Re: Wedding Intruders?

[P3D Gary Schacker <fotoschack@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'll start by saying that I didn't expect many of you to defend my
positon criticizing unauthorized photographers at weddings.  Most of you
like to do this so you will defend your position.  I'm not accusing
anybody of intellectual dishonesty, it's just difficult to see the other
side.

First of all it's not "expected' or "traditional" for people to take
their own pictures at weddings.  It may be a practice of long standing
but that doesn't make it right.  Bad manners and boorish behavior are
also practices of long standing.  They're still distasteful.

Several of you have asked how this practice can be characterized as
"stealing" from the photographer.  Allan Carrano hit it on the head.
Wedding photogs. have alway had to rely on additional sales over and
above the basic package for a good part of their income.  If his
proprietary poses and setups become a shutterbugs free for all, this
part of the business quickly dries up.  Now many of you might not care
at all about the pro's livelihood, but he does.  If that is your point
of view be honest enough to say so.  I've been in the position of
arriving at a clients home to get their album (and hopefully additional)
order, only to see inferior copies of my own work already hanging in
their walls!
This is my creativity, not Aunt Point N Shoot who stood behind me while
I sweated over the position of the gown, its veil, the bouquet, hand
position, foot position and God knows what else!
Why on earth is the photographer the legal owner of the copyright for
these images?  Nobody who produces artistic or intellectual property
should be expected to completely accept being ripped off by bootleggers!

It has been mentioned by a few that you have indulged in this practice
only with the blessiing of the happy couple.  Unfortunately, the client
and the photographer are in an adversarial relationship when it comes to
this issue.
The bride would like to get free pictures just as much as Uncle
Hobbyist.  It's the photographers blessing that matters here.

There is the argument that stereo photography by a guest at a wedding is
a different case.  It is unlikely that prints will be made from these
transparencies and distributed gratis to the family.  I agree, but in
the heat of battle, how do you explain to a mob of anxious clicksters
that only certain cameras with certain types of film are acceptable? 
Sometimes 
you've got to yield for the greater good.

Nobody has mentioned the additional 
discomfort endured by the bride and groom who are having cameras shoved
into their faces all day long.  It's a given that they must pose for the
majority of the 200+ pictures the hired gun will be taking.
Aren't they entitled to enjoy themselves a bit on their big day?  How
many times have I seen the look of resignation on their faces as
Grandpappy intrudes upon their first dance to take a picture I just
shot.  Naturally he can't get the camera to work.

For the purpose of this debate I've stated my case in purely black and
white terms.
I do evince some flexibility in the real world.  I usually restrict
other photographers only during the "formal" session usually right after
the ceremony.
I then rely on them screwing up the reception pictures badly enough to
minimize damage to me.

Dr. T has indicated that he actually had permission and had coordinated
with the photographer beforehand.  If so, he is obviously exempt from my
wrath.  Why 
then was he unaware of the existence
and/or the effect of the pro's slave flash?
Do I detect sabotage?:>) :>)

Gary Schacker



 


------------------------------