# Stepping on someone's toes?



## DGMPhotography (Jul 16, 2019)

Hey guys,

It's been awhile since I posted. Hoping to get back into it more soon.

Anyway, I had a recent experience where I was hired to do videography for a wedding. And although I wasn't contracted to do so, I took about 20 or so still photos as well. Got some nice portfolio shots, and of course posted them on social media (with link to prints gallery), in lieu of the coming video.

However, the photographer from the wedding recently reached out to me saying she has an exclusivity clause in her contract that she is the only photographer, and that I need to take down the photos.

Now, I will probably do so, because I respect that photographer, and want to stay on good terms with her.

However, I am wondering what peoples' thoughts are on this situation. Barring the desire to not burn bridges, what would you do?

I personally feel like I wouldn't care if I was in her place. But I can understand how she might feel like I'm overstepping.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 16, 2019)

While I don't necessarily agree with it, if she does have that clause, removing your images would be the appropriate thing to do.  This is why I always insist on meeting the other creatives at events and discussing everything in advance.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 16, 2019)

tirediron said:


> While I don't necessarily agree with it, if she does have that clause, removing your images would be the appropriate thing to do.  This is why I always insist on meeting the other creatives at events and discussing everything in advance.



Yeah, I agree. 

But out of curiosity's sake, my question is does that clause actually apply to _me_? I'm not the one who signed her contract, and if there was any legal argument, I would think that would fall on the bride/groom, right? But then I guess they could subsequently come after me for doing work outside the scope of _my_ contract (which specified video)? I know that's a legal question (which I may ask some lawyer friends about), but I'm curious what yall's thoughts are.


----------



## limr (Jul 16, 2019)

Just take them down. It's just going to cause a bunch of avoidable, unnecessary bother and hand-wringing for all parties. Not worth it.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 16, 2019)

limr said:


> Just take them down. It's just going to cause a bunch of avoidable, unnecessary bother and hand-wringing for all parties. Not worth it.



Yes, I am taking them down. I thought I established that.

I'm not asking if I should take them down or not in this specific scenario.

I'm just curious what other people may think about this situation, and thoughts on the legal gray area this situation presents. There may not be a yes or no. Maybe it's something in between. I just want to know if I am wrong for thinking I should be able to take/post photos. Especially from a content creation standpoint... I can get a lot of leverage out of posting photos on Instagram and what not over several weeks. Much harder to do so with video.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jul 16, 2019)

I took photos of a wedding on the Navajo Nation in 2006. 

I had an exclusivity clause in my contract with the family, but someone neglected to tell another member of the family who hired someone else to show up just as the wedding started. 
That person came with a Hassy with something digital attached. 

I had to shoot the wedding and couldn't get to them during the ceremony, then disappeared after the wedding. 
I got the reception. I had no real legal discourse because the contract was not applicable on the nation. 

But because it was so ambiguous I couldn't do anything about it. 

Then afterward the sister of the bride showed me Fakebook pics of the wedding taken by others with cell phones and snuck in P&S. 

Its disheartening that it happens but unavoidable these days.    
The loss in revenue for the photographer can be substantial especially if they were taking orders for secondary sets. 
The iPhone crowd simply cuts into that. 

For what you did, I see no real harm if personal, but once posted it can damage the photographer who was the "official" for the wedding.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 16, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> ...But out of curiosity's sake, my question is does that clause actually apply to _me_? I'm not the one who signed her contract, and if there was any legal argument, I would think that would fall on the bride/groom, right? But then I guess they could subsequently come after me for doing work outside the scope of _my_ contract (which specified video)? I know that's a legal question (which I may ask some lawyer friends about), but I'm curious what yall's thoughts are.


Does it apply to you? Yes, insofar as you are a professional.  Are you bound by it?  No.  A contract exists between the parties who agree to it.  You cannot agree on behalf of someone unless you have the legal authority to do so (A senior officer in the military could agree to a contract which binds his subordinates, but the photographer does not have legally binding authority over you), so from a legal perspective, there's pretty much zero that the photographer could do, HOWEVER, the question of professional ethics comes in to play, and the question really becomes not, "Do I have to?", but rather, "Should I?" and the answer is, yes, you should.


----------



## limr (Jul 16, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yes, I am taking them down. I thought I established that.



You said:


> Now, I will probably do so, because I respect that photographer, and want to stay on good terms with her.



This actually still leaves ambiguity, so no, it didn't seem established.



> I'm just curious what other people may think about this situation,



As I said,


> It's just going to cause a bunch of avoidable, unnecessary bother and hand-wringing for all parties. Not worth it.





> and thoughts on the legal gray area this situation presents.



Can't say for sure without seeing the actual clause. Maybe there's nothing she can legally do to force you to take down the photos. Maybe it depends on whether or not the clients decide to try to buy some of your photos, or if it ultimately affects her business in a negative way. Don't know what the clause says. If you're really interested in knowing some of the potential legal outcomes, you could ask to see the clause.

As mentioned, there is still the ethical question.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 16, 2019)

You were contracted to shoot video only, not to take photos. Does your contract address you using video you shot to market and promote your business?

It seems you do NOT have their permission to use any photos you may have taken for marketing (portfolio) or business use (much less to sell prints). It was their event (wedding) and they paid to rent the venue which would be a private business. So it would be up to the client and the venue ownership.

Besides professional courtesy and ethics which is up to you, this is about usage. It seems you didn't have permission to do anything but shoot video for the client and possibly use that to promote your photography business.

Get on American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage or PPA for info. on marketing, etc.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 16, 2019)

Thanks for the input, everyone. Sorry for any ambiguity. 

I guess I'll resolve to communicate this issue with the photographer (or other vendor) beforehand from now on. I'm not used to _not _being the photographer, so definitely not something I thought about. The photographer in this case said she would have been fine if it was just a couple of photos. At the very least, I'll just take photos for the portfolio/website from now on. Definitely gives me FOMO.


----------



## weepete (Jul 16, 2019)

I think the law here will depend very much on what the details of your conteact were, the spesific wording used and case law in your local area. Confusing stuff like implied contracts can come in and to make things even more complicated you are essentially a sub-contactor. Probably one that could go either way.

Buisness wise I think the right thing is to take them down. The last thing you want is to get a rep for causing legal issues for your client let alone other professionals in your area especially when you don't get much benefit from it.

Morally, IMO, it's the good guy thing to do. 

If you really want to take some stills as well then you could always put it in your contract but make clear it's not a deliverable.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 16, 2019)

Good thought Weepete about professional reputation, that's something to consider. 

I think an exclusivity clause would mean the client couldn't hire anyone else to take photos and that would be in the contract between the client and photographer. That wouldn't affect contracts with the videographer, venue, other vendors, etc.

But as videographer it seems you DON'T have permission to use _photographs_ you took at _their _event/wedding for your portfolio or other ways of promoting or marketing YOUR _business_. (An amateur with a camera could share photos because it's not business promotion, they aren't going to profit from it.)

If you're contracted to take photos at future weddings learn about how to be able to use the photos for marketing & promotion of your photography business. It seems you aren't adequately informed about all the business aspects of photography, releases, etc. ASMP has offered marketing webinars, etc. and I think they and PPA have some resources available that nonmembers can access.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 16, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> But out of curiosity's sake, my question is does that clause actually apply to _me_? I'm not the one who signed her contract, and if there was any legal argument, I would think that would fall on the bride/groom, right? But then I guess they could subsequently come after me for doing work outside the scope of _my_ contract (which specified video)?



You are likely correct that the contract is only between the bride and groom, however if the photographer decided to press the issue in court, the bride and groom would have legal grounds to then pursue you for compensation.



vintagesnaps said:


> I think an exclusivity clause would mean the client couldn't hire anyone else to take photos and that would be in the contract between the client and photographer. That wouldn't affect contracts with the videographer, venue, other vendors, etc.
> 
> But as videographer it seems you DON'T have permission to use _photographs_ you took at _their _event/wedding for your portfolio or other ways of promoting or marketing YOUR _business_. (An amateur with a camera could share photos because it's not business promotion, they aren't going to profit from it.)



This is another good point. If your contract didn't state you can take photos, you don't take photos. However you could write it into the contract that you may take still images for "X" purpose.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 17, 2019)

My contract allows for photos as well as video. I don't limit myself in that regard. 

I, too, would be curious to see her contract. Because as it stands, it seems her contract prevents the bride and groom from hiring another _photographer_. However, I'm not a photographer in this case. I'm videographer who happened to snap a few pics. Same as if their caterer took some pics for their promotion. I know that's semantics, but I'm curious as to what the legal distinction on this would be.

I agree in regards to the value of reputation, but also just doing good business. I set up a phone call with the photographer this morning and was very accommodating to her. She was fine with me posting a couple of photos here and there. Her main issue was with me posting a full gallery (which may cause people to think I was the photographer), and the selling of prints. I totally understand that and agreed with her. I wouldn't want someone stepping on my toes selling prints of poses I set up either. It just didn't cross my mind, since it's just what I'm used to normally doing. Thankfully, she was very understanding, and my experience with her I think has made me a better artist, and businessman. I know now to communicate this topic with future vendors during my pre-event conversations, to ensure everyone's on the same page.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 17, 2019)

The caterer can _take_ photos for personal use - but can't _use_ the photos, not for business marketing/promotional use without it being in a contract with releases/written permission. A friend/relative can take photos at a wedding and share them because they're not doing it to bring in business to make money.

Glad it worked out. Even if she didn't have an exclusive contract, she was contracted as photographer and you selling prints was taking away her business. Maybe take a look at contracts because it seems confusing to include photos as well as video if you're being contracted as videographer. If you wanted to take some photos while you were there for portfolio use maybe that needed to be more clear.


----------



## weepete (Jul 17, 2019)

Designer said:


> What's the difference between photographs and video?



about 24 fps?


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jul 17, 2019)

This is a good discussion. I’m a little surprised that no one told you. I would think that if I had a clause like that in my contract then I would make it a point to verbally express it to the client. I guess it’s possible that the client forgot to tell you.


----------



## weepete (Jul 17, 2019)

If you have a clause in your contract that spesifically allows you to take photos as well then it's the bride and groom that essentially broke the contract I would think, and they'd be liable. Mind you I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 17, 2019)

lol I meant if the contract was to shoot video why would photos be included? Maybe the contracts could've been clearer and things coordinated better, especially with the client having both a photographer and a videographer. Learning experience if nothing else.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 17, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> lol I meant if the contract was to shoot video why would photos be included? Maybe the contracts could've been clearer and things coordinated better, especially with the client having both a photographer and a videographer. Learning experience if nothing else.



Because I'm not going to want to say no if someone sees me holding a DSLR and asks me to take their picture. The idea is that video is the main deliverable, but if a photogenic moment presents itself, I should be able to photograph it and deliver that as a bonus (not guaranteed). But now I know to communicate that with the photographer beforehand.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 18, 2019)

Okay, I'm no lawyer so I can't comment on the exclusivity clause.  I know for some shooters, weddings determine if they stay in business or not.  So some of them are very territorial--even if they don't have a formal clause but the bride said "you'll be the only one there" verbally and they claim it as a clause.

My take is:  if you want to stay on this shooter's good side, take down the photos and tell them you didn't realize they had a clause.  Also, that you're not seeking to get business.  It's got to be more than just taking the photos, otherwise it may come off as "ok, you caught me, I'll take 'em down" which doesn't do you much good in terms of the relationship.  But ultimately you can't control how they feel about this.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 18, 2019)

The exclusivity clause in this case really means jack to you.  If anything the B&G would be in violation, not the videographer.   It also really depends on what it states and what your contract with the B&G states.

I personally wouldn't share the images in that manner simply because it's disrespectful to the photographer, especially if they haven't shared them with the B&G yet, or simply because if they suck people might associate them with the actual photographer.

Otherwise, I wouldn't think twice about using them for my own personal promotions.

My last wedding, the DJ asked for some shots taken of him during the event which he used for promotion on his site.  That might be a better way to handle it in the future...


----------



## Braineack (Jul 18, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> I agree in regards to the value of reputation, but also just doing good business. I set up a phone call with the photographer this morning and was very accommodating to her. She was fine with me posting a couple of photos here and there. Her main issue was with me posting a full gallery (which may cause people to think I was the photographer), and the selling of prints. I totally understand that and agreed with her. I wouldn't want someone stepping on my toes selling prints of poses I set up either. It just didn't cross my mind, since it's just what I'm used to normally doing. Thankfully, she was very understanding, and my experience with her I think has made me a better artist, and businessman. I know now to communicate this topic with future vendors during my pre-event conversations, to ensure everyone's on the same page.



im late to the party.   but yeah this.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 19, 2019)

Thanks for the input! I totally agree.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 19, 2019)

People asking you to take their picture is the kind of thing photographers often have to learn to handle. You'd need to let them know you're shooting video and direct them to the photographer. Doing sports/events I used to get asked all kinds of questions, sometimes I'd feel like what am I, the information booth?? I'd be cordial/friendly and direct them to Will Call, etc. 

I wouldn't have gone into a concession stand and started selling hot dogs any more than you'd go over to the caterer's table and start serving food. So do you see how stepping in taking photos was doing the photographer's job? When I was taking photos for marketing purposes it would have been overstepping bounds to go to a practice and start lining up players for portraits for player trading cards - because that was someone else's job. 

I don't understand there being an expection of shooting a photo to deliver as a bonus. It would need to be in the contract to shoot video and photos, even if taking photos was for your portfolio, your business marketing purposes. Using photos of clients for promotional, marketing, business use, etc. without it being in a contract and/or getting releases signed seems to leave you open to potential complaints from clients.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 19, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> People asking you to take their picture is the kind of thing photographers often have to learn to handle. You'd need to let them know you're shooting video and direct them to the photographer. Doing sports/events I used to get asked all kinds of questions, sometimes I'd feel like what am I, the information booth?? I'd be cordial/friendly and direct them to Will Call, etc.
> 
> I wouldn't have gone into a concession stand and started selling hot dogs any more than you'd go over to the caterer's table and start serving food. So do you see how stepping in taking photos was doing the photographer's job? When I was taking photos for marketing purposes it would have been overstepping bounds to go to a practice and start lining up players for portraits for player trading cards - because that was someone else's job.
> 
> I don't understand there being an expection of shooting a photo to deliver as a bonus. It would need to be in the contract to shoot video and photos, even if taking photos was for your portfolio, your business marketing purposes. Using photos of clients for promotional, marketing, business use, etc. without it being in a contract and/or getting releases signed seems to leave you open to potential complaints from clients.



Can you try to be a little more empathic?

It's not all black and white. If the photographer is busy elsewhere and someone asks me for their picture, I'm not going to 1) say no to the requestors and make them think I'm a jerk and 2) bother the main photographer who's busy with something else with a random couple of guests who want a picture together, when I can take 2 seconds and do it myself.

I am confident most photographers would even appreciate me doing so, and in fact, the photographer in this case did thank me during our phone call for taking pictures that she wasn't there to take.

And again, my contract _does_ provide for both and covers me as far as promotional usage goes. Sure, it's more work for me but I  wasn't currently taking video, so I was available and happy to do so.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 28, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> > People asking you to take their picture is the kind of thing photographers often have to learn to handle. You'd need to let them know you're shooting video and direct them to the photographer. Doing sports/events I used to get asked all kinds of questions, sometimes I'd feel like what am I, the information booth?? I'd be cordial/friendly and direct them to Will Call, etc.
> ...


I really don't think empathy for _you _would seem appropriate in this situation. Empathy for the hired photographer who's contract doesn't allow for another photographer would certainly be appropriate. Empathy for the bride and groom who could find themselves in legal trouble over your photos would be appropriate. You were hired to take video, and the photographer was hired to take photos; it actually is quite clearly a "black and white" situation. Directing wedding guests who want their photos taken to the photographer is what you should do, as you continue to do the job you were hired to do and the photographer does theirs. The photographer asking you to take these photos down, which you should not have taken and should not have posted in the first place because it was not your job, does not make you a victim who should be asking for empathy in a situation where you don't deserve it. Yes, the photographer ended up thanking you for taking photos they were unable to capture, but that sounds more like they are being polite with you, considering this came only after they informed you of their exclusivity clause and requested that you take these photos down. What you did is essentially the same as Uncle Joe bringing his DSLR and snapping wedding photos when the photographer very specifically is not ok with this. As someone who I assume has shot weddings before, one would think that you might actually be more empathetic towards the photographer's request rather than assuming the role of a victim yourself and asking for others to show you empathy over this.

 The photographer and potentially your clients are the victims here. Imagine if a bride and groom found themselves in legal trouble with the photographer for breaking an exclusivity clause in their contract because a hired videographer decided to take on the role of photographer when their job was to capture video, without taking any time to ask the hired photographer if it is ok for them to do so. That wouldn't be good for said videographer's business at all, because you can guarantee that the bride and groom would blame the videographer who put them into a legal mess with the photographer.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 29, 2019)

I suppose I wasn't feeling all that empathetic when I posted... I mean, it wasn't so much about sharing photos, especially if the contract allowed for taking photos for portfolio use, but it seems like it was a mistake to try to sell photos not having been hired as the photographer. I can see usually being the photographer not thinking at the time about how photos taken might be used. At least it seems to have been resolved with the photographer in a positive way.

If people asked you to take their photos one way to handle it would be to tell them you're shooting video but you'd be glad to let the photographer know. Then do that, when there's a minute in between shots, let her know which table would like their photos taken, or walk with her over to their table - that could be a cordial way to handle it with the client's guests as well as with fellow vendors/others working the event that you're developing professional relationships with. I think usually people just ask for their pictures to be taken because they want to be included in photos of the event.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 29, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> I suppose I wasn't feeling all that empathetic when I posted... I mean, it wasn't so much about sharing photos, especially if the contract allowed for taking photos for portfolio use, but it seems like it was a mistake to try to sell photos not having been hired as the photographer. I can see usually being the photographer not thinking at the time about how photos taken might be used. At least it seems to have been resolved with the photographer in a positive way.
> 
> If people asked you to take their photos one way to handle it would be to tell them you're shooting video but you'd be glad to let the photographer know. Then do that, when there's a minute in between shots, let her know which table would like their photos taken, or walk with her over to their table - that could be a cordial way to handle it with the client's guests as well as with fellow vendors/others working the event that you're developing professional relationships with. I think usually people just ask for their pictures to be taken because they want to be included in photos of the event.



I agree that selling photos was crossing the line. So like I said, I removed that option, and learned from it. 

But I still don't think it makes sense to not take a picture if I'm not currently doing video. I could, at the very least, take a quick video clip instead, if I wanted to limit myself in that way, but I think as long as I discuss it with the photographer beforehand and come to an agreement, I'll be fine.


----------

