Here is what happened...

Wedding ceremony is on the beach. 100 guests are gathering; and as bride is walking down the stairs to the beach this guy in shorts, ball cap & t-shirt shows up and basically stands right in front of me and starts shooting away very aggressively at bride with very professional equipment (exactly same Canon outfit as me). I was thinking--what a ballsy tourist! I thought is was weird because he was so in my face and being very obnoxious, but I was forgiving and going with the flow because I thought he was just an idiot tourist who happens to have great gear (how often do you see a wedding on the beach on a Saturday afternoon-I'd probably take a few shots too just for fun?). As the bride is being kissed by her father, this guy is standing RIGHT IN FRONT of B&G on the opposite side--right in my shot. I am gesturing to him wildly at this point to get the hell out of my shots because he is very much ruining them, and he gives me the "wait a minute" finger!!!! I was flabbergasted. I had to work the entire rest of the ceremony with this creep getting in my way in very real way. What am I going to do in the five minutes I had to capture the ceremony?? Finally, as the B&G are recessing I just yelled to him "Dude, GET OUT OF MY SHOT!" Everyone heard me, and I didn't care at that point. SO MAD, and SO CONFUSED still as to why he was there and ruining my shots.

About an hour later, during the portraits, I finally start talking to the bride as to who that guy was. She tells me that he is from a local newspaper (name deleted!) and the grooms grandmother told them to come to the beach and do a story because they are both Iraqi War veterans etc (it is in fact a great story). So I let it go a bit because I don't want to lose my mojo for the portraits.

But, as I'm driving to the reception, I start fuming again. So many thoughts run through my head. First of all:

1. This is my wedding. I have an actual contract signed by both B&G saying that I am to be the sole professional photographer. So, if this story is published in the newspaper with those guys photos, I have BIG issues.

2. Why didn't the guy introduce himself to me and tell me what was going on?????

3. Why did he show up to a wedding gig in bad beach tourist clothing?

4. Why was he so aggressive and IN YOUR FACE style photography at a wedding, and as a photojournalist? That is not photojournalism to me.

5. Why didn't he at least give me the courtesy of staying out of my way???

UGH. II'm still mad 3 days later.

My questions to you guys: am I right here? And if so, what should I tell the editor of the newspaper? I've already basically let the B&G off the hook because they didn't find out about it until I did. I do very much blame the newspaper and that photographer though.

HELP! Need some guidance to stay professional and know my rights in the situation.

I want cool heads to prevail, but I also want to voice my concerns to the editor.

Thanks guys!! Thanks for listening too!

(update, here is the article! And anyone can order the images! UGH! )

Geneve

I'd be pissed too! I think, personally, that you ARE right. I don't have the experience to probably give the right advice, but I would call the newspaper and complain about this guy's lack of professionalism, that he was hindering you to do the job the B&G paid you to do. Sounds awful.. I am glad you were able to put your feelings aside at that time and carry on, seems like you are a true professional..

Well Geneve,

This is going to be a tough pill to swallow. But the paper was invited by immediate family and the beach was public. It sucks and they should have talked to you about it.

Photojournalists do not dress up... not like the super classy reporters. (I always wore a Homer Simpson tie). And he probably never shot a wedding, so he knew little about etiquette and probably wouldn't have cared if he did. He was there to get shots for the paper. And he's probably used to people being pissed at him, so your yelling didn't phase him much either I suspect.

I don't see how your contract would protect you from a situation like this. I would definitely call the editor, though.

I'd definitely complain politely to the editor (both photo editor and the editor for the section the article ran in). It's understandable that the photographer had the right to be there to cover the story from an editorial standpoint, but it seems strange to me that the "editorial" content is now for sale as prints. Sounds more like a commercial assignment to me. I know they don't need model releases for publishing the image for editorial purposes, but I wonder if the rules are different since the photos are being sold to the public???

Is the couple upset about this guy's behavior and him being in the background of their images? If so, a complaint from them to the paper might have more impact.

hey geneve!!

such a difficult situation to deal with, especially after seeing the article! *shocked that a newspaper would offer the option to order photos from a stranger's wedding* but it seems like in this situation not much you can do but live and learn.

i would be super pissed for all the reasons that you mentioned, but going forward would certainly reiterate the only pro-photographer clause in the contract and reference what happened here, how he ruined shots etc.

if you feel like you have to 'do something' i'd suggest calling the paper and talking to the shooter's boss and explain how unprofessional he acted.

hugs to you

Hey Guys,

Thanks so far...I'd love to hear from more photojournalists like Shane. Get that perspective. But, that still doesn't excuse this guy. It makes all photojournalists look very unprofessional. Also, I stand by my first sentiment about it not being particularly "photojournalistic." He pretty much broke every rule I can think of in that department. Maybe I'm pigeon holing photojournalists, but aren't they as a rule supposed to be quiet, observant??

G



PS--Hey Melissa!! Hugs right back to you girl!

Actually, this isn't *your* wedding. The day is for the couple. If the couple or their close relatives invites the press, roll with it.

Your contract is with the bride and groom. I'm not sure how that clause could be used to benefit either of you. Your contract isn't with the other photographer or the newspaper.

At the end of the day, I'm assuming you got paid way more than the staff photographer. Let it go.


Eric

Editorial photographic content has always been for sale as prints. But USUALLY only the published pictures. The photographer does not get a dime in most cases. Anytime you work for a paper, the paper retains all copyrights. Just so you know...

I really do feel for your Geneve and it's a crappy situation. But it's such an odd circumstance I don't think you'd have to worry about it happening again.

ETA: It might not have been how I handled the situation. But these guys and gals are under tremendous pressure to get the shot and move onto the next assignment. It's probably best to just cool off and live to shoot more great weddings another day.

I would have been just as pissed, though.

What a sucky situation!

As a freelance photojournalist, myself, stringing for a paper, I can say that we don't dress up to go out on assignment. (I, however, try to dress appropriate to the occasion if I know what I'm walking into, but sometimes getting last minute assignments, you run out the door in what you have on!) Also, the tagline to "purchase this photo" shows up for all photos connected to stories, regardless of what/who they are of. So that's not abnormal. I can also say that I don't always introduce myself on arrival either, depending on the situation and for several reasons. A) I shoot first, ask questions later so that my presence doesn't have an impact on my subject's behavior. If I said Hey I'm here to take pics of you, than now I've changed their behavior and there's nothing photojournalistic about that! B) I don't always know who's in charge to introduce myself to! I sometimes have to arrive early and observe for awhile to figure out who's who.

His behavior of getting in your way and being so obtrusive is not normal though. I can't believe that. I would definitely contact the director of photography at their paper and complain about his behavior. (At my paper, the photographers don't really deal so much with editors, so contacting the editor may not do much. We report to the Director of Photography. The editor could or could not shrug it off or pass it along to the photography dept, so I would try to contact the photography dept directly.)

As far as your contract, I have to agree with Shane, because the couple didn't actually contract this photographer or even hire him. The guy was the media. I mean I know technically he's a professional photographer but being a member of the media is like a whole nother ball game. I would just talk to the couple about it....it seems they're pretty understanding of the whole thing. You didn't want to make a scene in the middle of their ceremony by asking him to move, so you missed out on some shots...that's not your fault! If they have a problem with it, maybe they'll contact the paper and complain as well.

I'm so sorry this happened to you! Some media photographers are obnoxious but most aren't, as far as I've encountered. The idea is not to be PART of the event, but to document it....sure sounds like he was pretty much center stage! I think that's kind of rude, but maybe not all photojournalists work the same way? I can say that sometimes I see photojournalism that clearly shot wide angle and VERY close to the action and they're very compelling images. Depending on the situation I prefer to shoot long and from a distance, but clearly this guy is one of those "shoot wide, front and center" shooters. It's probably his style.

The whole situation just kind of sucks from your end though, I know.

EDIT: I just want to say for the record I would have also been pissed. And also for the record, the same as Shane said, I don't think I would have handled it this way either if it were my assignment. I would have shot long and from a distance. But like I said before....we each have our own styles.

Wow. I have in my contract that I am the only pro photographer there. I do allow EVERYONE to get shots, and am very nice to family and friends. I feel like I represent not only myself, but the bride and groom. I would never want anyone to feel upset because of me. I think that we need to always try our hardest to get the shot even if it's really difficult. That being said, I think it's very fair to write in a contract that if they break their end of it (having another photographer there), you are limited by what you can capture. If they want someone else there and the other person behaves like this photojournalist did, well, there will be some shots that he'll be in or that just don't work. Just one opinion. And yes, I would be upset.I didn't see this before I wrote. Good info.

Let's not paint all photojournalists with this broad brush. I was a staff photojournalist for 15 years at numerous papers and currently am a picture editor for a major metropolitan newspaper. Most staff photographers at papers dress appropriately for an assignment such as this. Actually, I'm embarrassed for this guy's behavior. But let's be careful here about stereotypes.

That being said, this guy should have behaved much more professionally than he did. I think a call to his photo editor would be appropriate.

Sorry this happened to you. You have a right to be upset.

Steve...

Are you telling me there's no funky smell emanating from the photo department at your paper? I worked for newspapers for several years as well. I was just explaining that the guy probably wouldn't have been in a suit and tie. The rest I agree with you on.

Just be thankful TV didn't show up. But there I go with the stereotypes again.

Hi Michelle,YOu make very good points. And if I step back from the situation a bit, I will see that I did end up covering the event very well, despite this jerk. So there is that thankfully. And if I step back even further, I see that it may boil down to a "turf" issue, which can quickly spiral down into a clash of the egos. I guess I just wanted to poll all of you to see if I am justified in contacting the photo editor about this guy, just for the principle of the thing. I've never encountered it, and like Shane said, it will probably never happen again, but I have this nagging feeling in my gut that it just wasn't right!!Wah, wah. LOL. Hey Steve,Do you think that it would have been normal to at least talk to me and get a quick game plan so that we are not in each other's way? I've never worked with photojournalists before, and I know they believe in the "beg forgiveness" later theory, but this guy was in almost every shot of mine. I had to go really tight with my 70-200 just to crop him out. ?Anyway, I really appreciate the insight.GHey Mistly, I thought that was strange how much he was in the way. I guess it's also true that the media does have different "rules" than us working stiffs. That is a point well taken, contract wise. Great points!!G

Hey Eric,



It is MY wedding in that I alone am ultimately responsible to produce images/coverage of the wedding--not that photographer from Foster's who blazed in guns firing to capture all 4 shots that he published. So, yes, of course, it is the bride and grooms wedding. But when another "professional" photographer actually hinders my job of covering "their wedding" it becomes MY problem (am I supposed to tell the bride and groom "well, it's your wedding, so I can't be held responsible that that guy was in every shot"...no). That photographer will definitely be in their album because he was in every other shot I took.

I would have rolled with it a lot more too, if I had known who the heck this guy was. I honestly couldn't believe he basically "shushed" me too! Oy. A short introduction from the guy would have gone a long, long way.

It is a comfort knowing I got paid a lot more though! Hehehe.

You need to talk to the bride and groom about suing the newspaper.

If I'm reading this correctly, then:

1) The B&G never extended an invitation for the photographer to be at their wedding, period (newspaper should have asked permission and cleared it first).

2) The B&G were in contract with you to NOT have any other pro photographer there.

3) The photographer was a nuisance to the B&G and guests (his attire and his obtrusive presence).

4) The photographer RUINED your shots.

5) The photographer is PROFITING from shots he took.


Given all that, talk to the B&G about how this violates your contract and although you do not believe *them* to be liable, the newspaper is and this kind of behavior cannot continue. After corroborating the B&G's story, contact a lawyer and have him send a letter to the editor in chief to let him know where you stand on this. It is likely that they would rather settle this privately with you instead of dragging it out in court.

Good luck.

Sorry, suing is just really bad advice.

My thoughts exactly, Shane!
They are notoriously bad. There's a shot of a tv guy in shorts, busted tshirt, and ball cap shooting a MILITARY FUNERAL in last month's News Photographer magazine... unbelievable. Another TV guy got fired for taking a piss on a gravestone during another military funeral cause he just couldn't wait. I'm not saying photojournalists are saints, but man, oh man...

I work at a newspaper. If images with a credit to a person appear in our paper, and somebody buys prints, the person who was credited with taking the photo gets royalties. (For certain sections the royalties go to a "pool" of photographers so that people within the organization don't fight over assignments.)

One time a newspaper photographer (not from my paper) came to my church to cover a piano concert. He had the dang camera on rapid fire burst shooting. You couldn't hear the piano!After the concert members at my church were yelling at ME! I felt like hiding my camera for a month.

Calling the editor and complaining would be futile as well. They spend most of there day hearing from the general public about what the paper should and shouldn't do. Newspaper photographers are generally at the bottom of the editorial pay charts, so feel good about your contract and understand he probably shares a bad apartment, drives a bad car and owns none of that professional equipment. Oh wait, that's me a dozen or so years ago.

Long live wedding photographers!

it was rude, very rude - but i doubt complaining is going to do any good and suing would bring a bad taste into everyone's mouth because ultimately, the b&g would be contacted for statements and it would probably upset them - after all, arent they, shouldnt they be the main focus here?

Did you still get your shots? Did you get the all-important-altar kiss etc?

If so I reckon let it go... hey he was a *insert-your-own-word* & you do have every right to be pissed... (I know I would be) but just focus on delivering your amazing images to your client (if you haven't already), then focus on your next job.

-- if you ever find out this photographer is going to get married in a public place I vote we send an OSP contingent down to crash his wedding

I'm really sorry this happened to you. That guy was extremely out of line.

When I shoot for my paper I have to put my elbows up sometimes- because there are usually other photographers competing for the same shot. It doesn't help being a woman either... but he was very out of line, even in my experience.

I wish the paper would have contacted you for your shots- but they probably want to retain copyright.

Another former journalist jumping in...

Going after the paper in this case is futile for all the reasons mentioned above.

Plus the old adage of never argue with the guy who buys ink by the barrel.

Basically, the news photog can show up there legally. They can publish and sell the images they made. The event was held in a public venue, and the news coverage was invited by a member of the family.

Going after the paper is going to be a road to slow insanity. They've got the law on their side. If anyone can be approached from a legal standpoint, it's your clients. I wouldn't recommend going after them. Suing them for breach isn't going to get your album sales up.

Basically, this is a great learning experience for everyone involved.

1. how did the news photog dress? Do we as professionals all dress responsibly for the events we cover?
2. Had this been Uncle Bob, how would you have approached him differently?
3. Was it possible to chat with the offensive photog right after the ceremony? Hand him your card and say "hey let's do lunch!"? and do a little educating about the role of photogs at weddings -- and maybe have a contact for a new second shooter?
4. Did you make images with the "jerk" in them? He's now part of the story... be sure to record the event as it really happened!

If you still need to vent, send a polite letter to the paper's editor, with an image of two of the photographer interfering. Ask that in the future all news staff at a wedding be dressed appropriately, and respect the ceremony as though they are working as a wedding professional. Perhaps detail how difficult photographing in churchs has become - because of all the newbie photographers that behave like this "professional" news photographer has done.

DO NOT go after them for their "violation" of your contract. They won't agree on that point, and they've got a heck of a lot of legal precedent on their side. (I hated Journalism law in college, but I did pay attention to that professor!)

If you take this approach, you'll probably get a nice letter back, and can rest easy that the editor chewed this guys butt for a few minutes.

Well said Troy. Well said.

If you really think about it.....it's probably pretty exciting to your clients that they are in the newspaper! and you did say that you actually got pretty good coverage in spite of this guy, so Troy's right - now he's just another part of their wedding story. I think this has pretty much become a moot issue now, unless of course your clients are pissed that he's in the images, in which case they can take action with the newspaper.

Hands down.....there was no violation of your contract and to even suggest that either the photojournalist or your clients violated it, will only piss them all off and make a mountain out of a molehill. Great learning experience and let it be that. If you're still fuming, than go ahead and write that letter to the paper about his behavior and then let it go.

Oh - and at my paper, any photo sales go to the paper. I don't see any money for those sales, so not all papers are the same. And whatever I shoot is their copyright, not mine. I have permission to use them in my portfolio but cannot sell them. The paper owns whatever images I submit to them.

I'm also a freelance/stringer for the local paper. I can't believe that guy! What a dick.

The only thing you can really do is contact the Photo Editor and perhaps the journalist that wrote the piece, be calm and clear.
Point out the bad manners, the dress sense and the way he treated you and the other people there. Mention that he didn't introduce himself and that he was disrespectful to the ceremony and B+G.

You don't have any grounds to request that the photographs not be allowed for sale, all papers that I know of offer prints for sale, it;s how the make money for the photography department. It looks as if he was shooting wide, and to be honest the photo with the article is pants. No one is going to buy it.

Please let us know how you get on, I am ashamed that your first encounter with a photojournalist turned out to be uber disappointing. Not all of use are like that, but it is the same with Wedding photography, one bad encounter taints your perception of the rest of us. Not all of us are obnoxious arrogant bad dressers

Don't get the "pants" thing, but did you see the article? I wanna see.

its an english thing.

the link is posted above.

article

would the PPA be of help here?

it seems that if there are legal issues, a lawyer may need to be consulted. i get the whole public place thing, but where do you draw the line? i could see this getting pretty complicated and messy especially if the b&g are not happy with their photos. IMHO, that's what will matter... if it matters to them, they will need to resolve it, not you.

There's no reason to involve PPA. Trust me, there really are no legal issues. Your contract does not trump media law. And these laws are in place to protect your right to know stuff - it was just abused and misused in this case.

I had to cover a funeral once of a guy who was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. It was the worst assignment ever. I had to go talk to family members and get quotes. I was very respectful and apologetic. After 10 minutes, an angry family member asked me to leave. Once he asked me, I became the world's biggest scumbag. Everybody started whispering and gawking. It was terrible. I didn't have time to explain that I was doing my job.

In Geneve's case, this particular photojournalist did not handle the situation well, it appears. But it certainly sounds like a newsworthy story and I bet the community will appreciate the coverage. If we start closing doors to journalists, we'll all be left in the dark.

Geneve, call and let them know how you feel or write a letter as Troy suggests. In the future, he'll probably handle similar situations better and will still be able to let people know what's going on in their community. He might even put on a nice pair of pants.

The other issue here is that the contract is between the photographer and the B&G.

The newspaper isn't obligated to follow the contract.

It's the responsibility of the photog to approach the B&G and ask that they follow the contract and remove the photographer.

If the B&G don't control the situation to the photographer's liking, then the photographer can take legal action against the B&G.

The best that the PPA can do in this case is send a letter to the newspaper. They won't have any legal recourse afterward...

It really is unfortunate that you got a less than professional shooter. And yep, the paper will win on a legal ground. But you still have the option to politely express your displeasure and see what can be done to create a friendlier working relationship should the paper find itself in this situation again. It could happen....and if you get to know the guys (and gals) better this won't be the case the next time around. I would definitely include the pictures of him in the coverage....'cause that's what happened. If the couple is unhappy with it, they can decide to take it up with the paper. If they aren't troubled, don't let it bother you.

Having been in the middle of the fracas of news shooters before, I'd have been sorely tempted to match him move for move. The only thing that would've stopped me is the knowledge that it would make me as UNprofessional as he was....which is what I am sure stopped you.

I hope the folks at the paper read this thread. They need to realize that they don't have to behave this way to get the shot. *shakes head sadly*

It was an unfortunate situation, for sure.

The advice to sue or have a lawyer send a letter is ridiculous! Not only is it an overreaction, but you really have no grounds, the newspaper was not bound to your contract. Write a polite letter to the photo editor and be done with it. The best you can hope for is that he'll learn how to behave properly in the future.

We have a part in our wedding contract that says that we'll be the only professional photographers there and that any other photographers are to be under our direction. (ie. family hobbyists need to take direction from us). Whenever people ask us about the clause we just explain it is to make sure we are able to get the best possible pictures and work well with everyone. We haven't had any clients make an objection.

That's pretty standard... but remember -- the other photogs are not subject to legal action by you. Your contract is usually with the B&G.

So, to enforce your clause, you have to work through the B&G. And, if Uncle Harry throws a fit, and the B&G leave him there shooting around you -- you get to take legal action vs the other signator to the agreement: the B&G.

You can only go after Uncle Harry if he physically assualts you or your equipment, and then you're outside of your contract and into private property or Assault & Battery laws.

Hey Robin!That is sort of my point after all is said and done--yes, we know the "media" have certain unalienable rights, blah, blah, blah, but where do we draw the line? What if this paper decided to make all the images available to the bride and groom, and they never bought one from me because the paper is cheaper??? I have big issues with that! It's a GREY area to be sure. A line may have been crossed?I'm definitely not going to sue because of the hassle and the very bad ensuing publicity for all (unless of course I made it onto OPRAH. LOL). So not worth it, although I might actually have a case...but not even a remote possibility that I will do it. But I do feel a need to at least write to the photo editor and offer up a "gee whiz" type approach without any judgemental sentiment.Thanks for all the great thoughts everyone! I'll let you know what the editor says, if anything.GeneveWell said Shane. You make an excellent point. I guess the main problem I have is how the guy acted more than anything. If he had been cool and polite, I would have let him have all the shots he wanted!

Not in so many words. But you are there to capture memories. Being the subject of a newspaper story is part of the memory. Same as that pesky minister that usually gets camera time.

I don't think many people would need a long explanation as to why their ceremony shots have the newspaper dude in many of them. They were right there. They had to notice how close he was. The family invited him. He becomes part of the story.

If your clients are upset, then they should be the ones to call the editor. Not you.


Eric

He should have dressed more appropriately and approached you before the wedding. He also should have worked out a game plan which would have allowed you both to successfully perform.

This is family owned, 20,053 daily circulation paper, so your words will not fall an deaf ears. You can call a Foster and let them know about your problem. Your voice will be better served if you can set up a meeting with one of them (if it is worth it to you). Visual aids may also help them better understand your side of the story:

Pulisher:
Robert H. Foster

Editor:
Therese D. Foster

VP of Administration:
Patrice D. Foster

In his defense, he is small town photojournalist and was probably on assignment 2 of 5. Yea, he should have dressed better but how often are beach weddings formal?

However there is no excuse for his photographic aggressiveness.

Now, if I were in your shoes, I would be upset but I also would have taken advantage of the opportunity. Yea, he looked like a tourist, so, document it. He was a part of the day...a nuisance but still part of their wedding day.

I have won several awards because of unscheduled nuisances. So now I welcome all idiots to my weddings.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can either sit down with a Foster or let it slide and drink a couple of Fosters.

You don't have a case.

It seems people don't seem to be understanding that the contract is between the photographer and the bride & groom. IF there was a violation of contract the only people you could sue is your own bride & groom.

Even if you had an airtight contract not allowing another pro photographer to shoot the wedding, and the bride and groom had a wedding in a public place and a photographer happened past, started taking photos, contacted the bride & groom at a later date and sold them the photos, the only person you could sue in this case is the bride & groom.

There's no legal anything stopping the passing photographer from taking photos of people assembling in a public place, contacting them and selling to them (or selling them to a paper, or putting them in an art exhibit either). Consent from the photographed parties is not needed in these circumstances (as long as they are in a public place with no other photography related restrictions placed on the area, some public venues do restrict photography).

^exactly

As a former photojournalist who worked for several middle-sized newspapers, I am appalled (but not surprised) at his behavior!

And while they maybe should be simply observers, I have found that many photojournalist are quite pushy and rude. (which is a BIG reason why I USED to work for a newspaper!)

I would certainly contact the photo editor and/or the editor in chief; nothing may come of it, but it may make you feel better. I understand why you're pissed...I would be too!

Hi there

Having been a journalist for ten years, I can second what's been said on here. There is no legal redress to you - he was on a public beach and so he's covered ! Media law does defo trump your exclusion contract I am afraid.

I am sure it has already been said on here, but I think it would be a bad idea (in my opinion) to complain to the newspaper. I am a newseditor and get compliants on a daily basis about my reporting team - I have mastered the art of firmly saying 'tough break' and putting the phone down (that sounds harsh, I know.) From my perspective, you can bet that if I ever have news coming in from someone who has been awkward in the past then I will make sure it goes right to the back!!

This seems harsh and on one level I totally get why this upset you and that his conduct was not professional. But complaining to the newspaper won't win you any points sadly.

Instead, why don't you try to turn it to your advantage and learn from it? If you ever have a great story behind one of your couples, phone the newspaper first, tip them off and offer to submit the photos for them (in exchange for photo credit of course).

Alternatively, ring the newsdesk and have a nice, positive chat with the news editor. Say you notice they have covered one of your weddings, wasn't it great etc etc?? Then say, "actually I have had a few ideas for features you might like. Have you ever done something on the trash the dress trend (or whatever)? etc etc I would be happy to submit something"

There's a chance you could end up getting some really great publicity. I have just done a pr release for one of my fulltime pro friends and as a result he is getting a FOC spread in one the UK's biggest wedding magazines.

Turn your negative into a positive and don't let the inconsiderate nature of that one press photographer get you down.

Hope this helps!

Sounds like a pretty crappy way to run the show. "My guys can pretty much do anything they have to do. Oh well to anyone who says otherwise." If I knew that was your policy and one of your guys got in front of me, he would swim in that ocean. "Oh well, tough break, eh?" Respect goes both ways.



Yeah - this is what is meant by "fair and unbiased" in news, right? People want news to know what happened, what's going to happen. Not to know who the editor is friends with or who pissed off the editor this week by telling them that an employee is an ass...even if he is.

Glad I'm not the only one who got my hackles up a little at this response...

I'll all for 'free press' but I'm not all for giving away my hard work in exchange for 'photo credit' to a 'for profit' corporation - that's an absurd and abusive suggestion. I realize that newspapers are in a sinking ship, business model wise, but that's no reason for photographers to bend over. They don't pay staff photogs well, but at least they pay them.

I have donated images to the local paper for a good cause - and I don't intend to ever sell them any because they don't value freelance contributions (their contract is draconian and the pay is low).

Unfortunately it does not.

Matt put it well. A policy of getting used to complaints is a sh*tty policy indeed. As professionals, reporters should know when there is a higher expectation of decorum. There is a big difference between covering a house fire or Paris Hilton's latest DUI and a wedding (or funeral) or anything along those lines. Not only does the nature of the type of event dictate appropriate behavior, but the players involved (i.e. private citizens vs. politicians, criminals, celebs, etc.)

The PJ in question was so out of bounds that he created a spectacle, which pretty much goes against the basic idea of a PJ being a documentarian and NOT part of the action. Plus, it was RUDE and lame.

So yeah, your post didn't help me, not a bit. That dude would have got a knuckle sandwich if he had showed up at a gig I was shooting.

And for the record, it was pretty freaking lame of the paper not to just call the official wedding photographer for photos in the first place. That would have been the smartest course of action, not expecting the unfairly jilted photographer to not complain and try to spin a free PR blurb out of it. Come on already.

No, I gotta disagree here. The paper would have no idea who the wedding photographer was and if they had any skill whatsoever in taking newsworthy images. That staffer, no matter if he acted a jerk or not, is tasked with taking newsworthy images - the wedding photog isn't.

Really he should have just been a bit more professional and they both could have worked together to do their respective jobs.



I doubt it.

Most wedding photographers get paid better than the local news' PJs. Not that this makes them *better*, but the standard for the local paper isn't that high either. - crap half the time now you see "citizen journalists" submitting images that end up on tv or in the paper. Plus, the OP notes that the paper was in touch with relatives and it would be a simple matter of the editor picking up the phone and asking if there was a photographer and getting his/her name.

In a perfect world, the hired photographer should have gotten notice about the paper showing up so they could offer their images from the get go. I did that recently for a work event that a local paper wanted to cover and got my images in the paper, no problem. No one at the paper bothered to qualify me, and my daytime job is NOT as a photographer, so it's not like they "knew" my images would be up to snuff ahead of time.

No, that's definitely not standard practice, and for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, few people understand the code of ethics that photojournalists are to follow, especially regarding setting up images and image manipulation.

Exactly.

The newspaper has a photog (or reporter with camera) on staff, and probably on call that weekend. Why pay him for sitting around on his butt, when you can give him a full assignment, and know you're going to have photos for a story waiting for you on Monday.

Try that with a "professional wedding photog" and you'll probably get the run-around for a week while the photog edits and retouches the images making them just so.

Remember, most newspapers print with a "150 line screen" in halftone. Basically, you need to know how the paper will reproduce your image (crappy -- high contrast, loss of detail, and a limited color and tonality gamut). I've heard too many of the folks in Pre-Press areas complain because they get "pro" image files with wonderful gradiations of tones, only to have the photog call and complain after publication that the image looked like crap. This happens a LOT when photogs don't tweak and output their files specifically for the printing method (papers print in CMYK - not Adobe RGB!)

So, it's a much safer and easier decision for a news editor to make, in sending their own staff member out to the public venue.

PS: remember what I said up above... A professional wedding photographer enters into a contract with their client -- but not with the venues, or any other person or vendor at the wedding. You only get exclusivity at the event, because no one wants to honk off the bride on her wedding day. If you ever push, and tell the florist that she can't take pics of the decorated tables at the reception -- you haven't got a prayer of getting that enforced in court. Unless you can show agreements between the florist and your client that say the florist will respect your exclusivity.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the first amendment's Freedom of the Press trumps your contract with the bride in any public venue where there is a noteable news story.