# Drunk groom video goes viral and bride sues photographer



## SquarePeg (Sep 13, 2016)

Newlywed couple sues their wedding videographer after clip goes viral

My opinion on this is that while the groom made an ass of himself, it's certainly not the most embarrassing video I've ever seen and hardly warrants a law suit.  If I were the bride I'd be questioning my own judgement in marrying someone that had to get wasted on our wedding day.  That being said, I'm curious from the pros here if you would get permission from your clients before posting a questionable video of them online?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2016)

I don't do much in the wedding line, but I wouldn't post that.  Period.  It has nothing to do with the couple in the video; they're acting like idiots, people are laughing at them, that's fine.  I wouldn't want potential clients to think that potentially embarrassing images or video of them might be released.  I suspect that is going to cost that studio a LOT of business.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 13, 2016)

who cares about lost business when you have so many views!  internet dollars.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 13, 2016)

tirediron said:


> I don't do much in the wedding line, but I wouldn't post that.  Period.  It has nothing to do with the couple in the video; they're acting like idiots, people are laughing at them, that's fine.  I wouldn't want potential clients to think that potentially embarrassing images or video of them might be released.  I suspect that is going to cost that studio a LOT of business.



Couldn't agree more.  Can't imagine what this supposed "professional" was thinking releasing this video.


----------



## KmH (Sep 13, 2016)

"Stupid is as stupid does." - Mrs. Gump.


> University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot highlighted part of their quote saying 'our video'.
> 
> He said that even though the couple hired George Street Photo, the firm retain the copyright.
> 
> 'Any photograph by any photographer is considered a creative work, that belongs to the author – the photographer – and they have full rights, full copyrights' he told . . .


----------



## table1349 (Sep 13, 2016)

What happens in San Francisco stays on Youtube. 

Moral of the story, don't act like a dumb@$$ in pubic if you don't want the public to know you are a dumb@$$.

Thanks for the find Peg, better than the comics today.


----------



## Overread (Sep 13, 2016)

If the bride had been laughing I could see a reason for posting it in humour; but as its clearly not a happy time for her it seems very unprofessional to release that video when one is running a company. I guess it was one of those cases where someone in the office uploaded it for a laugh and then it got around enough to go viral and its come back to bite them hard.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 13, 2016)

why on earth would a professional wedding photographer post that video?!?
that was the photographer going full retard. never go full retard. 
deserves whatever the court hands down on that one....

btw...got absolutely, positively, 100% *wasted *on my wedding day.  
we just celebrated our 17th wedding anniversary on Sept 11th.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 13, 2016)

Overread said:


> If the bride had been laughing I could see a reason for posting it in humour; but as its clearly not a happy time for her it seems very unprofessional to release that video when one is running a company. I guess it was one of those cases where someone in the office uploaded it for a laugh and then it got around enough to go viral and its come back to bite them hard.


wedding ... not a happy time ... 

I think she hired the wrong type of lawyers.


----------



## CherylL (Sep 13, 2016)

My daughter's friend's wedding video had a clip of one of the bridesmaid's dancing and her strapless dress fell below her breasts.  It was blurred out in the final video and the music montage, but I don't see the need to have left that clip in the production.  No one sued, but then again it wasn't uploaded to YT.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 13, 2016)

She has a good reason to file suit.  







































































But for _divorce_.











.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 13, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > If the bride had been laughing I could see a reason for posting it in humour; but as its clearly not a happy time for her it seems very unprofessional to release that video when one is running a company. I guess it was one of those cases where someone in the office uploaded it for a laugh and then it got around enough to go viral and its come back to bite them hard.
> ...



Well who knows though, I mean we don't really know anything about the groom other than what is featured on this one clip... and lets face it, I'm grateful that I grew up in an age where no video of the incredibly stupid things I did ever made it to youtube.  

So I try not to be so quick to judge based on a snippet of video taken during what I think was probably not this guys finest moment.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> ...........So I try not to be so quick to judge based on a snippet of video taken during what I think was probably not this guys finest moment.



It actually might be his best......


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 13, 2016)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > ...........So I try not to be so quick to judge based on a snippet of video taken during what I think was probably not this guys finest moment.
> ...



That's possible, but I can't really determine that from a video of one embarrassing moment on the internet.  For all I know the guy might be a really wonderful person who just had a little to much to drink and did something stupid.

Not like I haven't done plenty of stupid stuff in my day, fortunately though that was before a time when everybody and their brother had a way to record it and upload it for millions to see.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 13, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> ......... For all I know the guy might be a really wonderful person who just had a little to much to drink and did something stupid.............



Are you referring to getting plastered.............. or getting married?


----------



## TheLibrarian (Sep 13, 2016)

According to this article we dont need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms. Yeah posting embarassing things of your clients is hardly professional.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 13, 2016)

TheLibrarian said:


> According to this article we dont need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms. Yeah posting embarassing things of your clients is hardly professional.


Model Release forms are not required for every situation. 
When Do I Need a Model Release?


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 13, 2016)

480sparky said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > ......... For all I know the guy might be a really wonderful person who just had a little to much to drink and did something stupid.............
> ...


Both actually. 

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## KmH (Sep 13, 2016)

TheLibrarian said:


> According to this article we dont [sic] need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms.


The article said nothing about model releases.

The article quoted a law professor correctly stating the videographer owns _copyright_ to the images, unless the contract states otherwise.

A model release is not needed for an editorial use.
Posting a video to YouTube is an editorial use, as long as you're not promoting or advertising your business.

However, photographers, and videographers, do not need a model release for self-promotion, self-advertising - unless:
The images are made in private and/or under controlled circumstances.

When you invite others, including a videographer you hired, to your wedding it is no longer a private shoot.

I would bet the B&G did incomplete due diligence before signing a contract with George Street Photo.
For all we know, the George Street Photo contract includes a clause that *is* a model release.

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

www.photoattorney.com


----------



## jeffW (Sep 18, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> ...the pros here if you would get permission from your clients before posting a questionable video of them online?



I absolutely would not be posting any questionable videos online that might embarrass a client or images that the client didn't want used publicly.   I wouldn't want to do it to a close friend as a joke. Seems like a lot of stories recently are showing photographers without ethics.

The downside to these types of stories are its going to be harder to negotiate fair ownership and contracts upfront when clients of scared of these boneheaded actions.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2016)

jeffW said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > ...the pros here if you would get permission from your clients before posting a questionable video of them online?
> ...



99.99% of the population doesn't care diddly squat about ownership.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 18, 2016)

I don't know why a photographer would post video or photos that was work done for a client without permission/releases signed. I don't think you can always know for sure how you might use a photo and it would be better to be covered and have it in writing. It may not be necessary but seems like a good practice.

In this situation at least some of the problem is the photographer is out of state. The Daily Mail being a tabloid I don't know how accurate their stories are, but I found a video of a news report by a San Francisco TV station. The photographer's business is in Chicago. The bride said she didn't know that. So it seems the photographer is contracting with people with cameras out of state to record or photograph weddings and whatever person with a camera shot this must not have the best business ethics!

I'd consider this type event to be private since it was invitation only and not an event open to the public. And posting video shot for a client seems to be promoting the business and I think gets into being commercial more than editorial use. If it was shot by a guest at the wedding that would probably be editorial use just being posted to share/to show to people. Being shot as paid work for a client I think gets into business/commercial work.

I imagine at least some of the responsibility would fall on the photographer running the company out of state, who's I guess going to learn an expensive lesson on contracts and releases and usage and business ethics etc. etc.


----------

