Re: Wedding Intruders?

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

I am of the opinion that in most cases it's only distasteful to
the professional photographer.  But then, it could be that I only go 
to weddings with generally unagressive amateur photographers so I
don't see those who would be really a pain.  :-) 

> 
> 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

Shouldn't the photographer either not allow other photographers, or 
alternatively increase their up front price?

I know that for *my* wedding, the up front fee was (IMO) very substantial
in respect to the time the photographer worked.  It's not like he was
working on spec.

Note that I'm NOT saying that you don't have a good point, but I'm
only suggesting that the "solution" is in the up-front negotiation
of fees and rules.  Doesn't have to be black and white either
(like not allowing ONLY during certain portions).

In my wedding where I had a pro photographer, a brother-in-law
run video camera, and a friend who was using my beamsplitter 3D
camera. The images I love the most are the 3D ones.  And they
are NOT pictures taken "over the shoulder" of the pro.

> 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!

Might one make an argument that the up-front money was paying not only
for the pictures but for the setups?  I'm sure the photographer knows
about bootlegging generally, and knows it's being done real-time, so
it shouldn't be a really big surprise.

Shouldn't satisfaction be had by coming to an understanding with rules
and price ahead of time (with the couple) rather than being all bent out 
of shape afterwards? Seems it'd be better for the Karma as well.  :-)

Mike K.

P.S. - The weddings I took 3D photos at were with the blessing of the couple
       member I knew (and who invited me). My 3D photos are my wedding
       gift to them.   I also don't klone the pro's photos.  Don't want to.
       Mine will be *better* than his, even without his help. I've an 
       inherent BIG advantage. He's got only ONE lens on his camera.  :-)


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

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 2140
***************************
***************************
 Trouble? Send e-mail to 
 wier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
 To unsubscribe select one of the following,
 place it in the BODY of a message and send it to:
 listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
   unsubscribe photo-3d
   unsubscribe sell-3d
   unsubscribe mc68hc11
   unsubscribe overland-trails
   unsubscribe icom
 ***************************