visionz5
http://petapixel.com/2015/09/03/dj-sparks-outcry-from-photographers-after-shooting-and-sharing-wedding-photos/
Any of you guys a professional photographer as well? Would you ever do this at a wedding? I have taken pics when I was DJing, but not with any type of pro camera equipment. Just my good ol' handy Android phone or little Canon point and shoot and that's it. Besides, I dont have time to capture "the perfect shot" since I'm too busy doing DJ stuff. A couple of quick snaps here and there, and that's it.
What do you guys think of the article? Who's in the wrong here...the DJ or the photographer?
Any of you guys a professional photographer as well? Would you ever do this at a wedding? I have taken pics when I was DJing, but not with any type of pro camera equipment. Just my good ol' handy Android phone or little Canon point and shoot and that's it. Besides, I dont have time to capture "the perfect shot" since I'm too busy doing DJ stuff. A couple of quick snaps here and there, and that's it.
What do you guys think of the article? Who's in the wrong here...the DJ or the photographer?
Inviato Fri 04 Sep 15 @ 12:29 pm
visionz5
Double post by accident
Inviato Fri 04 Sep 15 @ 12:31 pm
PachN
232 Photos?
I wouldn't have time to shoot 232 photos if I get paid to dj on the venue.
If the photographer had a contract with the bride an groom, the DJ should take down the photos.
Whether he knew of the clause or not.
I don't know if the translation is right, but there is a german saying with the meaning of: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
On the other hand: Fuller has no soul...
I wouldn't have time to shoot 232 photos if I get paid to dj on the venue.
If the photographer had a contract with the bride an groom, the DJ should take down the photos.
Whether he knew of the clause or not.
I don't know if the translation is right, but there is a german saying with the meaning of: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
On the other hand: Fuller has no soul...
Inviato Fri 04 Sep 15 @ 1:29 pm
PhantomDeejay
I can't and I won't argue for the concept of "who's playing music" or "who's taking photos" or even if a DJ could perform sufficient enough while taking 232 photos.
However I can argue the fact that "NO-ONE" can forbid you to take photos on a public space, for whatever reason you may want, no matter what gear you use.
I don't care what the contract of the "PRO Photographers" said, because no contract can have terms which are against the law. In other words, no contract can forbid me to take my professional camera on a wedding and shoot some pics which later on I can share with anyone I wish as long as the persons involved on these photos are fine with it.
I understand the need for each one to "protect" their business, but it must be done on a right "ethics" manner.
I guess what I mean is that the "PRO Photographers" over-reacted against one fact that they shouldn't. The couple didn't hire another photographer to cover the wedding, so the "PRO Photographers" are still getting paid properly and their contract of "exclusiveness" didn't brake. Also the "DJ" didn't get paid for the photos, nor he covered the entire ceremony, nor he offered this as an extra service for FREE (which would justify the argue that he's trying to undertake the photographers)
The opposite would be a "PRO DJ" to argue with the photographers when they bring slideshows with music to play during the wedding reception, or when some of the bride's friends want to sing her a song e.t.c. It would be outrageous to claim that "only the dj can play music" so no-one will sing, no one will bring music in the ceremony and the sound of the slideshow should be muted.
If we keep down this route then a "PRO DJ" could end up demanding that the video of the wedding should not capture his music and be practically muted!
I don't know what's the common practice in the US, but I see no harm on taking some photos of a gig as soon as they are for promotional reasons. It's common practice here, and it doesn't hurt/harm anybody. After all, I still have the right to photograph and shoot video of my own acts (which is me dj-ing and producing a result) and no-one can forbid me that.
However I can argue the fact that "NO-ONE" can forbid you to take photos on a public space, for whatever reason you may want, no matter what gear you use.
I don't care what the contract of the "PRO Photographers" said, because no contract can have terms which are against the law. In other words, no contract can forbid me to take my professional camera on a wedding and shoot some pics which later on I can share with anyone I wish as long as the persons involved on these photos are fine with it.
I understand the need for each one to "protect" their business, but it must be done on a right "ethics" manner.
I guess what I mean is that the "PRO Photographers" over-reacted against one fact that they shouldn't. The couple didn't hire another photographer to cover the wedding, so the "PRO Photographers" are still getting paid properly and their contract of "exclusiveness" didn't brake. Also the "DJ" didn't get paid for the photos, nor he covered the entire ceremony, nor he offered this as an extra service for FREE (which would justify the argue that he's trying to undertake the photographers)
The opposite would be a "PRO DJ" to argue with the photographers when they bring slideshows with music to play during the wedding reception, or when some of the bride's friends want to sing her a song e.t.c. It would be outrageous to claim that "only the dj can play music" so no-one will sing, no one will bring music in the ceremony and the sound of the slideshow should be muted.
If we keep down this route then a "PRO DJ" could end up demanding that the video of the wedding should not capture his music and be practically muted!
I don't know what's the common practice in the US, but I see no harm on taking some photos of a gig as soon as they are for promotional reasons. It's common practice here, and it doesn't hurt/harm anybody. After all, I still have the right to photograph and shoot video of my own acts (which is me dj-ing and producing a result) and no-one can forbid me that.
Inviato Mon 07 Sep 15 @ 7:29 pm
wmorgan12
photographer has an exclusivity agreement with the bride and groom.
need we say more
need we say more
Inviato Mon 07 Sep 15 @ 10:32 pm
FunctionDJ
Well if no-one told the DJ i think theres nothing wrong, but he/his company should've listened and taken down the album right away after the request of the photographer.
I see no reason for people to make a huge deal out of this, they could've handled the situation far more adult and not break down this dimension of discussion and fight.
In the end the bride and the groom got hurassed during their honeymoon (WHAT THE HECK) and i feel really bad for them because this went way too far...
I see no reason for people to make a huge deal out of this, they could've handled the situation far more adult and not break down this dimension of discussion and fight.
In the end the bride and the groom got hurassed during their honeymoon (WHAT THE HECK) and i feel really bad for them because this went way too far...
Inviato Tue 08 Sep 15 @ 4:30 pm
level10mix
I, as the groom, will never hire a DJ to be the photographer.
wont do it either as a DJ.
wont do it either as a DJ.
Inviato Tue 08 Sep 15 @ 6:17 pm