DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Wedding gone bad
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 79, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/23/2007 07:14:35 PM · #1
I did my brother in laws wedding as a gift last year. The Bride's Maid had her wedding this year but wanted to have a real professional do the shoot. Unfortunately she paid the person in full before she even got her pictures. All she has are a few proofs from the engagement pictures and nothing from the wedding. They have taken the photographer to court along with about 7 other people from the area and they are getting her wages garnished as a result. The problem is that they really just wanted the pictures and are SOL now.

I told her I'd try to take the small proofs and try to remove the banner and resize to see if they might be able to get an 8x10 out of it. I haven't tried to enlarge pictures like this before and I'm looking for some advice.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/56415/thumb/501814.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/56415/thumb/501814.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
04/23/2007 07:18:19 PM · #2
So why are there no shots from the actual wedding?
04/23/2007 07:19:43 PM · #3
Scan the prints at a high DPI on a decent scanner and work from there. How big are the proofs? If they are 4x6 I bet you could get a decent 8x10 out of them. If they are 2x3 it may be a push, but you could still get something I think.
04/23/2007 07:19:48 PM · #4
well the photographer may very well be a [insert negative word here] but unfortunately I believe the images would still be copyrighted to him, so removing the copyright and blowing up the images would still be illegal.

I certainly understand the frustration but you know what they say about 2 wrongs...
04/23/2007 07:21:28 PM · #5
Originally posted by Megatherian:

well the photographer may very well be a [insert negative word here] but unfortunately I believe the images would still be copyrighted to him, so removing the copyright and blowing up the images would still be illegal.

I certainly understand the frustration but you know what they say about 2 wrongs...


Was just about to post similar thoughts
04/23/2007 07:23:35 PM · #6
The banner should be easy to remove... How big are the proofs?

As for the copyright issue, I'd normally be symathetic to that, but these are their wedding pictures; they're of no commercial value and they've already paid for them. I'd say go for it, from an ethical standpoint. Of course, I don't make my living this way.
04/23/2007 07:23:57 PM · #7
Sorry to hear that happened.
Here's an idea that might be some fun for them. Volunteer to take pictures if they want to restage the engagement pictures and wedding formals for their 1st year anniversary(or whenever). Everyone knows it's not like the "real" thing, but at least it will leave them with something more than a damaged copy of someone else's work.
Personally, I'd be po'd everytime I looked at the other pictures.
04/23/2007 07:27:43 PM · #8
I recommend renting a tux for him and getting her back in her dress and shooting REAL wedding type pictures for them.
04/23/2007 07:35:54 PM · #9
I say: "buyer-be-ware". One should get credentials and referrals before giving someone your money. ("A fool and their money..." would also apply) I have been burned in the past and have only myself to blame for it. I always live with the consequences, regardless of how much it hurts.
04/23/2007 08:16:51 PM · #10
Originally posted by pcody:

Volunteer to take pictures if they want to restage the engagement pictures and wedding formals for their 1st year anniversary(or whenever).


I thought about offering to have them repose for some shots.

Originally posted by Simms:

So why are there no shots from the actual wedding?

They have no idea why the photographer has done this. There are 8 people that have had this happen. She actually took the pictures but never followed up with the proofs and simply disappeared after the weddings.

The proofs are just the jpg files like I attached here.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 20:17:11.
04/23/2007 09:57:34 PM · #11
Originally posted by Megatherian:

well the photographer may very well be a [insert negative word here] but unfortunately I believe the images would still be copyrighted to him, so removing the copyright and blowing up the images would still be illegal.

I certainly understand the frustration but you know what they say about 2 wrongs...


Screw that...go ahead and remove the proof. And if they want to sue you for it. Let them...I am sure the judge will accept extenuating circumstances.

As for two wrongs not making a right. That may be true. But if you multiply two negatives you can actually get a positive number.

Frankly, I think this aspect of wedding photography is a scam. It's a work for hire. It should be signed that way. Few couples ever have it made clear that the way wedding photographers are wording their contracts that they have no rights to their photographs. If put in plain english and understanding most would say !@$% that...

Really, if wedding photographers are not working for hire. Then they should show up at weddings no charge and simply sell their photos.

But I'd love to see what would happen if wedding photographers put in large bold print the following words.

"I own all the photographs I take at your wedding. Even if you pay me $xxxx.00. You are not allowed to make any copies or re-distribute your photographs to any friends or family. I on the other hand can use your wedding photographs for promotional use and even sell them and license them making profit off of your wedding photos.

Please sign here if you accept this: __________________________"


To even bring up copyrights in a situation like this re-affirms just how ridiculous the copyright system has gotten.

********************************

BTW...do you mind mentioning the photographer/business' name and location just so no one else utilizes them.



Message edited by author 2007-04-23 21:59:23.
04/23/2007 10:17:30 PM · #12
Was this wedding so formal that no one else was taking pics? The couple may want to go thru the guest log, and ask everyone to share pics that they may have taken during the actual event. It seems that everyone has a digicam in their pocket now days, so there may be some good pics out there. That way, even though they don't have the "pro" shots, they would at least have the "real" ceremony and maybe some of the group shots from a slightly different angle.
Something similar happened at my best friends wedding, and they were very happy to have the shots and video that I took with existing light for their scrapbook.
I shoot only one wedding a year, and the one for this year was last weekend. It was a wedding gift to a long time friend, and I knew that they could not afford to hire a pro.
04/23/2007 10:31:47 PM · #13
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by Megatherian:

well the photographer may very well be a [insert negative word here] but unfortunately I believe the images would still be copyrighted to him, so removing the copyright and blowing up the images would still be illegal.

I certainly understand the frustration but you know what they say about 2 wrongs...


Screw that...


Haha, amen to that! Screw that!
04/23/2007 10:45:48 PM · #14
If someone wants me to do a job for them I charge a small fee.
04/23/2007 10:58:03 PM · #15
Originally posted by theSaj:

Screw that...go ahead and remove the proof. And if they want to sue you for it. Let them...I am sure the judge will accept extenuating circumstances.

As for two wrongs not making a right. That may be true. But if you multiply two negatives you can actually get a positive number.


I do agree with that.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Frankly, I think this aspect of wedding photography is a scam.....

But I'd love to see what would happen if wedding photographers put in large bold print the following words.

"I own all the photographs I take at your wedding. Even if you pay me $xxxx.00. You are not allowed to make any copies or re-distribute your photographs to any friends or family. I on the other hand can use your wedding photographs for promotional use and even sell them and license them making profit off of your wedding photos.

Please sign here if you accept this: __________________________"




My contracts have always stated clearly (and I go over it verbally as well) that they cannot redistribute or reproduce the photos, so they are clear before signing that it is one of the terms. I write in as well that I can use them for promotional, but not for commercial purposes.

What you do not understand is that I do not want someone taking one of my photos and doing a crummy scan job, then take them to a crummy printer and getting a crummy print and putting in on their wall and telling everyone that I did the photos. It has much more to do with control over my reputation than it does with profit.

Ernie
04/23/2007 11:00:41 PM · #16
Crummy scan job.

I hardly ever do a crummy scan job.

I scan at 4800x4800 dpi when at all possible my other scanner tops out at 2400 for optical. I save the full resolution version as a 16 bit tiff. Final version is sized for 8x10 or 8x12 @ 300 dpi or bigger if appropriate and ave that as a lossles PNG.

Of course these are usually my photos.
04/23/2007 11:07:17 PM · #17
Originally posted by basssman7:


What you do not understand is that I do not want someone taking one of my photos and doing a crummy scan job, then take them to a crummy printer and getting a crummy print and putting in on their wall and telling everyone that I did the photos. It has much more to do with control over my reputation than it does with profit.


Yeah, sounds like the photographer was really worried about her rep. :)
04/23/2007 11:14:59 PM · #18
Go ahead and execute a copyright violation on the original photographer's work. You could get sued and then that photographer would have enough money to pay off the original plaintiff and then some :)
04/23/2007 11:21:18 PM · #19
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Go ahead and execute a copyright violation on the original photographer's work. You could get sued and then that photographer would have enough money to pay off the original plaintiff and then some :)


Had he done it and never posted it here, chances of the photographer ever find out.... 1 in 300 Million. Now that they have posted it 1 in 500,000. But im sure as long as the photographer doesnt know they aint gonna want to be near the people they have ripped off anytime soon.

Unfortunatly this thread puts the info out there.
04/23/2007 11:23:36 PM · #20
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Crummy scan job.

I hardly ever do a crummy scan job.

I scan at 4800x4800 dpi when at all possible my other scanner tops out at 2400 for optical. I save the full resolution version as a 16 bit tiff. Final version is sized for 8x10 or 8x12 @ 300 dpi or bigger if appropriate and ave that as a lossles PNG.

Of course these are usually my photos.


I'm pretty sure bassman was referring to the family or bride and groom doing a crummy scan job...the average layman, not taking into consideration someone actually experienced at doing it. When I worked at a copy shop I had people all the time bringing in images to scan or copy and they didn't know diddly about how or what to do. So yes they would have done a very crappy job at it.

(And before anyone asks, Yes most of us would verify if images were copyright protected and tell them how to go about getting authorization to copy images. They were extremely strict on that at our shop and I'm glad they were.0

edit to add...if there are still court proceedings on this photogapher, maybe something could be done that would either a)release all photographed originals to the people free of copyright restrictions or b)If said originals aren't around anymore, release all copyright to the people for their proofs so that they can get what they were promised. Not sure if that is really possible by a judge but just a thought.

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 23:26:57.
04/23/2007 11:24:05 PM · #21
It's just hypocritical to even consider doing it.
04/23/2007 11:34:49 PM · #22
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Crummy scan job.

I hardly ever do a crummy scan job.

I scan at 4800x4800 dpi when at all possible my other scanner tops out at 2400 for optical. I save the full resolution version as a 16 bit tiff. Final version is sized for 8x10 or 8x12 @ 300 dpi or bigger if appropriate and ave that as a lossles PNG.

Of course these are usually my photos.


Well, if you are scanning a print at over 300 dpi then you really do not know much about scanning. Sorry but it is true. Scanning at more than 300 dpi for a print and you are just adding file size, not information. You may as well just be interpolating in photoshop later which would even be better because it would be edited already. The max info you can resolve from scanning a photo occurs at approx 240 dpi. I do usually scan at 300 dpi however just to be sure. ;)

I think perhaps you are losing sight of the discussion at hand. We are supposed to be discussing the pros/cons/morality of taking a copyrighted image and reproducing it because that same photographer left the couple in a bad spot with no wedding photos.

I was simply trying to respond to someone else who suggested that not allowing wedding couples to reproduce a wedding photo taken by a legit photographer is a scam of some sort.

back to the original discussion please...

Message edited by author 2007-04-23 23:37:54.
04/23/2007 11:39:58 PM · #23
I sent you another pm , to avoid getting off topic you know.
04/24/2007 07:52:38 AM · #24
Originally posted by sabphoto:

edit to add...if there are still court proceedings on this photogapher, maybe something could be done that would either a)release all photographed originals to the people free of copyright restrictions or b)If said originals aren't around anymore, release all copyright to the people for their proofs so that they can get what they were promised. Not sure if that is really possible by a judge but just a thought.

I agree, your best bet is to try and work something out where you get the original files or negatives and ownership. Or is there some reason the originals are not available?
04/24/2007 08:22:01 AM · #25
I mean, if the photographer has defaulted on the original contract, and absolutely ruined forever the memories of these people- something that can't be repeated; and if the photog can't even pay up or provide the proofs as specific performance- does anyone seriously think that the consumer should protect the "copyright interests" of the offending photographer? (To enforce the Copyright violation the photog wouold most likely need a lawyer, and therefore have the ability, in a courts eyes, to pay the other judgment in full, most likely;)

Only another wedding photographer would be empathetic to this photographer crying copyright violation! Given the circumatances it sounds like damage mitigation. Seriously- If two of your children get run over by a drunk driver in the road in front of you, and you punched out the drunk driver- would you get convicted of assault?

And why would the couple sue in small claims? Just to get the money back that they paid; what about the consequential damages? I guess it depends on the contract and the facts.

Seriously- If two of your children get run over by a drunk driver in the road in front of you, and you punched out the drunk driver- would you get convicted of assault?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/29/2020 02:05:19 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/29/2020 02:05:19 PM EDT.