursue anything, it would be against the bride and groom. this is assuming of course, that the contract is legit and lawyered up.



pursue what?

did the photographer not get paid to take pictures of the wedding?


----------



## pixmedic

Braineack said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF the photographer wanted to pursue anything, it would be against the bride and groom. this is assuming of course, that the contract is legit and lawyered up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pursue what?
> 
> did the photographer not get paid to take pictures of the wedding?
Click to expand...


What does anyone pursue for breach of contract?  Can you say that the photographer didn't lose print sale money because of pictures the DJ gave them for free?


----------



## Braineack

pixmedic said:


> What does anyone pursue for breach of contract?  Can you say that the photographer didn't lose print sale money because of pictures the DJ gave them for free?



did the bride and groom pay the DJ to take pictures?  Did they dub the DJ [pun intended] "official" photographer? were a certain number of print sales guaranteed as part of the service agreement and the bride and groom didn't cough up?


----------



## pixmedic

I have no idea. 
You asked "pursue what" and I gave you an answer. Simple as that. Just answering your question


----------



## Braineack

I mean, I guess if the photographer wants to waste money, sure they can pursue it and lose.


----------



## pixmedic

Braineack said:


> I mean, I guess if the photographer wants to waste money, sure they can pursue it and lose.


Doesn't that really depend on who's contact says what? Can't really assume they will lose when we know hardly any facts at all


----------



## Braineack

I know all!!!!


----------



## pixmedic

Braineack said:


> I know all!!!!


Eh...
I'll go with that.


----------



## robbins.photo

Braineack said:


> I mean, I guess if the photographer wants to waste money, sure they can pursue it and lose.



Wow.. Deja Vu.. 

This is all starting to seem so oddly familiar...


----------



## vintagesnaps

This guy was the DJ? His page looks like he markets/promotes events. And posts 50+ or even 200+ mediocre photos of each. Seems excessive.

Seems like the time to have said something to the b&g would have been when this wackadoodle was getting in her way and preventing her from doing her job (if he was). Not sure what the photographer can do with that contract. I'm not sure why he sent the b&g pictures. I could see him taking a few of a wedding he DJ's and maybe(?) giving them a couple of his photos (although I don't know why they'd want that many pictures of the DJ or from the DJ).

Might have been better to chalk it up to experience and take a look at the contract or what info, is discussed with the b&g to prevent another situation like this in the future instead of getting into a public social media pissing match.


----------



## robbins.photo

vintagesnaps said:


> This guy was the DJ? His page looks like he markets/promotes events. And posts 50+ or even 200+ mediocre photos of each. Seems excessive.
> 
> Seems like the time to have said something to the b&g would have been when this wackadoodle was getting in her way and preventing her from doing her job (if he was). Not sure what the photographer can do with that contract. I'm not sure why he sent the b&g pictures. I could see him taking a few of a wedding he DJ's and maybe(?) giving them a couple of his photos (although I don't know why they'd want that many pictures of the DJ or from the DJ).
> 
> Might have been better to chalk it up to experience and take a look at the contract or what info, is discussed with the b&g to prevent another situation like this in the future instead of getting into a public social media pissing match.



Or hopefully all the other photographers in the area will start asking clients before they book, hey, you didn't happen to book this guy as a DJ did you?  Well, then I'll pass.. lol


----------



## Derrel

I looked at his "other" site at The Umbrella Syndicate   and yeah, mediocre event photos with heavy use of blur layers...looks like they do two or three events every day and promote their event promotion jobs on Facebook. Looking at the thread on their FB page, they have a lot of angry wedding photographers leaving comments. The reporting on F/stoppers is pretty incomplete, but from what I could see this morning, looking at the DJ service page, they are a much larger company, one Mr. Rochon started 30+ years ago, along with some other now middle-aged dudes it would seem, and they have 21 or so DJs, and it looks to me like the second business, The Umbrella Syndicate, is tied in with the DJ services, so this outfit probably feels old enough, and big enough, and entitled enough to do whatever they feel like doing. It's impossible to verify, by photos, the allegations being hurled around on FB; some say the DJ "photobombed" the photographer's shots; others allege he "cribbed" her formal set-up poses from the bushes, kind of a variation on shooting over the paid pro's shoulder, yet subtly more devious--but NONE of those people were at the wedding, as far as I can tell.

I did see ONE photograph of a man, who I think was probably Mr. Rochon, standing and shooting with a Canon 5D and 70-200/2.8 L zoom.

I wonder if this is just a big publicity stunt, perhaps orchestrated for free pubby. We'll probably never know.


----------



## Braineack

I like the shot where he was shooting it vertically, with the flash pointed directly to his left boucing off nothing...

I could edit him out of those shots in 3 seconds.

I've also seen pro shots where their second shoot is in the BG doing the same...


----------



## devorator

Media bs... Promoting s**t always promote the shiter. Just saying...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rexbobcat

I don't even care about the legality, and neither does the photographer apparently. I just know tactlessness when I see it. If another photographer did what he did everyone would know that it was poor etiquette. I don't understand why the photographer getting upset at the rude behavior of another professional, and then watching that professional apparently lie about the outcome and circumstances, is considered "self-righteous."

Have ya'll read the letter he put up on the Facebook? He simply can't wrap his head around the fact that he was not an invited guest. He was a hired professional for one role and that role was not to promote the event.


----------



## imagemaker46

The contract did say the official exclusive photographer, the DJ was simply shooting the un-official pictures.  If the hired official wedding photographer is getting paid for all the images they shoot what difference does it make if the DJ gives what he shot to the bride and groom?  Unless what the DJ shot was way better.  I understand the "official and the exclusive"  Does a contract really stop any of the guests from shooting and giving the bride and groom pictures after?   I don't shoot weddings, and when I go as a guest, my cameras stay at home, I find it more entertaining watching the "official" photographers running around.  If for any reason I did take a camera I would probably shoot a few images, but it's not my gig, so I'd stay back and play photographer with my "professional camera"


----------



## Braineack

the DJ shots were probably better because they weren't as whiney.


----------



## DoctorDino

I don't understand why the photographer is _so _upset. I can understand being irritated at the dj, and this whole situation seems as if it was handled poorly and unprofessionally by both parties. But as long as the photographer still gets paid what was agreed upon, I don't see the need for this overreaction.


----------



## Tailgunner

imagemaker46 said:


> The contract did say the official exclusive photographer, the DJ was simply shooting the un-official pictures.  If the hired official wedding photographer is getting paid for all the images they shoot what difference does it make if the DJ gives what he shot to the bride and groom?  Unless what the DJ shot was way better.  I understand the "official and the exclusive"  Does a contract really stop any of the guests from shooting and giving the bride and groom pictures after?   I don't shoot weddings, and when I go as a guest, my cameras stay at home, I find it more entertaining watching the "official" photographers running around.  If for any reason I did take a camera I would probably shoot a few images, but it's not my gig, so I'd stay back and play photographer with my "professional camera"



I would agree if we were talking about the occasional guest shooting a dozen random shots. The problem with the DJ is he took hundreds of photos and in key positions. Then "gifted" 232 of those photos to the couple. 

Article quote
"Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge."

This is highly irregular. I don't shoot weddings either but I have been to countless weddings, events and even know some DJs. I have never seen a DJ walking around taking key photos of a wedding. How does one DJ an event and take 300 photos through out a wedding? 

Anyhow, the DJ was working independently outside of the contract and thus doesn't have to abide by it. He's actions though are highly suspect. I would simply avoid shooting events with this guy or company.


----------

