The Bride chose my images instead of the photographer, how much should I charge?

[neuroanatomist]

Wrong. Why would I post on a photography forum to show off?

"The Bride chose my images instead of the photographer, how much should I charge?"

Not, "What should I charge a bride for pics I shot at a wedding?" No...you wanted everyone to know the bride preferred your images to the person paid to shoot the wedding.

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did.

I didn't give any detail to anyone at the wedding because I thought it wasn't professional neither ethical to promote myself while another photographer was hired to photograph the event.

But it was ethical and professional to set up an online gallery and attempt to sell your pictures directly to the bride, even though you were there only as a guest of that other photographer who was hired to photograph the event? :

 

[chriswolf]

Not, "What should I charge a bride for pics I shot at a wedding?" No...you wanted everyone to know the bride preferred your images to the person paid to shoot the wedding.

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did.

If you don't know why you are agreeing with my statement, in fact there is no reason to show off on a photography forum since we are all photographers.

 

[Orangutan]

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did.

I would offer a variant of Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by human imperfection. OP's somewhat haphazard post is fully explained to my satisfaction by human imperfection. I don't see the need to poke him. If it was intentional then it didn't work, and I bet he's got the clue by now.

Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.

 

[Northstar]

Ok gentlemen, the pro just called me, thanked me for informing him about what happened and telling me that he understand the situation but I can't sell my images to the bride. No drama, he was very nice and polite.
He also assumes that the bride is playing a weird game as you said in other posts.

As far as the "game" the bride might be playing....yes, it's a real possibility. She might just be trying to save some money. (Especially considering that she was so eager to skip past the pro and buy your photos instead at a probable discount)

Remember one thing from your experience with this post....ALWAYS take the most ethical route and you will be rewarded in the long term. Integrity and trustworthiness might be two of the most important personality traits.

It sounds like you decided to take the good advice you've been given....very good to hear. Now, you've shown the "pro" that you are a trustworthy person with integrity....build on that.

Good luck to you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.

I'll take that as a compliment...so, thank you!

 

[Orangutan]

Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.

I'll take that as a compliment...so, thank you!

In part it certainly is.

 

[Skulker]

That said, I question how the OP was contacted by the bride. This question was brought up earlier in the thread, but never answered by the OP. Unless the pro photographer himself gave her the contact info, then it would seem the OP promoted himself at the wedding, at least to the extent that he provided the bride or someone close to her with information as to who he is and how to contact him. This is way beyond the bounds of what is ethical in such a situation, whether hired by the photographer, or in this case allowed to 'tag along' at his client's event.

Sorry I thought I did. The bride asked my number to the cameraman (who I met the same day) and the cameraman called the photographer to have my number telling him that he needed me for a job. I didn't give any detail to anyone at the wedding because I thought it wasn't professional neither ethical to promote myself while another photographer was hired to photograph the event.

so there was deliberate deceitful behaviour and you knew it.

 

[Robert Welch]

That said, I question how the OP was contacted by the bride. This question was brought up earlier in the thread, but never answered by the OP. Unless the pro photographer himself gave her the contact info, then it would seem the OP promoted himself at the wedding, at least to the extent that he provided the bride or someone close to her with information as to who he is and how to contact him. This is way beyond the bounds of what is ethical in such a situation, whether hired by the photographer, or in this case allowed to 'tag along' at his client's event.

Sorry I thought I did. The bride asked my number to the cameraman (who I met the same day) and the cameraman called the photographer to have my number telling him that he needed me for a job. I didn't give any detail to anyone at the wedding because I thought it wasn't professional neither ethical to promote myself while another photographer was hired to photograph the event.

By cameraman, I assume you mean a videographer? Sounds very strange that the bride would inquire about you in this way, and not go directly to the photographer (assuming she knew you were there with him). Anyway, sounds like you have handled this in the best way in the end.

If you do ever go into wedding photography professionally, you will have learned a good lesson in all this, at least in regards to having other photographers working with you, as well as the manipulations than can occur. It's important to have a good contract with the client, and if you do have assistants, have clear contracts with them. There is much more to the business of wedding photography than just taking pretty photos. Seems you got a good taste of some of the variables and potential pitfalls here.

 

[Hillsilly]

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

Once you've got a few years' IP law under your belt, you might see things differently. I'd argue that the OP took the images as an agent of the pro photographer (as he would have been under the supervision and guidance of the pro and his attendance at the event would have been under the pro's direction), and consequently the pro owns the copyright (subject to the contract with the bride and groom....as they are the client, depending on the wording of the contract, you might find that they already own the copyright - take a look at s35(5) of the Copyright Act.)

Given the circumstances, I have a hard time seeing how the OP could own the copyright. I suspect he'd argue that as the person pressing the shutter button, he was the creator and therefore the owner. But given that this would have been a private event, with the OP attending under the direction of the pro photographer, if this ever became a serious issue, I'd suggest the pro (or the bride and groom) would have the winning argument. (Law degree and 20+ years experience.)

Back to the OP, I'm happy that you discussed it with the pro (even if it wasn't 100% your desired outcome). We'd have 2 or 3 people come and do work experience with us from high schools and universities each year. And while we're not in a photography related industry, everyone that works with us always acts on their best behaviour and we're delighted to have them, even though a certain percentage will ultimately become direct competitors. But we like doing it. Not only do we identify potential employees, but it is always useful having contacts in other firms or different specialities. Hopefully, you've kept the relationship with the pro on a good footing as you never know when your paths might cross again.

 

[verysimplejason]

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/13/wedding-photographer-sued-for-missing-the-kiss/

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

Once you've got a few years' IP law under your belt, you might see things differently. I'd argue that the OP took the images as an agent of the pro photographer (as he would have been under the supervision and guidance of the pro and his attendance at the event would have been under the pro's direction), and consequently the pro owns the copyright (subject to the contract with the bride and groom....as they are the client, depending on the wording of the contract, you might find that they already own the copyright - take a look at s35(5) of the Copyright Act.)

Given the circumstances, I have a hard time seeing how the OP could own the copyright. I suspect he'd argue that as the person pressing the shutter button, he was the creator and therefore the owner. But given that this would have been a private event, with the OP attending under the direction of the pro photographer, if this ever became a serious issue, I'd suggest the pro (or the bride and groom) would have the winning argument. (Law degree and 20+ years experience.)

Back to the OP, I'm happy that you discussed it with the pro (even if it wasn't 100% your desired outcome). We'd have 2 or 3 people come and do work experience with us from high schools and universities each year. And while we're not in a photography related industry, everyone that works with us always acts on their best behaviour and we're delighted to have them, even though a certain percentage will ultimately become direct competitors. But we like doing it. Not only do we identify potential employees, but it is always useful having contacts in other firms or different specialities. Hopefully, you've kept the relationship with the pro on a good footing as you never know when your paths might cross again.

Just to summarize what he said... "Don't burn bridges." Just charge it to experience and move on. If you feel cheated then just move on and don't work for/with him anymore in the future. There are times that nature has a way of giving back whatever you lost. Karma, as we always say will always get you. I don't know if you believe but I've always believe in this. It just made my life better and with less worries. 8)

 

[Sporgon]

I think as the thread goes on and there is further analyses and explanations from the Op so the whole thing becomes less believable.

The pro was there to cover the wedding on a (presumably) professional supplier / customer basis and had kindly (strangely) allowed the OP to tag along, bringing his own camera.

When the bride was presented with the portfolio of shots it seems strange that she knew or assumed that this 'second' photographer who turned up with the hired pro, and 'ergo' was part of that 'togs team, did not have his pictures already included in that portfolio presented to her for perusal by the hired photographer. How was she made aware of the fact there was a completely different set of pictures that had not been included ?

 

[ams2d]

Once you've got a few years' IP law under your belt, you might see things differently. I'd argue that the OP took the images as an agent of the pro photographer (as he would have been under the supervision and guidance of the pro and his attendance at the event would have been under the pro's direction), and consequently the pro owns the copyright (subject to the contract with the bride and groom....as they are the client, depending on the wording of the contract, you might find that they already own the copyright - take a look at s35(5) of the Copyright Act.)

Given the circumstances, I have a hard time seeing how the OP could own the copyright. I suspect he'd argue that as the person pressing the shutter button, he was the creator and therefore the owner. But given that this would have been a private event, with the OP attending under the direction of the pro photographer, if this ever became a serious issue, I'd suggest the pro (or the bride and groom) would have the winning argument. (Law degree and 20+ years experience.)

Back to the OP, I'm happy that you discussed it with the pro (even if it wasn't 100% your desired outcome). We'd have 2 or 3 people come and do work experience with us from high schools and universities each year. And while we're not in a photography related industry, everyone that works with us always acts on their best behaviour and we're delighted to have them, even though a certain percentage will ultimately become direct competitors. But we like doing it. Not only do we identify potential employees, but it is always useful having contacts in other firms or different specialities. Hopefully, you've kept the relationship with the pro on a good footing as you never know when your paths might cross again.

Question: Based upon what you mentioned above. In those instances if the OP wanted to include the photos they took in a portfolio or as an example of their work they would have to gain some form of written permission of the pro, or maybe even have to pay the pro, to be able to display the photos they took?

 

[cpsico]

The person starting this thread came here with a question, he is new and learning so i think its good that he is finding out what to do. I dont think he knew or thought he was doing something wrong by selling his images. It was his first wedding.

With that being said Weddings are tough hard long work, and their are some clients you should take a pass on. This was clearly one of them. If their only concern is money not the work let them find a family friend to do it for free and get what they deserve. She should have already seen his work when she hired him and knows what she is getting. A working pro should above all things be consistent. You most likely choose this individual to learn from because you liked their work. This bride is clearly playing a game to save money and renegotiate price.

Run like hell from this situation and this bride. You are lucky in that you had an opportunity to learn another aspect of the business. Always have a contract to protect yourself and always get paid up front!! Everyone else does so should you. You have a lot to learn still dont just jump in head first until you understand some of the business aspects.

 

[jeffabbyben]

The person starting this thread came here with a question, he is new and learning so i think its good that he is finding out what to do. I dont think he knew or thought he was doing something wrong by selling his images. It was his first wedding.

With that being said Weddings are tough hard long work, and their are some clients you should take a pass on. This was clearly one of them. If their only concern is money not the work let them find a family friend to do it for free and get what they deserve. She should have already seen his work when she hired him and knows what she is getting. A working pro should above all things be consistent. You most likely choose this individual to learn from because you liked their work. This bride is clearly playing a game to save money and renegotiate price.

Run like hell from this situation and this bride. You are lucky in that you had an opportunity to learn another aspect of the business. Always have a contract to protect yourself and always get paid up front!! Everyone else does so should you. You have a lot to learn still dont just jump in head first until you understand some of the business aspects.

Nailed it!

 

[Hillsilly]

Question: Based upon what you mentioned above. In those instances if the OP wanted to include the photos they took in a portfolio or as an example of their work they would have to gain some form of written permission of the pro, or maybe even have to pay the pro, to be able to display the photos they took?

The OP would need to determine who the copyright owner was and get their permission. Unless the agreement between the bride and groom and the pro specifies otherwise (and you'd need to review the contract to find out), under Australian copyright law, the bride and groom would own the copyright and as such the OP would need their permission. Given that the Bride and Groom like the photos, the logical step would be to get their ok. If he was to get the approval from the pro, too, there would never be any risk of problems.

And then there is a grey area. Just because the Bride or the Pro might own the copyright, it doesn't mean that they own the OP's photo files. I'd have to think about this more, but if the Bride and Groom own the copyright, that just means that they have the right to reproduce or use the images taken by the pro and the ability to prevent others from copying or publishing the photos. But it doesn't necessarily give them ownership of the files produced by the pro. They are the pro's property. Similarly, in the absence of an agreement between the OP and the pro, the photos made by the OP are the OP's property (even if he might not own the copyright). If the OP simply displays the files on his computer for prospective clients, he's not reproducing them and there might not even be a copyright issue. We also allow people to convert things they own to different formats for personal use without copyright issues. Arguably, the OP could also print the images and have them displayed in his home for his own personal enjoyment, and if potential clients inadvertently see them, well...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I personally hate weddings. I had a bad experience once at one... and yada yada yada... the bride still lives in my house and nags at me on a daily basis.

The next time you are in bed with your wife, ask her if you should hire a "second shooter".

(rimshot) ;D

If you do, make sure you have a contract which spells out what your wife will do with the second shooter's "shots"

(RRRRRrrrrimshot!!)

Thank you, this has been a great thread!!
I will be here all week.
Be sure to tip the veal and try the waitress.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

A few things here that should be pointed out.

I basically agree with what's been said here, the OP should be asking the main photog about this.

As to the ethics though - there is no hard and fast rule for this. I've second shot for a lot of people and each primary shooter has his/her own set of rules. Some give you memory cards to shoot on, you hand them over at the end of the night and never see them again. Other's allow usage - the second can use images for their own portfolio but no contact is to be made between the second and the client. Other's allow for the second to share their work wit the client, but only after the primary shooter has shared the the full gallery.

A key thing to point out here too --- I've second shot for close to 20 photographers and have only been asked to sign a contract 3 times - so the question of ethics here IS very important because most of this is based on the honor system. As many have said, this could be a quick buck for you now, but, good luck breaking into the industry when no primary shooters will take you on - and - one wedding is not enough to get you out there on your own without working with others.

So I'd really rethink this and err on the side of caution, talk to the main photographer.

another reason why - you don't know whats going on between the primary and the client. You may be thinking wow, $500, but the client may be trying to get out of spending $3000 on an album by buying images from you... You may be undermining the main photog!

Most established primary shooter though have a certain mindset with this that YOU have to keep in mind. You are brought in by them to work for them. Your work benefits them. Promoting your own business is not allowed. I mean hell, I did not hire you to come in to promote yourself. Not everyone is that strict but many are

 

[thepancakeman]

Wrong. Why would I post on a photography forum to show off?

"The Bride chose my images instead of the photographer, how much should I charge?"

Not, "What should I charge a bride for pics I shot at a wedding?" No...you wanted everyone to know the bride preferred your images to the person paid to shoot the wedding.

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did.

Sorry, going to have to disagree with you on this one Neuro. IMHO, the original statement is describing very relevant context, not braggadocio. The option that you offer does not provide the necessary information that he was not the hired photographer, and that indeed there was one.

[quote author=Orangutan]
I would offer a variant of Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by human imperfection.
[/quote]
That's a new one to me, but I like it and indeed think it applies here.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Surely the contract is with the original pro photographer, his price would have included the shoot as well as providing a specific number of images with any additional photographs charged for separately. I would find it hard to believe there are no images that the bride would not find acceptable.
The bride should pay the original photographer for the contracted work, providing of course they are not sub standard. There would be no obligation for the bride to buy any additional images from the pro photographer leaving the guest photographer to supply photos to the bride at whatever cost is agreed.
Remember you asked for a favour and got invited to assist the pro at the wedding, he thought he was helping you. Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

I mostly agree. However, if the guest photographer's images had been presented along with the main shooting pro's images, the bride might have chosen some of each shooters images and been satisfied with the amount of images included in the package (in the scenario described above). In that case, perhaps she wouldn't need to spend more money.

I'm not a wedding photographer. I shoot live theater and headshots. When I shoot a show for a theater, occasionally someone from the production's creative team will be shooting behind me...usually the set designer. Would it hurt me if the theater chose some of the set designer's images? Not particularly, because he's part of the team. He just needs to stay out of my way. I'm hired to make sure they get the specific images they need that are then published in the newspapers and websites that review these shows. These images are given to the press when the shows are reviewed. However, I can't imagine a scenario when I would invite someone that I don't really know to shoot along side without having some advanced agreement regarding the other shooters images.

I've been asked a few times by friends and family to shoot their weddings. They've seen my work and think I'm a great photographer. But I've never accepted. I wouldn't want to let them down. Wedding photography, to me, requires specific experience and anticipation for the event that I don't have. I couldn't expect to do a great job without getting experience first. Similarly, it wouldn't be easy shooting live theater for the first time. Shooting a musical is like shooting basketball but with constantly changing lighting.

I guess I'm saying that the OP should be grateful for the experience that the pro allowed him to receive. I don't know what was communicated between them before the wedding, but you'd think they would've had to discuss a plan just to stay out each other's way.

Another thought that came to mind...according to the OP the bride liked his images better. Does a wedding photographer show the bride all of the images prior to post processing then only process the images chosen? If so, could this be a reason the bride likes the 2nd shooter's images better? Maybe his were already processed. I can shoot 2000 images during a musical. Most theaters get jpegs right out of my camera that night. They'll make their choices for press the next morning and I'll PP the images they choose, but I'm not going to process 2000 images knowing that they will only choose 30.

If the OP is as good as he indicates, then he should be able to book some paid gigs in the not too distant future. He now has images for a portfolio that will enable him to market his work. The revenue for one job will far surpass the couple hundred bucks he might get for the 30 images this bride likes. If he takes the money and snubs the photographer that gave him the opportunity to learn, his reputation might prevent him from getting that job. Will it have been worth it?

The dangerous part of this is the play on ego ---- "liked' may not be as honest as you think. The bride may not actually like your shots better, she may just like your price better. it's the play on ego that raises the eyebrow...oh, they liked my work, wow, I'm better than the primary.... I deserve to be paid. All the while, the bride is using you as a bargaining chip against the primary photog to get him to lower his prices on something. So you may be riding a high of thinking wow - I'm awesome as the bride is just trying to save a buck and dragging your name through the mud to get it...it's a harsh way to look at it and may not be the case, but it could be...again...make the mistake of caution, talk to the main shooter.

 

[Boyer U. Klum-Cey]

Talk to the primary shooter, and tell him/her that you are going to quote: $10,000(to be split 50/50). My guess, is that the problem goes away. The lesson: You now understand the theory of weaseling, and will move forth with that intell in mind, next time you negotiate.