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



## chriswolf (Apr 4, 2014)

Hi everyone,

About a month ago I contacted a photographer because I wanted to get into the wedding business.
He accepted my request and he took me with him to a wedding, now:

The Bride called my up a week ago telling me that she didn't like the photographer images and she asked to have a look at my photographs instead.

I set up a gallery for her and she contacted my back very excited and happy about my work, making me so happy as well.

Photographers say that you have to know your client to work out a price, well I don't know how much their budget was but they hired a Limousine and a Cadillac for their wedding, this is what I've seen.

How much do you think should I charge them for about 30-40 photos, retouching and the time spend at the wedding?

I was thinking between $500 - $600 (Australia)

Thank you 

(By the way I didn't get paid by the photographer and he didn't tell me the client tried to get in contact with me)


----------



## Old Sarge (Apr 4, 2014)

I haven't made a living by photography in a very long time (I find more joy in being a hobby shooter) but it seems to me that you were present at the wedding as a guest of the contracted photographer for a learning experience. I sense an ethical dilemma in "poaching" sales even though the bride preferred your shots. In fact, I would have turned down her request to view them. If you had been a guest of the bride or groom at the wedding then I wouldn't see the same problem.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

Old Sarge said:


> I haven't made a living by photography in a very long time (I find more joy in being a hobby shooter) but it seems to me that you were present at the wedding as a guest of the contracted photographer for a learning experience. I sense an ethical dilemma in "poaching" sales even though the bride preferred your shots. In fact, I would have turned down her request to view them. If you had been a guest of the bride or groom at the wedding then I wouldn't see the same problem.



I agree. This is an ethics problem.

You are going to have to chalk this up to being a learning experience... if you are doing a job, find out what your responsibilities are beforehand and who your images belong to....

There are two big questions here that will decide your actions:

1) Do the images that you shot belong to you, or do they belong to the event photographer?
2) Will you be taking money away from the event photographer? Should you be sharing the revenue from any extra work with them, and in what proportion?

In the end... the bride MUST get the pictures, regardless of who she has to pay or even if it is free. The last thing you want is to have your name attached to an angry bride who has been denied pictures of her wedding day. This will create a situation that can destroy any good will and reputation that you are trying to build... even if you have to give them away for free, chalk it up to good marketing....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> You are going to have to chalk this up to being a learning experience... if you are doing a job, find out what your responsibilities are beforehand and who your images belong to....



+1

This is something that should have been discussed with the paid wedding photographer before you came wth him to the event (to which you were not otherwise invited) with your camera...


----------



## mm (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm going to use short-hand here . . . 

In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well. 

In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

If I was you I'd contact the photographer, immediately, beg their forgiveness and indulgence and explain that your actions just evolved without you realising the potential consequences. I'd then get his/her input on how they would like the situation handled.

Why behave like that?

You asked for a big favour, you have repaid that by going behind the photographers back, you needed them, they did not need you. They are the professionals and are, presumably, licensed, registered and insured, you, presumably, are not. They have a reputation (however flawed) after all they did get the job in the first place, and you are creating yours and this is no way to do it. They might not have done a particularly good job, but your business practices are horrific.

As for money, absolutely forget it. If you are very lucky you will walk away from this experience with a zero balance, and a toe hold in the door to your chosen career. If you were my second shooter I would sue you, but then my contract with you would allow that.

And everything MM said.


----------



## tron (Apr 4, 2014)

mm said:


> I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> 
> In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.
> 
> In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.


It seems exploitation to me. If the guest has permission from the bride and groom I cannot believe that there is a law that forces him to give his photos to the pro. It isn't as if the pro has hired him.

On the other hand, there is an ethical issue for the specific case as it was presented by the OP.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

tron said:


> mm said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> ...



If you are a guest that is one thing, you are a guest. If you are there as a photographer, paid or not, all deference must be given to the person contracted to shoot the wedding. Any decent wedding photographers contract will cover the basics of who is working for whom and what responsibilities everybody has.

But before we go off track, the OP was at the wedding because of the photographer, not as a guest, and did not know the bride and groom.


----------



## tron (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mm said:
> ...


I agree. My main comment was on the previous post only that's why I added that there is an issue with the case as presented by the OP.


----------



## tolusina (Apr 4, 2014)

Hmm, reputations at stake here, most specifically yours as you are just starting out, tread carefully.

I'd suggest you get the hired pro involved as middleman. (S)he has gotten paid to deliver, you were there as the pro's guest. Pass your photos to that pro, let the pro pass them to the bride.
Hopefully, the pro will do the honorable thing and compensate you appropriately, certainly there's a possibility they'll offer only a pittance or nothing.
Take whatever is offered, write it up as experience, experience is why you were there, right?
You should at least end up with the bride as a reference, the pro should have naught to criticize.



.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm just wondering how the bride was able to get in touch with the OP.............. ???


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If I was you I'd contact the photographer, immediately, beg their forgiveness and indulgence and explain that your actions just evolved without you realising the potential consequences. I'd then get his/her input on how they would like the situation handled.
> 
> Why behave like that?
> 
> ...



+1

My suspicion is that the images belong to the prime shooter... even though you are not paid in money, you were brought in by that person and working for them... paid with experience, not money. If you sell the images, you are robbing them.

So much depends on the contract.... my suspicion is that there is a flat rate fee to cover the event and a set number of photos, and then additional fees for additional work. The fees for that additional work, even if it is done by you on the photos that you took, are set by the bride and main shooter and the money goes to the main shooter.

Ego is very likely at play here too.... It is very hard to admit that someone else, particularly a "newbie" has taken pictures that the bride likes better and it is very likely that they do not want to give the bride your pictures..... but this a battle that the bride has to win.... she has to demand to get your pictures..... she is the one paying the bills!

This can turn out nasty. Talk to the main shooter... give them a way out so everyone does not end up suing everyone else... let them print the pictures with no photo credit for you... appologize to them for the situation and ask them what they want you to do to make things right....

In the end, if all works out well, the bride gets the pictures she wanted, the main shooter gets paid, and you have given your work to the bride for free... yet the main shooter gets paid for them... and you got a lot of experience with the business side of photography....


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I'm just wondering how the bride was able to get in touch with the OP.............. ???



I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 4, 2014)

I'll join the chorus here and add that the wedding community is typically very small when it comes to the wedding planners, DJs, photographers, venues, and such, so this could be your first & last sale if you choose to go behind the photographer's back. While they all compete with each other, they also stick together to protect each other. If word gets out, as it will with social media these days, all of those people will take it upon themselves to steer their clientele away from you. 

If I were you, I would come clean and contact the photographer who was kind enough to let you tag along and explain what's happened so far. Apologize and explain that you realize what a huge mistake you've made and ask him what he wants to do about it. Assuming he is okay with you selling the photos, I would expect to split the sale at least 50/50 as he did the majority of the work in terms of marketing to and securing the client, planning the shoot, etc. and was kind enough to let you work with him. 

On the other hand, if you want some quick cash, make the sale. Just don't expect to shoot any more weddings or have any photographers help you out again.


----------



## Kerry B (Apr 4, 2014)

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.


----------



## mm (Apr 4, 2014)

In terms of my guest comment. I was using shorthand. My mistake. When I said 'shooting' I meant 'working' the wedding. Shooting more than a guest would normally, being in places a guest shouldn't be, i.e. middle of the aisle at the kiss, in the reception hall while we're doing details etc. . . . 

To be clear, shooting two dozen weddings a year, we have couples ask if it would be ok if 'so and so' 'helped us out' or was given a chance to shoot some of the events / moments.

I work with my partner, we know each other's movements. If a typical guest gets in our way of a shot, that's our problem. If a 'guest' who is 'shooting' the wedding gets in my way, they have to share their photos to make sure we get 'full' coverage. 

Our other option is to say no, which, in a personal service industry, isn't our best option. We could say no, but we have decided not to.

We wouldn't shoot with a second shooter without a contract, a guest is a different story, clearly. 

The OP should, as many others have stated, talk to the primary and decided what the Primary WANTS to do.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 4, 2014)

We really need more details.

What sort of contract (written or implied) did the second shooter have with the event photographer?
Was the second shooter acting as an agent of the event photographer. This is a very important legal status.

Being in the position of agent means operating on the behalf of the event photographer. From what detail has been shared here, it does sound like the OP was an agent of the event photographer. An agent does not have to be paid. 

I am very happy that there has been much discussion on the ethics of the issue. Ethics are important in any profession. It is really not a profession without ethics. 

My free opinion (and worth every penny) The OP went into this wedding with no expectation of being paid. He was going there for the experience and, pardon the pun, exposure.

He got what he came for. Why even consider charging money? That was not part of the original deal.

What is missing is an understanding of what arrangement was made by the OP and the event photographer? Was the arrangement that the OP would give all the photos to the event photographer? That would be one answer to the ethical question
Was the arrangement that the OP would just get experience in a "photographer at a wedding environment" and that the OP would keep the photographs. That would be a different answer.

So what is the nice thing to do?

1. As other posters have written, talk to the event photographer. He did you a favour and deserves to be consulted. Then you can negotiate a new contract. 

2. Arrange for the event photographer to deliver the (your) photographs to the customer. The customer and the event photographer had a contract. 

The goal should be to 

a. Make the event photographer happy about inviting you as then the event photographer may feel better about inviting the next budding tog to help out
b. Make the bride happy about getting nice picture of her wedding
c. Make the bride appreciate you and know that you took the nice pictures
d. Make you happy that someone appreciates your photographic skills and that you got some "combat" experience

These goals do not involve money. It would be nice if the Event Photographer were to kick in some cashola, but not really that important. The good will you will build with the Event Photographer and the Bride (who will yap to all her friends about you) is worth far more than the fee you could get. 

Just an old guy's opinion.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'll join the chorus here and add that the wedding community is typically very small when it comes to the wedding planners, DJs, photographers, venues, and such, so this could be your first & last sale if you choose to go behind the photographer's back. While they all compete with each other, they also stick together to protect each other. If word gets out, as it will with social media these days, all of those people will take it upon themselves to steer their clientele away from you.
> 
> If I were you, I would come clean and contact the photographer who was kind enough to let you tag along and explain what's happened so far. Apologize and explain that you realize what a huge mistake you've made and ask him what he wants to do about it. Assuming he is okay with you selling the photos, I would expect to split the sale at least 50/50 as he did the majority of the work in terms of marketing to and securing the client, planning the shoot, etc. and was kind enough to let you work with him.
> 
> On the other hand, if you want some quick cash, make the sale. Just don't expect to shoot any more weddings or have any photographers help you out again.



I've got a wedding planner in the family.... if they don't like you or you cause them hardship, no more recomendations. And wedding planners talk to other wedding planners and ask about caterers, venues, and photographers.... you can burn a lot of bridges in a hurry!


----------



## Roger Jones (Apr 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Assuming he is okay with you selling the photos, I would expect to split the sale at least 50/50 as he did the majority of the work in terms of marketing to and securing the client, planning the shoot, etc. and was kind enough to let you work with him.
> 
> On the other hand, if you want some quick cash, make the sale. Just don't expect to shoot any more weddings or have any photographers help you out again.



This sounds right to me. I would not go behind the guys back to make a few bucks. Your reputation is worth more than the money you'd get from the sale. You should turn over your images to the contracted photographer and let him deal with the fulfillment. You could ask him for compensation if he sells your work to the client. Perhaps it will be less than what you might make from a direct sale but he preserves his relationship, assumes the responsibility for the deliveries and gets to sell his work as well as yours. I don't think you have to cow tow if the client contacted you and if the photog says he can't compensate you chalk it up to experience and move on. If your goal is to be a professional in this field your reputation and your business relationships have greater value than whatever you can charge the bride. Think long term.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2014)

fatmanmedi said:


> All this baloney about he should be submissively beholden to the photographer for allowing him to walk in his shadow and take shots of the event



Wedding photography at the 'normal' level (as opposed to celebrity weddings, etc.) is a locally-based industry. Stepping into any business usually means putting your best foot forward…using that foot to stomp on the toes of someone already established in the local community, someone who was kind enough to invite you to learn from them, doesn't seem to be a good way to garner long term respect or the success that comes with it. 

To put it another way, you seem to be suggesting that professional ethics constitute "baloney". Nice attitude...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 4, 2014)

fatmanmedi said:


> All this baloney about he should be submissively beholden to the photographer for allowing him to walk in his shadow and take shots of the event, he asked if he could attend to help boost his career chances the pro said yes, unless the pro put in to place terms and conditions then the pro has nothing to say in the matter, he took in the brides opinion better shots than the pro, so she wants his shots, so all this is about is how much he should charge.



Ethics is the difference between what one *can* do and what one *should* do.


----------



## tntwit (Apr 4, 2014)

It would seem the contracted pro should have collected the photos from the guest shooter and presented them to the bride as one package - blind to her who took what.

Either way, the contracted photographer needs to be brought in. It was their established business that put the OP in the situation in the first place, so they have a right to whatever monetary gains come out of it.

Now the risk is offending (unintentionally) the pro when they find out the bride preferred the other photos.


----------



## tolusina (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm now curious, wondering what the OP's original intent was, specifically regarding the disposition of the photos he expected to shoot at the wedding?
I'd think that they were originally intended for the bride, if so, she should get them and from the pro she contracted with.
The OP having essentially a verbal contract with the pro which would include implications that work would be done and product produced, I'd think the OP is duty bound to deliver to the pro.
Legally, I dunno.
Morally, what will the neighbors (read, local wedding planning industry) think and say?


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 4, 2014)

First of all, congratulations on having some shots that someone wants to pay you for--that's a very exciting moment!

Secondly, as many others have said, any money you could potentially make on this are more than lost in a law suit and potential future revenue due to bad word of mouth.

Additionally, I want to caution you about too much patting yourself on the back. Maybe you took some great shots, and maybe the "pro" really sucks. But then again, maybe not. I've been on shoots (not weddings though) where I knew that I had a backup and that they were relatively inexperienced. Both to help them be successful and challenge myself, I've set them up in the best/easiest "guaranteed" spots/shots and worked the more challenging angles/lighting etc myself. And when it was all said and done, most of their shots turned out better than mine. And trust me, they were not better photographers than I am (not that I'm that great, but they were really raw in their skills.) 

And on the flip side, I've done a couple of weddings where I was the backup, and because the main photog was working the "must have"/guaranteed shots, I was able to get more creative and ended up with some of the better shots, not because I was the better shooter but because I had more time and opportunity to get creative.

Good luck!


----------



## ITshooter (Apr 4, 2014)

tron said:


> mm said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> ...



Agreed. I'm neither a lawyer nor a wedding photographer. I shoot news and sports, so I don't have any specific knowledge. But it seems preposterous to me that a guest of the bride and groom is in any way beholden to the official photographer. I suppose if the photographer somehow got the couple-to-be to sign some kind of exclusivity contract, that might change things-- but is that seriously a standard practice? There are certainly ethical implications involved in taking business away from the official photographer, even as a guest. But I fail to see how something a guest shoots can "belong" to the official photographer.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

ITshooter said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mm said:
> ...



I hire someone, take them to an event, and they take pictures for me. Then they sell those pictures to the event organizer.... How do you think I am going to react?

The OP is NOT a guest! They are an employee of the photographer, being paid with experience and exposure.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 4, 2014)

I don't like myself when I'm cynical but something else could be going on. In one case I remember someone like yourself shot the event without me knowing that there would be another shooter. I thought I was the only shooter because that is what my contact told me. Then the other shooter's pictures were chosen not so much that they were better but they were free because they were friends and the group was able to save a bunch of money. Now I require a high enough shoot fee before I will schedule the shoot so at least I get paid for my time. People will do a bunch of things just to save a buck. Even brides or grooms.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

Interesting, Bruce, I have never shot a wedding where the balance has not been cleared funds on the day. Weddings are way too expensive to expect newly weds to have money after the event!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting, Bruce, I have never shot a wedding where the balance has not been cleared funds on the day. Weddings are way too expensive to expect newly weds to have money after the event!


+1 on that!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 4, 2014)

Perhaps the wedding photographer was not professional anyway; on the face of the OP the newly weds are going to pay twice. Unlikely. Last thing the bride is thinking about on 'the day' is taking an contact of an assistant photographer. Bit of hocus pocus maybe.


----------



## fatmanmedi (Apr 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, Bruce, I have never shot a wedding where the balance has not been cleared funds on the day. Weddings are way too expensive to expect newly weds to have money after the event!
> ...


+1 on that as well


----------



## distant.star (Apr 4, 2014)

.
There seems a bit of the tall tale in the background of this thing.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> I don't like myself when I'm cynical but something else could be going on. In one case I remember someone like yourself shot the event without me knowing that there would be another shooter. I thought I was the only shooter because that is what my contact told me. Then the other shooter's pictures were chosen not so much that they were better but they were free because they were friends and the group was able to save a bunch of money. Now I require a high enough shoot fee before I will schedule the shoot so at least I get paid for my time. People will do a bunch of things just to save a buck. Even brides or grooms.



Sounds familiar....

I was asked by the groom "as a friend" to shoot a wedding.... A couple of days before the wedding I found out there was going to be an official photographer (also a friend of mine but the bride and groom did not know we were friends). I gave my memory cards to the official photographer at the end of the day with the understanding that she never tell the bride who took what pictures and that she could do whatever she wanted with them. 

I did not like being placed "in competition" with a real professional who does weddings for a living, where for me it is a hobby.


----------



## sdrose (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm not a professional photographer. I'll start there.

Your question was about charging for pictures. You said 30-40 pictures, but that is irrelevant, I would think. If you had that absolutely killer, amazing image, the image itself demands a price. (Imagine a technically-perfect image of a shark jumping out of the water, and catching mid-air another shark that had fish in its mouth -- that you captured an image that will probably be caught again -- that is what I'm saying, where neither previous photographic education or experience would set you up for that -- it was just 'luck' & 
'timing' you got it.)

If you had professional equipment, and training, and experience behind you, you could charge 'X'. Your previous experience + your investment into equipment you bring with you (think a bride's lease on your equipment for her venue) has a value. If you used a Rebel camera with kit lens, or an iPhone, or a 110 film camera, with no previous experience or education behind you, you would charge less than 'X'. 

Beyond your question. 
You stated you asked a professional photographer who makes his/her living from wedding photography if you could join them with your camera, trying to be a '+1' into their business and location. And they said 'Yes'. What was your agreement with them relative to joining them in their livelihood? Were they just altruistic to help populate their field of business?

Why were you there? To learn to compose photos? To learn the business of photography? Were you there to help the event photographer in any manner? Did he or you agree to anything else other than your presence at his job? Does the photographer have any expectations to your presence at the event?


----------



## LOLID (Apr 4, 2014)

First of all, let's not use big words as "suing". Nobody is gonna sue someone for a few pics and a couple hundreds dollars. Just the cost of hiring a good lawyer ($300/h) or a even a bad lawyer ($100/h) is not worth it. Let alone the hassle of going through a trial.
Best of the worst, a mediator would be hired to solve this issue.

Second, I believe this whole experience is perfect learning for you and for the "Pro" as well. Terms should have been agreed when you asked to join him(her) on the job.

If the bride is willing to pay for your pics, you should be compensated. Now, compensation does not mean money.

In my opinion, hurting the Pro's ego will hurt your career in the industry at least as much as getting money on his(her) back. You might get a sense of that out of the tough responses of some forum members, who I assume must be wedding photographers. Be careful with this.

If I were you I would contact the Pro and tell him(her) that you have been contacted by the Bride and that she really likes your pictures (do not mention that she "prefers" your picture). Let the Pro tell you want he(she) sees the situation and the proper manner to deal with it. If he(she) has no idea, the best is for you to propose to give the Pro your photographs and let him decide if he wants to give you a few hundred bucks. 40 pics is quite a fair amount, and if it is true that you are bound by ethics, so is he(she).

If you don't get any money from the Pro, you already got experience and, most importantly, you can be sure this Pro will not "burn" you in the profession. You also should inform the Bride that you gave your photographs to the Pro for free "because it was the right things to do." She might feel bad and give you a few hundred bucks. She might not. But in any case feel free to promote yourself and let her know that she can talk about you in her entourage in order for you to get a paid job in the near future (assuming you register yourself as a wedding photographer, insurance and all good stuff).

In the end, you have nothing to lose. You went for experience, you got it. In addition, you've got good exposure with the pro photographer and you showed your talent to a Bride who may recommend you to friends/family as future customers.
Do the right thing.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 4, 2014)

OP needs to understand that the fees charged by the booked photographer may have been reliant on a print order, and if the bride doesn't order prints due to the ability to print the OP's shots there will be issues. I understand the 'I want feedback' mentality that the OP shared the photos with the bride, but that was the first misstep. The OP and the booked photog need to have an open honest discussion about what has happened. The OP might get paid a little by the booked photog if the bride orders his photos as prints, but other than that, don't expect money.

Having shot a few weddings for portfolio material, I gave all my shots to the booked photographer. An honest photographer will not use someone else's shots in their portfolio, but will answer who captured a specific shot if asked by the bride.


----------



## dhachey77 (Apr 4, 2014)

Sounds familiar....

I did not like being placed "in competition" with a real professional who does weddings for a living, where for me it is a hobby.
[/quote]

+1

I'm often asked to shoot family events, including weddings, but in most cases I decline to do so and gently tell the bride/groom they need a pro to handle the PP and produce a final product. I don't want to take bread off the table from wedding photographers who struggle to make a living at it. In a couple of recent cases, the "Pro" did such a poor job I was asked to step in. I hated doing so, but it was family. I'm perfectly happy to give my images to the official photographer, but they always decline (and I suspect are also insulted), so I now give them to the bride & groom.


----------



## Besisika (Apr 4, 2014)

Interesting topic,
I am not a lawyer so I have always interpreted the law on the safe side from my standpoint. I can be wrong and lose some of my advantages but I feel more safe that way.
My interpretation of the copyright is that it belongs entirely to the photographer if he is hired, as a self-employed for example, to do the job. 
However it belongs to your employer if you work for someone else.
The term of your "employment" is not clear in your question, but if you really worked for him, the copyright to the photos doesn't belong to you. That is my interpretation of it. As such I wouldn't dare selling it without the pros's consent. 
Similarly, I wouldn't post these photos on my own website without his consent either. My understanding is that he better has a clause on his contract authorizing him to use the photos on his website (again, from the safe side of the law). 
But, that's me, better safe than sorry.

By the way, congratulations on your success. You shoot wedding for the "first time" and you are better than the pro. I would seriously consider stepping into the business, which is one more reason for you to be more carefull about your reputation and ethics as many already stated.
I have had better shot than the main photographer in the past, while assisting, but whether these were simple "luck" or because he was busy doing the "mandatory" shot and I had the luxury (and less stress) to chose and notice interesting pose. That vanished as soon as I became the main photog.


----------



## Lurker (Apr 4, 2014)

IMO you were hired by the pro. Their payment to you, exactly what you asked for, experience.
You owe it to the pro to present your photos and the brides request and let them close the deal. Then ask if you can do it again and negotiate your compensation for the next time.

Ask yourself how easy it will be for you to get a paying gig on your own. How easy was it to get work through this pro? I've known Wedding photogs that worked for others (with high end reputation) and themselves. If you contacted them and asked them to do the work you got them at their price. If you asked them about the much well known company you got the same photog but paid the much higher price. Sometimes the high end company would call them and ask them to assist on or take over a shoot. It's a way to get started but you have to play nice.



> Just the cost of hiring a good lawyer ($300/h) or a even a bad lawyer ($100/h) is not worth it.


Not sure if they have small claims court down under but they do here and there are no lawyers. The limit is like $10,000 and I think that would be a really good day for most wedding photogs.


----------



## brett b (Apr 5, 2014)

Kerry B said:


> 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?


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 5, 2014)

First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience, I know what's composition and all the sweet things that we care about. Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website. I went there to understand how weddings work and *I wasn't hired* as an assistant (but he told me you are coming as an assistant). 
During the wedding the bride was a bit annoyed about the posing shots that he was trying to create and she was asking for more candid shots. I'm not saying I'm better than the pro and I will never say that, I don't even want to undermine him. I sent him about 40 photos the day after the wedding and he called me up telling me that he was impressed for my first wedding experience. At the end of this I just would like to be rewarded for this little success because I'm not making a living out of it.
By the way I don't like the way the pros use their assistants, people who make a living out of it should pay for their help. It is just fair. Sometimes when I have to do paid jobs I ask a friend to come along and I give him/her some money even if it's a $200 job.


----------



## TeenTog (Apr 5, 2014)

> First of all, let's not use big words as "suing". Nobody is gonna sue someone for a few pics and a couple hundreds dollars. Just the cost of hiring a good lawyer ($300/h) or a even a bad lawyer ($100/h) is not worth it. Let alone the hassle of going through a trial.
> Best of the worst, a mediator would be hired to solve this issue.
> 
> Second, I believe this whole experience is perfect learning for you and for the "Pro" as well. Terms should have been agreed when you asked to join him(her) on the job.
> ...



+1 this is the perfect way to handle this


----------



## Jglaser757 (Apr 5, 2014)

The question that has not been asked is,, Did the bride pay in full for the work? or is she trying to save a buck!

Second, if she did pay, why is she willing to pay more? 

Ethics aside, the smart thing would be to discuss it with the photographer, split it 50/50. You dont want to create an issue where the photographer feels like you are cheating him.

Unless, you dont care about your reputation.. I would charge her at least the amount the original photographer did and see how she reacts.


----------



## PaulTopol (Apr 5, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience, I know what's composition and all the sweet things that we care about. Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website. I went there to understand how weddings work and *I wasn't hired* as an assistant (but he told me you are coming as an assistant).
> During the wedding the bride was a bit annoyed about the posing shots that he was trying to create and she was asking for more candid shots. I'm not saying I'm better than the pro and I will never say that, I don't even want to undermine him. I sent him about 40 photos the day after the wedding and he called me up telling me that he was impressed for my first wedding experience. At the end of this I just would like to be rewarded for this little success because I'm not making a living out of it.
> By the way I don't like the way the pros use their assistants, people who make a living out of it should pay for their help. It is just fair. Sometimes when I have to do paid jobs I ask a friend to come along and I give him/her some money even if it's a $200 job.



You wanted to learn and he allowed you to be his assistant so you could get experience. Your ego has colored your view of what is the right thing to do.

Your comments/description show that you feel he did things that you would never do. We are all different and we can all learn from each other. You would have handled that situation differently? But he got the job and you didn't. Must say something about his ability. If you can do it better then start your own business.
Meantime thank him for allowing you to go to the wedding to practice (because that is what you were doing).
Give him the pics you took, free, and let him get the congratulations on a job well done.
Your ego has been massaged by the bride which should be sufficient to inspire and motivate you to do better and go into the wedding business.

Paul
Better to be friends with all the people you meet on the way up because you might meet them again on the way down.
I have shot as a second shooter. My pics belong to the pro who allowed me to shoot.
If the bride was to call me I would refer her to the pro.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 5, 2014)

PaulTopol said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience, I know what's composition and all the sweet things that we care about. Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website. I went there to understand how weddings work and *I wasn't hired* as an assistant (but he told me you are coming as an assistant).
> ...


+1.

To the OP, the cost has been your time. The payback has been the experience.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 5, 2014)

PaulTopol said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience, I know what's composition and all the sweet things that we care about. Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website. I went there to understand how weddings work and *I wasn't hired* as an assistant (but he told me you are coming as an assistant).
> ...



+1


----------



## Northstar (Apr 5, 2014)

Would the pro have *let you come* if he or she knew you were going to be selling your photos to the bride?

Answer....of course not. 

You're only in this situation because the pro was being nice to you and trying to help you with your career/interest in wedding photography. The pro did you a favor by letting you come and shoot the wedding to learn.

This was a "handshake deal", honor your end of it by giving the photos to the pro and expect nothing in return other than the experience and learning you asked for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> ...I don't even want to undermine him.



Really? Then why was your original question not, "How should I handle this?," but instead, "How much should I charge for images someone else was hired to take?"



chriswolf said:


> At the end of this I just would like to be rewarded for this little success



Apparently the understanding of how a wedding shoot goes, the satisfaction of the bride preferring your images, and the knowledge that you _might_ have the potential to shoot weddings professionally (at least from a technical standpoint) aren't reward enough. So, what you really mean is you want to be _financially compensated_ for your little success, despite that never being part of the arrangement. 

You'd better hope the pro who agreed to 'show you the ropes' doesn't have your ethics...if he does, he'll do his best to ensure you never get a learning opportunity from a local wedding pro again, much less a paid wedding shoot.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

These are the questions:

First, in your jurisdiction, do you have any legal obligations to the pro you followed? You should not take answers to this question from anyone on this forum: ask a lawyer. Even without a written contract, there may be an obligation.

Second, was there any non-binding understanding, written or otherwise? Did the pro talk to you about getting your pictures? 

Third, what is your development path as a photographer? One good wedding shoot doesn't make you a pro, and I'm speaking from experience as an occasional second-shooter. Even if you have no legal obligation to the pro, you may still want his help, or the help of other pros to develop. You've probably got a ways to go, and you don't want to have to climb that mountain solo.

As an addendum, this is also a test of your pro's ethics: if you approach him neutrally and say "the client contacted me and wants my photos" (without disparaging his), you'll find out what kind of person he is. If he says "all your pictures are mine even though we never discussed it" then you've learned a relatively cheap lesson about where not to go for your continued development: this guy is not interested in your development at all. If he says "hey, we had no agreement, they're your photos," then you've just established a trust relationship with a good guy, and it might lead to future collaboration and development.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 5, 2014)

Old Sarge said:


> I haven't made a living by photography in a very long time (I find more joy in being a hobby shooter) but it seems to me that you were present at the wedding as a guest of the contracted photographer for a learning experience. I sense an ethical dilemma in "poaching" sales even though the bride preferred your shots. In fact, I would have turned down her request to view them. If you had been a guest of the bride or groom at the wedding then I wouldn't see the same problem.



I'd say that arrangements should have been made in advance and that is the fault of the paid photographer. I think what he should have done was say your images can be kept in your portfolio, but the sale of the same will be split. Having said that, he probably got a package rate, so he didn't sell individual images.

I suppose the issue is do you want to keep him as a resource? If not... don't worry about how he feels. If yes... I'd tell him the bride was unsatisfied and maybe that bit of criticism will help him figure out whether he needs to change his technique. Then ask if he would wanta portion of the sale. I would probably say no... but if he says yes, then ask him what a fair price should be.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 5, 2014)

mm said:


> I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> 
> In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.
> 
> In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.



Usually in this case the second photog is paid a set amount. Also the parameters are set in advance and it was an oversight of the professional that this information want conveyed in either a gentlemen's agreement or in writing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Usually in this case the second photog is paid a set amount.



Is that the norm for a photographer who's never shot a wedding?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 5, 2014)

Another point about being 'shown the ropes' at a highly dynamic photographic event like a wedding; I wouldn't expect the person coming to learn to even bring a camera. You're not going to learn much about the sequences and nuances of the event if you're busy snapping away with your own camera. 

I would say that wedding photography is more about organisation and relationships towards the subjects than pressing the shutter, especially so with digital and TTL flash.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I would say that wedding photography is more about organisation and relationships towards the subjects than pressing the shutter, especially so with digital and TTL flash.



I learned this lesson while pressing the shutter, and also while reviewing my photos later. What did I miss that I could have gotten? What views/angles worked? How could I have positioned myself better? Which guests should I have made a point to photograph better? (the primary photog typically followed the bride, it was my job to make sure all the guests were in the final set of images, and to fill in the scenery he couldn't get)


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

mm said:


> Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.



What's the definition of "guest second-shooter?" Does this mean every guest with a smartphone is a second-shooter who must turn over the photos to the pro?


----------



## Northstar (Apr 5, 2014)

fatmanmedi said:


> This will rile a lot of people up, but you should sell them at the prices you are looking for, you sent him images and he liked them ao you know the shots are good. I would ignore all the protectionist bull that has been spouted in this thread, the bride likes your stuff so sell it to them and move on.
> 
> Fats



Fats...I'm not impressed with your views on professionalism and integrity.

There is *no way* that the "oral agreement" between the OP and wedding pro included having the OP sell his photos to the bride, thereby undermining the wedding pro, and probably adding insult to the injury.

So taking the course of action that you suggest would be lacking in professionalism and integrity. IMO


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 5, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that wedding photography is more about organisation and relationships towards the subjects than pressing the shutter, especially so with digital and TTL flash.
> ...



That is undoubtably true; you're looking to improve your photography. Being_required_ to produce the professional results as _the _ photographer and it's your sole responsibility to make it happen is a different thing altogether. 

From your post I guess you have never been soley responsible for the successful photographic production of the 'big day'.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 5, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> These are the questions:
> 
> Third, what is your development path as a photographer? One good wedding shoot doesn't make you a pro, and I'm speaking from experience as an occasional second-shooter. Even if you have no legal obligation to the pro, you may still want his help, or the help of other pros to develop. You've probably got a ways to go, and you don't want to have to climb that mountain solo.
> 
> As an addendum, this is also a test of your pro's ethics: if you approach him neutrally and say "the client contacted me and wants my photos" (without disparaging his), you'll find out what kind of person he is. If he says "all your pictures are mine even though we never discussed it" then you've learned a relatively cheap lesson about where not to go for your continued development: this guy is not interested in your development at all. If he says "hey, we had no agreement, they're your photos," then you've just established a trust relationship with a good guy, and it might lead to future collaboration and development.




Orangutan....your third point and addendum are both very good pieces of advice.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



No, working as second only. My response was to your suggestion that a new photographer be an assistant only at first, and not take any photos. I felt I was able to get a sense of the organization and relationships _while clicking the shutter as second-shooter_. I would not want to be the primary person responsible while going through that learning process, that's one reason I think the OP needs to keep on good terms with his local pro community: he still has some learning ahead.


----------



## Skulker (Apr 5, 2014)

My first thought was that the bride wanted cheap images.

I may be too cynical but without any justification other than experience I would assume the following:

1) The original Photographer (the official one that is) was to be paid for prints or digital files.
2) The bride has seen a way to reduce the price by cutting out the original professional.


Maybe the original photographer was rubbish - But if he's that bad why was the OP going to him asking for "experience"?

Maybe the OP is a "natural" wedding photographer - If he is he will be able to make money in the future.


Either way I would recommend the OP goes to the original photographer and tries to work something out. If he can't come to an agreement then chalk it up to experience. I would NOT recommend going behind the back of the professional who was kind enough to help you out, it won't be worth it in the end.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Usually in this case the second photog is paid a set amount.
> ...



If to are working with a professional, they should have that all worked out in advance. So whether the pay is $200 or $1, the role needs to be determined in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2014)

Northstar said:


> fatmanmedi said:
> 
> 
> > This will rile a lot of people up, but you should sell them at the prices you are looking for, you sent him images and he liked them ao you know the shots are good. I would ignore all the protectionist bull that has been spouted in this thread, the bride likes your stuff so sell it to them and move on.
> ...



+1 - he's certainly no one with whom I'd have business dealings. Maybe next time he could recommend a more expedient course of action, like stealing one of the pro's lenses as a 'reward'. Take the lens and run, take the money and run...what's the difference? :


----------



## Joe M (Apr 5, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> How much do you think should I charge them for about 30-40 photos, retouching and the time spend at the wedding?



Nothing. You don't have the right to sell them. You might have the right to give them away for free. End of dilemma. Of course all said not knowing the copyright issues in your country. I will assume they are the same or similar to mine in Canada. 
In any case, I doubt you'll be invited to come along to any more weddings by that photographer (if you sell them and maybe even if you give them away for free). I myself am very leery of taking on shadows. If I do, I make it very clear at the onset as to who is in charge and who owns what along with rights. I always work with an assistant/second shooter and am lucky enough to have two backups in case of illnesses who know how things are. 

And finally, that all said, your "pay" is the experience garnered by attending this wedding. Your "pay" is the knowledge that this bride thought enough of your 30 pics to think they are worth buying. You might want to just sit at home and feel good about that and be happy with it. You now have a few pics likely worthy to be added to a growing portfolio and when you finally start up for yourself, you'll have something to show potential clients as opposed to many who start up with a blank page of "weddings I've done" on their website. This is an investment in your future and you ought to resist the temptation to grab a few bucks now and endanger a career of making money.


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 5, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> About a month ago I contacted a photographer because I wanted to get into the wedding business.
> He accepted my request and he took me with him to a wedding, now:
> ...



Why would the client tried to get in contact with you without seeing your photos first?

You are asking us how much you should charge. The best person to tell you this is the original photographer. He knows the market and he knows the client.
One big lesson that you should learn from this is how much to charge, this is the most important information you can get out of this experience. Even if the PRO does not want to share any money with you, but you know what is the right amount to charge for your local market you will come out ahead in the future.

As far as the number you proposed ($600/40), that is $15 per picture, it sure does not sound like you value your time much.


----------



## Dukinald (Apr 5, 2014)

Looks like the op has already made up his mind selling his photos. It also looks/sounds like all of this is being done behind the contracted photographer's back. 

If I had asked someone for a favor the least I can do is return it (even 2 folds). All the previous posters have shared valuable experience to you. You may or may not follow them but you've been warned. 

As far as the price, it seems you're asking price is too low for 40 post processed pictures.


----------



## photonius (Apr 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Old Sarge said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't made a living by photography in a very long time (I find more joy in being a hobby shooter) but it seems to me that you were present at the wedding as a guest of the contracted photographer for a learning experience. I sense an ethical dilemma in "poaching" sales even though the bride preferred your shots. In fact, I would have turned down her request to view them. If you had been a guest of the bride or groom at the wedding then I wouldn't see the same problem.
> ...



Right, the last thing you want to do is deny the photos to the bridge, that would just be atrocious


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 5, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> About a month ago I contacted a photographer because I wanted to get into the wedding business.
> He accepted my request and he took me with him to a wedding, now:
> ...



Lots of replies to go through (and I haven't) so here are my thoughts.

You are way out of line to sell those images to the client directly, if there was no written or oral agreement in place beforehand.

At a minimum, you need to sit down with the person that took you to his/her event and straighten this out.

Best case, the prime photographer will not care and will allow you to do business with the client. I'd certainly ask about paying a commission.

Worst case is the client is looking to save some dough through using your photos.

Somewhere in the middle is the prime photographer asking for those images and possibly paying you a bit.

Don't think, even for a minute, that the prime photographer won't find out if you sell to his/her client as a sidejob. The client will probably brag about how much "cheaper" you were.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

fatmanmedi said:


> all the protectionist bull



Please explain how it is "protectionist" to honor an agreement.


----------



## Badger (Apr 5, 2014)

Wow! Lots of opinions on this! There might even be some subtleties that we may be missing so, here comes my opinion. 

To the OP, do the right thing, and keep your conscience clear. Do what you will, in the light of day. Talk to the Pro who let you tag along. What are his/her thoughts on the situation? If the pro is cool with it, then, you have no issues. If the pro suggests a price, honor that. If the pro requests a percentage cut, honor that too. If the pro ultimately objects to you billing for the pictures, then provide the service free to the bride, or, give the RAW files to the pro and let him/her process them as you did with the 40 or so shots you already provided. 

This way, you can sleep at night


----------



## unfocused (Apr 5, 2014)

First, let me say that I'm impressed by the forum community. About five pages of comments and only one person suggesting he take the money and run. 



chriswolf said:


> First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience...Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website.



Okay, let's take your second point first – you had an oral agreement with the photographer that you could post the photos on your website. So, that was your contract.

There was no agreement that you could sell the photos. Only an agreement that you could post your photos on your website. Anything beyond that, you are obligated to discuss and renegotiate with the photographer. It may not hold up in a court, but it is a contract and you should honor it.

Now, to your first point. Do you, as a portrait photographer, allow other photographers to accompany you when you shoot portraits? If you do, do you allow them to sell their photographs to the clients?

This is clear cut. There is no grey area here. I agree with virtually everyone else who has weighed in. Your first responsibility is to the other photographer. You are trying to rationalize unethical behavior because your ego has been flattered. Your first mistake was even talking to the bride without going through the photographer. That should have never happened. 

If you had just told her that you were there with the other photographer and that all pictures would need to be ordered through him, that would have prevented a lot of grief for everyone involved. Now, the situation has been hopelessly confused and, frankly, there is probably little you can do at this point to make amends to the photographer who was kind enough to take you along. Still, you should try.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 5, 2014)

This would be an interesting conversation to watch (and pretty loud too I suspect) if we were all in a bar drinking beer together. (Slurp!) 

Seems like there are basically 2 sides to the answer...

- Be selfish, sideline the pro and charge $$ (LOW ROAD)
- Be ethical, support the pro and charge 0 (HIGH ROAD)

In both scenarios, the OP still walks away with the same wedding experience gained on the day. How much more does he expect to gain? The answer to that question really comes down to his ethics, scruples and conscience. I know what I would do and it's clear what many on this forum would do.

If it were me, I would be honored, extremely humble and appreciative if any professional of any craft were willing to jeopardize their livelihood by having my inept and inexperienced greenhorn ass in their way while they are trying to make a living. If I turned out to be an asset, wonderful for everyone. But the risk that I slow things down or disrupt the rhythm is high and so I don't expect compensation. I just want to learn and I would be grateful for that chance. Pay me later when I deserve it and that is up to the pro who is putting up with my sorry ass.

Just MHO!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 5, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I think we are at slight cross purposes. The OP is claiming to be a portrait photographer; the innuendo is that he is experienced. I was referring to someone who is looking to fast track into the wedding procedure rather than someone who is learning photography as they go along.


----------



## Badger (Apr 5, 2014)

Here is a slight twist on the question. Many of you have weighed in on what the OP should do in response to his question. 

If you are a pro, and someone who tagged along with you on a shot to learn from you actually approached you afterwards with the OPs dilemma, but in this case, he deferred to your decision. What would you do or tell your apprentice? 

Just curious.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2014)

Badger said:


> Here is a slight twist on the question. Many of you have weighed in on what the OP should do in response to his question.
> 
> If you are a pro, and someone who tagged along with you on a shot to learn from you actually approached you afterwards with the OPs dilemma, but in this case, he deferred to your decision. What would you do or tell your apprentice?
> 
> Just curious.



I would have downloaded all his files initially, before we parted the day of the wedding, most of the time seconds use my cards to negate issues like this.

However, if he came to me in this situation as it is, I'd give him credit for it, if the bride hated my images and liked his, I'd sell her his (as part of my contract to her) and pay him enough to make him happy (for saving my butt), but also make quite clear that what he did was wrong and why it was wrong, but I'd also encourage him to second again, I have had the best luck with second shooters that take different types of images to me and the two obviously covered the bases.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2014)

Badger said:


> If you are a pro, and someone who tagged along with you on a shot to learn from you actually approached you afterwards with the OPs dilemma, but in this case, he deferred to your decision. What would you do or tell your apprentice?



It depends on what I thought our agreement had been, and how I made my money. If I make my money with prints, I would expect that the assistant would not undermine me. Of course, I would also be clear about having him hand over the raw files when we left the location, and I'd be particularly careful with an experienced portrait photographer. Getting a few print-worthy photos at a wedding is not that hard; what's hard is getting a comprehensive set of high-quality photos that tells the story of the day. If I make money on prints and have a pro portrait photographer in-tow, I'm thinking this guy's gonna have a small number of *really* good shots at the end of the day, and $$$$.


On the other hand, if I made my money on the location fee alone (e.g. handing over all decent photos on DVD after PP) then I wouldn't care. 

It's all about advance communication and agreement.


----------



## WPJ (Apr 5, 2014)

mm said:


> I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> 
> In Toronto, Canada, a second-shooter's images 'belong' to the hired photog. Even if a guest has persuaded the bride and groom to let them 'shoot' the wedding (not my favourite, but it is their day, not mine), the photos of the 'guest second-shooter' 'belong' to the photog as well.
> 
> In this case, the images should be turned over to the primary photog for sale and you get to use the photos in you portfolio.



hey mm, technically in Canada the photos belong to the one who does the hiring, however those rights can be signed away and mist if not all photos reclaim that right with out letting the clients the factual law, there just tell them that on there contract that the photg holds all rights, and if the correct owner wants them then there prices up way up, so please have you facts correct.


----------



## eos3188 (Apr 5, 2014)

While I am not a wedding photographer (main business is sport). I do from time to time take on photographers wishing to gain some experience (usually from the perspective of adding to the freelancers we might use). If we do, the agreement is always that their work on the day is ours, they have no commercial rights to the images that they take, they may have images for their folio and self promotion purposes only. Also get them to sign a non compete form (stop them approaching clients afterward and offering their services).

Ethically I find what the OP is doing very dubious, the pro has taken him along on his job so that the OP can gain some experience.

If the OP is a portrait photographer - how would he react if he allowed a photographer to learn the ropes. Then the learner sold their work (taken at his studio) directly to one of his clients. I would guess that he would not be very happy.

Regardless of what you may have agreed or not (by the sounds of not), standard business practice is that you are on the job for the pro that has taken you along to his wedding. Even in the absence of an expect agreement, implicitly and ethically you have no commercial rights. 

Ideally you should contact the photographer and advise them what has gone on and direct the bride back to them and be done with it.

If you do get into this business there will be a time when you will need to call on someone to help out. Having a reputation of taking clients is hardly likely to help your cause. Reputation is everything.


----------



## Logan (Apr 6, 2014)

It sounds like the pro had 2 opportunities to include the second's photos in the porfolio. Once when the initial agreement was made "you can post them on your website after i include the ones i want in the portfolio" or "i dont care you can post them on your website" are two different things. Again when the pictures were shown to him, thought they were good but didn't want any of them to present to the bride?

Did the bride contact the pro and attempt to acquire the second's photos that were not presented to her? Did the photographer refuse? either that or the bride is trying to scam a discount on prints. Otherwise the pro would have contacted the OP about the photos before the bride did.


----------



## eos3188 (Apr 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> It sounds like the pro had 2 opportunities to include the second's photos in the porfolio. Once when the initial agreement was made "you can post them on your website after i include the ones i want in the portfolio" or "i dont care you can post them on your website" are two different things. Again when the pictures were shown to him, thought they were good but didn't want any of them to present to the bride?
> 
> Did the bride contact the pro and attempt to acquire the second's photos that were not presented to her? Did the photographer refuse? either that or the bride is trying to scam a discount on prints. Otherwise the pro would have contacted the OP about the photos before the bride did.



They are good questions but that does not change the fact fact the OP was only there at the invitation of the the pro and simply to gain experience (not make money off the bride). What the pro does with their images and the OP's images is their business. I agree that it seems strange that the pro has not included any of the OP's images. The Op needs to provide a bit more detail on what the agreement was with the pro. Yet I am very surprised that the OP being a photographer already would see this as an opportunity for himself.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Apr 6, 2014)

Interesting ethics discussion, but there are so many 'facts' we don't know and must therefore assume. Weddings are generally 'by invitation only' events. Assuming OP was not on the guest list, he has to have been an 'associate' or 'employee' of the contract photographer to be at the wedding -- however informal the agreement between OP & contracted pro might have been. IMO any contact with the bride should have been via the contracted PRO.

As mentioned in other responses it's possible the bride might be trying to scam some lower cost prints -- we don't know the terms of Pro's agreement and whether it was a package deal or lots of income was presumed to be via print charges. So no way to guess on that.

It's also possible the bride selected the wrong photographer initially. For weddings, photographic style can be critical. Comment by OP that the bride was frustrated by Pro's time setting up shots, she wanted more casual shots. Reminds me of my son's wedding. We suggested a good friend as photographer -- someone who does 30-50 weddings a year and has been at it for decades. His formals are always excellent and his wife second shoots the more casual stuff. But our future daughter-in-law wanted someone to do more 'arty' stuff and was afraid it would take too long to do really good formals. Plus she wanted a DVD of all the shots so her family could do their own scrapbooking. (Our friend will not release his files.) Bottom line, they got what they wanted. Their run-and-gun 'tog did all the formals in record time -- so what if Uncle Harry's tie is all askew and Aunt Martha has a strange expression. Now a few years later the arty stuff looks stale and they wish they had better shots of the family and the wedding party. Style matters.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

Badger said:


> Here is a slight twist on the question. Many of you have weighed in on what the OP should do in response to his question.
> 
> If you are a pro, and someone who tagged along with you on a shot to learn from you actually approached you afterwards with the OPs dilemma, but in this case, he deferred to your decision. What would you do or tell your apprentice?
> 
> Just curious.



Nope. If I'm a pro... I have an agreement on what to do with the images that the tag-a-long takes. In this case, I would set this expectation: I get a full copy of their images and I am the sole individual who speaks to MY client. I will do all the post production and I will sell their images. But I will provide them 1/2 of the the money I make off of the image. 

My 1/2 cut is warranted by the post production, the marketing, and the acquisition of the job. 

If the client solicits images from the tag-a-long, the tag-a-long should express appreciation and direct them to me. 

If I'm a pro... I expect a professional relationship with my customers and from my "employees". Leave no questions unanswered.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

I have a lady friend who has a 60D and a 17-40mm lens. She does weddings and I've volunteered to help her just for shitz and giggs. As described in my signature... my gear blows hers away... so the look of my photos should be more impressive. 

I'm not sure I have a point here.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

Thank you for all your advice, what I read was very interesting and inspiring.

I sent the pro an email telling him about the bride approaching me and that she seriously like my images.


----------



## Besisika (Apr 6, 2014)

WPJ said:


> mm said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to use short-hand here . . .
> ...


I think this changed in 2012 if I understand what you mean.
If I am mistaken, please let me know. This is important topic.
Thanks in advance.
I know as well that they tried to fight back but I don't know if they won or not and some of them refuse to hire you if you don't give up your copyright.
The exception is employer/employee (example photojournalists who have established anual salary), which is different from hiring/hired (example an advertisement campaign- one time deal).

See CAPIC : https://www.capic.org/press-releases-photographer-and-illustrator-news

_A GREAT VICTORY FOR CANADIAN PHOTOGRAPHERS
November 07, 2012

At last, Canadian photographers owns their copyright.

The Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators (CAPIC) would like to congratulate all Canadian photographers in Canada on this important date and pivotal achievement in the photographic industry. As of today, Canadian photographers now officially own the copyright to all of their work whether the photograph is commissioned or not, thanks to the new Copyright law._

(As for the assistant/2nd shooter, my interpretation is that a bride hires a photo company as a whole on that day and all the photos taken should be available to her according to whatever contract the pro agreed with her, otherwise it would be the end of assisting, I would prefer a joint-venture. Assuming that your assistant is a female, she could be the best person for getting ready shots with the bride and you, the male, with the gents. You wouldn't have much left if she is authorized to sell those separately.)


----------



## fir0002 (Apr 6, 2014)

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]


----------



## mycanonphotos (Apr 6, 2014)

To me it seems like the Bride is looking into you for a better deal because you were the second shooter. Perhaps your prices might be lower. But what I don't understand is how she knows your photos were not included in the original set given by the event photographer...she must have been told by the event photographer or yourself you were a "tag along" so to speak where the photos were separate...I'd give the event photographer a call and let him know what's up with trying to side step him.. Maybe split the difference with him...


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

fir0002 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



+1

I totally agree especially when you say: 

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


----------



## brett b (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> fir0002 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Chris...why don't you tell us what your original thoughts were when asking the pro if you could work this wedding with him.


----------



## seekn (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> fir0002 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



WOW - ok I have been reading CR for 3 years now - never posted. BUT after reading this thread I felt compelled to finally register. I mean just WOW. I am not a professional but a heavy photo enthusiast and I mean seriously Chriswolf - your true colors are showing in this post. It is now so obvious that your ethics and morals are at best questionable. 
After 7 pages of very good advice that is the conclusion you came to?!? That everyone is biased against you?!? 
Your judgement is totally clouded by ego and $ - how can you not see that? You could not have got the shots you did without being a guest of the professional. You could not have got the same shots because you probably had full access like he or she did to the wedding party, which you wouldn't have had otherwise. I just cannot understand why you should think that you should be REWARDED for being there as a guest! Even with you emailing the pro you obviously are still hoping for compensation. 
You have completely turned this whole situation around in your head from being thankful for a learning experience to feeling superior and feeling as if you should be paid. You should have explained to the bride that any photos that were taken during the wedding should be handled through the photographer that was hired. If she did not like any of his photos that is his problem but by undermining him, now you have made it yours. 
You really need to think about what people are telling you here. However like I said earlier it is pretty apparent what your true colors already are. I am just stunned.........

edit: also Chris ... one important point is you were NOT the second shooter. You were not the paid assistant - you were lucky to be able to shadow as a guest. Just unbelievable.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

seekn said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > fir0002 said:
> ...



First of all WOW and just WOW I already told the pro about the issue WOW and I also asked to the bride if she told the pro that she contacted me asking for my photos and she said yes. 

You guys have to be calm and relaxed I'm not here to scam or undermine anyone, I already told you and I don't want to say it again, I just wanted to ask an opinion and yes maybe I was wrong to write the topic in that way and I've should have wrote: How can I handle this situation?
You are sadly accusing me for something that it didn't happen.
I don't know the law neither the business very well that's why I came here looking for the right thing to do and not to be sentenced. 

Weapons down my dear pros.


----------



## seekn (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > chriswolf said:
> ...



What you said is fine and dandy - but you quoting the other poster saying that it is other shooters feeling "insecure" rather than trying to give you good advice, does not jive with what you say.... WOW


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

seekn said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > seekn said:
> ...



Because there are some angry persons who are replaying me with hate instead of telling me what to do in a polite way.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > chriswolf said:
> ...



This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 6, 2014)

fir0002 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Hey fir0002...so for your f*irst* post on CR you have decided to:

1. Call other posters comments "laughable"
2. Call other members/posters "insecure"
3. Express a view that the wedding pro is at fault and not the OP? Really?

Stay in school kid, you have a lot to learn.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.





chriswolf said:


> Thank you for all your advice, what I read was very interesting and inspiring.
> 
> I sent the pro an email telling him about the bride approaching me and that she seriously like my images.


----------



## seekn (Apr 6, 2014)

that would've been a nice ending, if you hadn't continued on and bashed everyone else who tried to help you.
And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical. It's legal to stand in front of a child at a parade - but is it the right thing to do? Hopefully as an attorney you learn the difference.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2014)

seekn said:


> And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical.



This is an unfortunate confusion that many lawyers have, it seems as though many law schools actually teach that nonsense. Some lawyers will eventually outgrow it.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

Chisox2335 said:


> This is where you should probably thank everyone got their advice do whatever you feel is right and let this post ride off into the sunset.



If you are going to solicit advice... and you receive a majority opinion that you may not agree with, you should say thank you... and then go and make your decision... and even if it wasn't meant with malice... not offend of disparage those you asked advice from.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Hey fir0002...so for your f*irst* post on CR you have decided to:
> 
> 1. Call other posters comments "laughable"
> 2. Call other members/posters "insecure"
> ...



I've dealt with many a lawyer in my professional career... I hate to say this... but he has the right attitude. There is a certain hubris that accompanies a specific knowledge of the law... 

If he decides to be a workers comp rep working on behalf of claimants... then he is going to have some problems with customer service... but outside of that... he'll fit right in.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

seekn said:


> that would've been a nice ending, if you hadn't continued on and bashed everyone else who tried to help you.
> And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical. It's legal to stand in front of a child at a parade - but is it the right thing to do? Hopefully as an attorney you learn the difference.



Depends on what time the kid got there. If you were camping out for 6 hours to get the right shot... and then some kid gets there an hour after the parade begins... Ummm... I've been here with my tripod and my prime lens and I have the perfect framing for my background and foreground... kid... get on your parents shoulders and don't bother me...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> seekn said:
> 
> 
> > And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical.
> ...



It take a certain moral ambiguity to represent a murderer, rapist, or tax dodger... but I think we are starting to digress about what is wrong with the legal profession... Keep in mind you don't want to be guilty of a crime and your lawyer throws you under the bus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2014)

I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.

I have a spaced out cow. I know who I'd rather be, but I also know I fall so short, maybe in time Chris will too.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Apr 6, 2014)

First of all Chris, I'd like to congratulate you on keeping your mentor in the loop, that was obviously the thing to do. You came in as a collaborator to the wedding photographer and this would make it obviously wrong to turn yourself into a competitor for the same event, wouldn't it?

It seems to me that the take away from this thread is that in such professional situations, it pays to be diligent and to make each parties expectations clear beforhand. That and not to confound being confident and being confrontational or arrogant. Being confident will move you forward. Being arrogant might also move you forward, but you also risk having to drag a burden on the way.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.



It's no different from any other business using Christian symbols or references to give the impression that they do good, honest work when many do not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> I totally agree especially when you say:
> 
> [Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters ]



There are few professional wedding photographers on this forum and few in this thread. Rather, I think a lot of the comments here are fueled by people with a moral compass. I'd trust a lawyer for legal guidance, but not for ethical guidance (and I wouldn't trust a law _student_ for either!). 

Frankly, your original post and subsequent comments (including the ones that are obvious backpedalling) say much about your sense of ethics.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.
> ...



I have no time for them either. Having said that, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has an extraordinary reputation for non confrontation, peace, calm, and ethical simplicity. These qualities are recognised world wide and far outside the Buddhist faith, aligning yourself with these values, whilst not actually adhering to them, is what made me laugh.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have no time for them either. Having said that, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has an extraordinary reputation for non confrontation, peace, calm, and ethical simplicity. These qualities are recognised world wide and far outside the Buddhist faith, aligning yourself with these values, whilst not actually adhering to them, is what made me laugh.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVU3i38nmzs

The flowing robes... the grace... bald... striking. 

Big hitter the lama...


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Hey fir0002...so for your f*irst* post on CR you have decided to:
> ...



That's certainly appropriate in legal dealings, but not at cocktail parties, picnics and informal camera forums. The key is to learn to proper context switching.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > seekn said:
> ...



I have friends who are criminal defense lawyers; and I detect in them no moral ambiguity at all, they're some of the kindest people I know. The attitudes I hear are: defending the US Constitution, making the prosecutors do their jobs (perform due diligence) and try to prevent the defendant from being convicted beyond actual culpability.

Outside of their work you'd never know they were lawyers. And yes, they're good at what they do professionally, they just know how to separate work from non-work.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > I totally agree especially when you say:
> ...



I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt: I don't think he backpedaled so much, as filled-in more details that were missing in his OP. My guess is that he thought he understood that he had rights, and was seeking a price. After some discussion, he may have learned that his assumptions may not have been right. He dealt with it. Being wrong happens to every human every day. The question is how you deal with it.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 6, 2014)

Before this conversation veers too far off-topic, a general observation:

As annoying as many of the forum participants can be (and I don't exclude myself from that category) when discussing trivia like sensor size, dynamic range, ISO performance, etc. etc., I find it comforting that over eight pages of discussion the vast majority of comments reveal persons with reasonably strong moral compasses who know right from wrong regardless of legal technicalities.


----------



## Joe M (Apr 6, 2014)

Not knowing Australian law, I will have to take the student's word for what is legal.
I take it to mean the OP is free to sell his images. I will also take him (OP) at his word that he contacted the pro who worked the day. 
I still stand by what I said though and that is the benefit the OP gained was the experience and photos for his future portfolio. He should be more than satisfied with that and not be too concerned with making cash from the bride. That said, I wonder if the pro has learned of the OP wondering if he should bypass the pro. While it may be legal for the OP to do so, I'm sure the pro would not be too thrilled to be bypassed when the OP was not there in any professional fashion. 
I know if I were showing a student the ropes (have done so in the past), and they were to bypass me in this manner, I'd not be inviting them along ever again. This isn't likely to happen with me as my seconds always use my equipment which of course means my cards. Irking the pro who has graciously taken you under his/her wing is not something you want to do. A lot of people think the pro shooting the wedding simply presses a shutter and it's far from the truth. That's actually the most simple and easiest part of the business because that's what we're good at and love to do. The real work is in building and maintaining the business, finding and securing customers, developing our people skills because they are hiring you, advertising/marketing, the massive investment in camera/computer/software along with the knowledge to use it all properly and of course the fact that all that took money. And then someone wonders why my photo costs so much. It's the sum of all those things, not just the cost of a print. And while the OP or a legitimate second takes a shot and thinks it's of value, you haven't taken into consideration all the owner of the business has put into your photo. My seconds understand this and they are great at what they do and are well compensated with everything spelled out in terms of expectations. 
I hope the pro is not irked at you and you can chalk this up as a lesson learned and can keep up with the business building. good luck.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 6, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > chriswolf said:
> ...



Not me! I'm never wrong! I'm simply mistaken sometimes. ;D


----------



## Joe M (Apr 6, 2014)

fir0002 said:


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



Insecurity has nothing to do with it. What it has to do with is that the pros invest massive amounts of time and money into their business and pressing a shutter is only a very small part of it. The second shooter did not build a website, build a portfolio, invest in computers/software/camera equipment as well as the knowledge of how to use it all properly, advertise and market the business, pay for insurance and licensing, develop people skills, spend time meeting with the couple and helping them plan their day, develop contacts throughout the wedding community of ministers, churches, venues and on and on. The second shooter would not be taking the shot if not for the fact the pro created the situation he/she will find him/herself in on the wedding day. It's not far different than many people who think wedding photographers make huge sums of money "per hour" the day of a wedding. Some do not realize how much time, money and effort came before the day that has to be paid for. I actually have a steady second. I also have a few who can take over in case of illness. They actually live as a second and have no interest in the massive amount of work involved in being a business owner. Sometimes I can't blame them. It would be nice to simply let someone else do all the work and work only on the day. Not that shooting on the day isn't work, but when you're done for the day, you're done. And there was nothing leading up to it except to go over the schedule for the day. So no, insecurity has nothing at all to do with it.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

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.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

Joe M said:


> Not knowing Australian law, I will have to take the student's word for what is legal.
> I take it to mean the OP is free to sell his images. I will also take him (OP) at his word that he contacted the pro who worked the day.
> I still stand by what I said though and that is the benefit the OP gained was the experience and photos for his future portfolio. He should be more than satisfied with that and not be too concerned with making cash from the bride. That said, I wonder if the pro has learned of the OP wondering if he should bypass the pro. While it may be legal for the OP to do so, I'm sure the pro would not be too thrilled to be bypassed when the OP was not there in any professional fashion.
> I know if I were showing a student the ropes (have done so in the past), and they were to bypass me in this manner, I'd not be inviting them along ever again. This isn't likely to happen with me as my seconds always use my equipment which of course means my cards. Irking the pro who has graciously taken you under his/her wing is not something you want to do. A lot of people think the pro shooting the wedding simply presses a shutter and it's far from the truth. That's actually the most simple and easiest part of the business because that's what we're good at and love to do. The real work is in building and maintaining the business, finding and securing customers, developing our people skills because they are hiring you, advertising/marketing, the massive investment in camera/computer/software along with the knowledge to use it all properly and of course the fact that all that took money. And then someone wonders why my photo costs so much. It's the sum of all those things, not just the cost of a print. And while the OP or a legitimate second takes a shot and thinks it's of value, you haven't taken into consideration all the owner of the business has put into your photo. My seconds understand this and they are great at what they do and are well compensated with everything spelled out in terms of expectations.
> I hope the pro is not irked at you and you can chalk this up as a lesson learned and can keep up with the business building. good luck.



+1

Thank you


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 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.



I saw the punchline coming, and it still made me laugh.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 6, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very amusing that somebody who obviously knows the right thing to do, but isn't inclined to do it because he also wants some money, has His Holiness the Dalai Lama as his avatar.
> ...



Gentlemen who do you think you are to say something like that? God? 
Seriously you should know someone before you throw out you sentences.


----------



## Badger (Apr 6, 2014)

Chris,

I think what you should do really doesn't have much to do with the law, but more to do with what's right.

I give you credit, it sounds like you are trying to do what's right and have put your neck on the line by asking for advice here. It also sounds like you have done what I would have suggested in asking the pro or at least, bringing him into the loop and getting his blessing.

While there might be a bunch we don't know here, I am dying to know what the pro's response or advice is. 

On an aside, did you give the pro all your pictures or was it just the 40 images? If not all, were the 40 you gave random or what you thought were the best? Are the pictures the bride likes from the 40 you gave the pro or others? This question really is just an aside. I don't think it changes anything, just curious. 

I have been in a slightly similar situation where I showed up at a friend's reception and brought my camera just in case they hadn't hired a photographer. It turns out they had hired a photographer but I took some pictures anyways. I didn't think much of it till now, but shortly after the wedding, the bride (my friend) asked if I would share my pictures. I didn't think twice, and sent her all the pictures I took, for free. These were just candids I took at the reception, mostly of neighbors and other guests who were present but some of the bride and groom also. 

Hang in there Chris, I know you have taken a beating here, but if your heart wasn't in the right place, you wouldn't have asked. I'm sure you will do the right thing, local laws be damned.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 6, 2014)

A few notes. Wedding photography is a business, and there is far more to it than taking good photos. Finding the client, booking the gig, delivering the album etc are as important as taking good photos/post processing them, and far more time consuming. If you get paid for this you should be splitting the money with the pro who did all the leg work.

You should have had this agreed to before, and your relationship with the pro will probably be far more lucrative than the photos you might sell today.


----------



## eyeland (Apr 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 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.


+1


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



This isn't a religious forum... but I think many of us know people who go to Church... not for the god... not for the bread... not for the circus... but for the presumption of being a god fearing person.


----------



## LOLID (Apr 6, 2014)

Badger said:


> Chris,
> 
> I think what you should do really doesn't have much to do with the law, but more to do with what's right.
> 
> ...



+1

Even though the legal analysis of the situation is quite interesting (for lawyers at least), it is of no help for the OP. One could argue there was an implicit contract (circumstantial evidence, behavior of the parties etc.) employer/employee, or even a mandate given to the OP by the "Pro". And even other better stuff to debate in front of a judge, but the truth is that nobody is gonna sue anybody here even in a small claim court. (BTW I completed my law degrees a long time ago)

Debates can be heated in forums. I experienced it when I made a sarcastic remarks once. Lots of white knights showed up. Let's chill out a bit.
As you pointed out Badger, the OP got kind of hammered in this thread and giving him a break could be nice. I think he knows what to do now.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2014)

Having followed this thread and contributed once or twice I think the whole scenario has stemmed from an amateur photographer being excited and flattered about someone being prepared to pay for his work and so the moral standards have slipped a bit.

Reminds me of a saying in different circles - "There's nothing so reckless as a standing p**** " ;D


----------



## japhoto (Apr 6, 2014)

I'm kind of in the middle of these opinions here, leaning towards the high route though.

If I'm not mistaken, the initial deal was to let OP tag along (gain experience), take photos without getting in the way of the primary and finally use the photos for a portfolio. Then it's just that, OP took the photos, did not (hopefully) get in the way and now has photos for his portfolio.

I don't know if sending the photos to the primary was a part of the original deal or was it something OP felt was a nice thing to do.

What I really don't see is that why the primary would be entitled to own the copyrights to and distribute the OPs photos as his own (unless it was a part of the deal in the first place, a deal I wouldn't take btw.). In my opinion, the situation described by the OP is not the same as "employment". Disregarding monetary compensation, I could consider an active teaching situation (a workshop of sorts) to be an "employment" situation, but I doubt this was the case here.

So the bottom line at this point would be that OP owns his photos, but they are not for sale, only for publishing for his own purposes.

If the bride contacted the primary and told him that he liked OPs photos more, I think it should have been the time to swallow his pride, put his customer first and contact OP to negotiate a deal for the distribution of his photos. I'm not a professional photographer, but I wouldn't have let things "escalate" so far that the bride had to contact OP directly and frankly, put him in an ethical bind over this matter.

If a reasonable deal could be made with the OP, the bride would be happy, OP would get a bit of compensation for his work and if I was the primary in question, I'd consider taking OP on as a second shooter (with a real contract) for future weddings.

As the primary I also would have not appreciated if OP were to sell the images to the couple straight, but that said, it seems that the primary had the chance to deal with this issue himself, but for some reason (hurt pride most likely) didn't act on it.

As for the OP, asking for help on how to solve this would have been better than asking how much to charge for the images, but contacting the primary in the end was definitely the right way to go.

Also telling the story in more detail from the get-go is advisable, letting things to imagination on a forum environment is not. That said, there are a few things in my own answer that I had to use my own imagination on, so take it with a grain or two of salt


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Who are you to call me a gentleman? However, I would never stand behind the image of a religious leader revered by millions. That you chose to do that, whilst displaying none of His qualities, *is* amusing, if you can't see that you don't have His sense of humour either.

Good luck with your career, I am sure you will do well, better luck as a person as I am not so sure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt: I don't think he backpedaled so much, as filled-in more details that were missing in his OP. My guess is that he thought he understood that he had rights, and was seeking a price. After some discussion, he may have learned that his assumptions may not have been right. He dealt with it. Being wrong happens to every human every day. The question is how you deal with it.



So far, we've seen him 'deal with it' by acknowledging that _maybe_ he shouldn't have led off asking how much he should charge the bride, then agree with the law student's statement that he owns and has all rights to sell the images, and that most posts in this thread resulted from the insecurities of professional wedding photographers. Not exactly an auspicious start on the 'learning' to which you refer. 

Contacting the hired photographer again is definitely the right thing to do, and that's at least encouraging.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 6, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> This isn't a religious forum... but I think many of us know people who go to Church... not for the god... not for the bread... not for the circus... but for the presumption of being a god fearing person.





Sporgon said:


> Having followed this thread and contributed once or twice I think the whole scenario has stemmed from an amateur photographer being excited and flattered about someone being prepared to pay for his work and so the moral standards have slipped a bit.
> 
> Reminds me of a saying in different circles - "There's nothing so reckless as a standing p**** " ;D



Call me cynical, but...

I lean toward Spor -- fundamentally I see a big, "LOOK at ME -- I'm so good they want my pictures instead of the ones done by a professional photographer!!!" Look, ma, no hands!! All the business about price and selling and blah, blah, blah are just window dressing.

As for the "god fearing person" (sic), I can't imagine why anyone would offer fealty to a "god" who needs to be feared.


----------



## cpsico (Apr 6, 2014)

If the pro was such a "pro" how could he leave the event without all memory cards in hand if he actually intended to use the second shooters images. It seems he did not intend to use them, he just did a favor by taking the second shooter along to learn.
With that being said you still have much to learn so be careful not to alienate any willing potential mentors. It's not worth a bad name for a quick buck with a bargain hunting bride, who trust me didn't pay the first guy yet and likely wont pay you. Give the images to the paid photographer in exchange for a reasonable second shooter fee. Or split your windfall with him. BTW if you charge, charge a lot you know you have her sneaky bargain hunting tail over a barrel. This is most likely a nightmare client in the Walmart price range client looking for world class images for nothing, and even if she gets them has no idea she has them.


----------



## LOLID (Apr 6, 2014)

I am sure everyone is dying to know the response of the "Pro".
Share it if you find it appropriate.

I am also curious to take a quick look at this 40 famous pics!


----------



## seekn (Apr 6, 2014)

I disagree with anyone saying that he should be compensated in any form for this shoot. Now is the pro feels like giving him cash just because he thought he did a good job that is his prerogative, but in no way or shape is he obligated to. I would not hold it against him if he didn't. 
I have been in similar situations where I went to a friend's wedding took shots and the couple hated the hired pros wedding shots. They saw mine and two years later the bride still uses it for her avatar picture and fb cover photo. Now I was not there as a guest to the pro so I literally just gave her my shots for free with no guilt however if I had been it would have been a different story. Being brought into the situation by a professional, and only attending the event as the pros guest and not the couple's guest completely changes the scenario. In this instance again, I would not have had any direct contact with the bride at all - even if she contacted me personally. I would have to tell her that all the pictures could be obtained through the pro and that she should contact him. Then I would contact the pro explaining the incident and offer to send him my pics to take a look if he so chooses. It is his up to him whether he even wants to offer my pics for sale or just his own because he is the own who booked the gig and has the business license. Again, the ethical dilemma here should be in the pro's court, whether to use the OPs pics, whether to even present them at all to the bride, or at least try to figure out what the bride is unhappy about - which may be easily fixed if discussed. 

I am not a pro photographer but I am a professional and in my own field I have come across incidents where a client will come to me claiming a colleague whom I didn't know, has done unsatisfactory work. In the past I have tried to diffuse the situation to calm the client down and reached out to my colleague and explain to him that there is a client here complaining of their work. I then have sent the client back to them (if they want to, sometimes they don't) so that they may try to resolve their differences between the two. From that situation I have had multiple job offers because my colleagues can see that I practice with integrity. 

I think in this situation compensation for the OP should be completely taken off the table. Some people here are saying it depends on what the agreement was between the pro and the OP. However it is clear he was there to learn and shadow not as a working gig, which he stated himself. That was the agreement, any change in that without it coming from the pro himself would be morally wrong. At no point is it ever OK to enter a situation being a guest and then turn the tables on your host because you feel you are owed something, even if others are willing to. If you want to be paid - then the send out a resume with your portfolio and apply as a second shooter and do it the right way. This is no way to be entering a profession - riding on someone else's coattails and taking food off their table.


----------



## Robert Welch (Apr 6, 2014)

I am a full time professional wedding photographer. First, let me say, the pro who allowed the OP to 'tag along at a wedding and learn the ropes' is apparently a fool. As a professional wedding photographer, I would never just allow someone to tag along, it's not my place to do so. It's my customer's wedding, and if they hire me with the expectation of a second shooter or assistant, that is one thing, but it's not proper for me to invite someone who isn't directly under my responsibility as an assistant/shooter in a contracted situation. So the original blame for this situation really falls on the 'pro' photographer, he should have either hired you as a second shooter, therefore he would have assumed ownership of the images, or he should have said he had no need for such services at this time and would let you know when he might need your services. If you aren't of sufficient skill to second shoot, then he could have hired you to just assist him by carrying and handling his equipment, and he could train you outside the context of a paid wedding job until you were ready to second shoot for him. In no case is he free to just allow you to tag along at a paid wedding gig. I question this photographers status as a professional, based simply on how he handled the situation.

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.

My advice for the OP, consider yourself fortunate for the experience, that is your 'reward'. Give the professional your original files, make sure he understands the bride was interested in them, and tell him he is free to provide them to her under any terms he desires. That is his 'reward' for giving you the opportunity (I say this mainly because the bride does deserve access to the photos, not because the pro deserves to be compensated, but it's really up to him since he was hired as the photographer).

To say that professionals are just picking the situation apart on this thread because we are being 'protectionist' is a statement I'll often hear from the non-professionals who in some way aspire to be professional, but not willing to go the distance to do so. I always laugh at this, because if they put the hard work into achieving the status that people will seek you out and pay your asking price to photograph them, then you to will share these 'protectionist' views and realize what you did to get there deserves the rewards you command, and those who try to shortcut their way to professional status don't.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 6, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Gentlemen who do you think you are to say something like that? God?
> Seriously you should know someone before you throw out you sentences.



No God here, not even close. 

Just someone that has experienced other businesses that have nice Christian symbols and slogans in their advertising and somehow fail to live up to the promise, if you will. Also worked for someone that did the whole missionary thing around the globe yet had no problems with a double standard for some employees.

I'm not in the running for sainthood myself, but I try to keep a reasonably straight path. And yes, when faced with an ethical dilemma such as what is being discussed here, I do take the high ground, even at my expense. Better than some that I would have once called close friends.

I'm certainly not passing judgement on you and I already put up my opinion based on the information available in the OP. I'm not editing it or adding to it.

Good luck, whatever the outcome is.


----------



## dcm (Apr 7, 2014)

If you have to ask...

Seriously though, I deal with these types of situations all the time in business. I work with people all around the world on a daily basis and people are often trying to work the system to get a better deal. Things are seldom what they appear on the surface or communicated to you. Sometimes its a cultural thing, sometimes it just the way a person operates. And with a new person like the bride it's hard to know. I assume you know the photographer a bit better than the bride if they let you tag along, but you weren't clear on the relationship.

For the sake of your own image/integrity and your future business, you really needed to check it out with the photographer before meeting the bride (I assume she called first). This is my first step anytime I get contacted like this - verify the situation and the information before you proceed. That way you would have both sides of the story - they may align, they may not. The photographer may have referred her to you, maybe not. There may be a dispute, maybe not. Without talking to the photographer you only had one side of the story. This is an invitation to get played or stuck in the middle depending on the situation. 

Since the photographer took you, I think you owed them the courtesy of a call. I would have asked the photographer how they would like to handle the situation up front before meeting the bride. If the photographer said to go ahead and take the business, I would have asked the photographer how much to charge rather than an internet forum. And I still would have given the photographer something. You could have also learned something about the wedding photography business from the photographer beyond wielding a camera and earned some goodwill for the future. You may still be able to.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 7, 2014)

distant.star said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't a religious forum... but I think many of us know people who go to Church... not for the god... not for the bread... not for the circus... but for the presumption of being a god fearing person.
> ...



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


----------



## 100 (Apr 7, 2014)

Fighting about ethics, ownership and money and there is even a (wana-be) lawyer showing up in this thread… 
It’s a shame there isn’t a market for professional divorce photography ;-)


----------



## Twostones (Apr 7, 2014)

What comes to my mind first is what the contract says between the wedding party and the contracted photographer. It could be the bride is in violation of that contract herself by asking the second photographer for a price on his photos. Secondly i would guess the bride wants to do the go around to save money and this could be a violation of the original contract herself. There are many ethical and legal questions that must be addressed here in this situation. The obviously right thing to do is to abide by the contract between the wedding party and the contracted photographer. I would give the contracted photographer everything. It is the original photographer who has the contract with the bride.


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 7, 2014)

Robert Welch said:


> 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.


----------



## tron (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


So he told him that he needed you for a job and not that the bride asked for you?


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> 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. 



chriswolf said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.



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


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.
> ...



In part it certainly is.


----------



## Skulker (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



so there was deliberate deceitful behaviour and you knew it.


----------



## Robert Welch (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2014)

fir0002 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> fir0002 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2014)

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 (Apr 7, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

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 (Apr 7, 2014)

cpsico said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

ams2d said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

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 (Apr 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Why would I post on a photography forum to show off?
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2014)

brett b said:


> Kerry B said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Apr 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 7, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> First of all I'm a portrait photographer and I've got experience, I know what's composition and all the sweet things that we care about. Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website. I went there to understand how weddings work and *I wasn't hired* as an assistant (but he told me you are coming as an assistant).
> During the wedding the bride was a bit annoyed about the posing shots that he was trying to create and she was asking for more candid shots. I'm not saying I'm better than the pro and I will never say that, I don't even want to undermine him. I sent him about 40 photos the day after the wedding and he called me up telling me that he was impressed for my first wedding experience. At the end of this I just would like to be rewarded for this little success because I'm not making a living out of it.
> By the way I don't like the way the pros use their assistants, people who make a living out of it should pay for their help. It is just fair. Sometimes when I have to do paid jobs I ask a friend to come along and I give him/her some money even if it's a $200 job.



ok, I'll bite on this one too. Ok, you were not hired and did not sign a contract - fine, but, as you stated - he saw you as his assistant. He did not have to allow you on the site, and given the situation, it doesn't sound like the client added the second shooter either so there was zero compensation for you. The main shooter was being nice, letting you come along to learn and build a portfolio - not to undermine sales. 

The Primary shooter is at fault here too because he should have been more clear ( though it does sound like he tried to be, "Second I didn't sign any contract with him and he told me that I could post the photos on my website." 

That's your compensation right there. It's the good old adage, give a man a fish and he eats well that night - teach that man to fish and he eats well for a lifetime. You seem to be blinded by the sentiments of this bride, and want that one nice meal at the expense of the future. These images should be like a downpayment - the first for your portfolio. 

Mind you ---- Brides are finicky beasts!!!!! So this one loves your work, what about the next, and the next, and the next? If you have a next! One wedding is not enough to book a season, especially one where you were a second shooter. this bride liked candids - good - that's fine and yeah, that's one of the reasons why you were there, to handle that side of shooting so the main shooter can focus on posing and managing the clock! Some Brides don't give a rats ass about candids though. some don't even care about the images at all. so, keep that in mind, and --- if you at all believe in karma, well then I hope you remember this day when you have an assistant taking your sales! 

As to "By the way I don't like the way the pros use their assistants, people who make a living out of it should pay for their help. It is just fair. Sometimes when I have to do paid jobs I ask a friend to come along and I give him/her some money even if it's a $200 job." If he did things you don't like, well that's the way the cookie crumbles. Learn from that and don't treat your seconds and assistants in the same way. But also, the going rate here for second shooting is closer to $100-500 depending on all the factors. Which, isn't bad at all when you think about it. I generally pay out $250 - which for 8 hours or so is like $31 an hour. that's not bad at all. If your allowed to use the images on your portfolio, yeah you may spend time on them but that's your time, your investment. $31 an hour to be there for 8 hours and snap 1000 or so photos...LOL...I like second shooting now because I have no intention of outdoing the main shooter. Or rather, not on that shoot! I will do my part, but, I will save the outdoing for my own weddings!....

Either way man, let your ego go. Call the primary guy and talk to him.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Badger said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a slight twist on the question. Many of you have weighed in on what the OP should do in response to his question.
> ...



exactly! That is part of this too...is the OP's conversation with the bride sidelining the primary shooter at this point? 

Here's one for ya too...how did the bride find him? I mean, did the OP post a shot to facebook and tag the bride? Or did he talk to the groom and hand out his personal card? did he talk to guests?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Apr 8, 2014)

uggg...maybe i should not reply to things when i haven't read all 11 pages...uggg...11 pages....I want to sue all of you now!.....


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

In the instances where I am a 2nd shooter at a wedding... my main goal is to get nude photos of the brides at the end of the night... so if I someone get a photo of the bride... sure... but she's off the market...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> uggg...maybe i should not reply to things when i haven't read all 11 pages...uggg...11 pages....I want to sue all of you now!.....



I'll give you synopsis. Op is in the wrong... bride is cheap and probably is looking to get images at a discount... and the law is stupid.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> uggg...maybe i should not reply to things when i haven't read all 11 pages...uggg...11 pages....I want to sue all of you now!.....


Strange, how does it show 11 pages for you? It only shows 4 pages for me. ???

Regardless of pages, it is a loooong thread. I'm a little surprised that it is still on the leader board after all this time. Just goes to show how attracted most people are to soap operas vs. geeky tech shows.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 8, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > uggg...maybe i should not reply to things when i haven't read all 11 pages...uggg...11 pages....I want to sue all of you now!.....
> ...



Your display settings are probably different. Maybe 50 posts per page versus 15... 

I don't think this is a soap opera... feels more like a public stoning.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I don't think this is a soap opera... feels more like a public stoning.



Haha I've been reading this thread almost everyday to check up on new posts. I've really enjoyed this... learned alot at the expense of the OP. It's great that the OP actually posted this because it helps everyone really. This kind of situation applies to literally everyone. You don't have to shoot weddings, primary or secondary shooter, it's all relevant to daily shooting gigs. It's good to know that the world still contains people with better than average code of ethics!! 11 pages later.. have to say thanks!


----------



## chriswolf (Apr 8, 2014)

I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well. 
The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs. 
Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 8, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
> The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
> Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.



Thanks for the update. Good to hear that the situation was handled well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> chriswolf said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
> ...



+1 

Apologies for my earlier comments, I was wrong to assume you wouldn't do the right thing.


----------



## tolusina (Apr 8, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
> The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
> Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.


Well, did you get any MONEY for your shots in the end?
Sounds like you did the right thing by both the pro and the bride, did the pro do the right thing by you?




.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > chriswolf said:
> ...



Yup, thanks for the update and glad it worked out! 

But Neuro, you can't apologize dude, this is the interweb; you're not allowed to be reasonable. Ever. For any reason.


----------



## brett b (Apr 8, 2014)

chriswolf said:


> I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
> The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
> Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.



That's great, Chris! It couldn't have been easy getting blasted for days on this thread. Many have learned from your experience.


----------

