If This Doesn't Beat All . . . .

[tiredofdoctors]

So, I get this e-mail from my daughter today . . . . I have been talking to her fairly frequently (obviously) about the TB and her liver tests. I had been asking over and over if her friend Kim, whose daughter was Ashley's flower girl, and who was an "honorary bridesmaid"(???) but was a reader during the service, would send me a compact disc of the "raw" photos which she took of Ashley's wedding. She has a fantastic camera outfit, took some really great shots . . . Ashley said she had been asking her, but didn't know anything . . . (still question THAT now)

So, Ashley's e-mail says that I can see the pictures from the wedding . . . just click on this link . . . . so I do -- THIS WOMAN, WHO PRETENDED TO BE DOING THIS IN THE NAME OF FRIENDSHIP, IS SELLING THESE PICTURES ON-LINE!!!!!!!!! So, the photographer we hired for the $1,000 just to show up, and who brings all his lighting fixtures, "umbrella" things, etc. was simply USED by her so that she could get the same shots, fix them up with Photoshop, and SELL THEM. I closed the site, replied to Ashley that she looked beautiful and was glowing, and thanked her for sharing. My sister clicked on the link -- the prices range from $1 to $50 for pictures!!!!!

I phoned the photographer that we hired, and I asked him if he had an exclusivity clause in the contract, and if we had done anything to break the contract. He told me not to worry, he doesn't have an exclusivity clause, and he understood. He told me that he thought she was doing it as a friend . . . I told him that I thought the same -- she NEVER indicated that she was doing this as a money-making venture. I told him that I would NOT have sabotaged his business and that I would NOT have taken advantage of him in the way that happened had I known what she was doing . . . I also told him how embarrassed I was that this had happened . . . that my intent was that HE was the wedding photographer, that SHE was there as a friend, taking some additional shots (like in the dressing room -- where he wouldn't be) and that was IT.

If that wasn't enough, my sister said that there was one picture of me where I was reaching down to give Ash a kiss, but I didn't see it. Otherwise, there are two beautiful pictures of the backs of my sister's and my head . .. and my sister in one background shot and me in one background shot. There are, though, portrait-type pictures of Ashley's stepmother and Mark's mother -- as well as a picture of Ashley and Mark with his grandmother . . . . that's it. There was one picture of my mother -- and NOT the best picture that she's had taken -- that NOTHING was done to touch it up, no "blurring", none of the fancy stuff done to the other pics. This woman's daughter and Ashley's half-sister and half-brother were in a BAJILLION of the pictures, but our family wasn't in ANY. Not one picture of my nephews who were both in the wedding AT ALL.

My sister was going to "address" this with Ashley tonight, I believe . . . . I'm sure that all H*ll is going to break loose, but at this point, I don't care . . . . I just can't believe that woman did that!!

[Ursa Major]

Wow, Lynne, that is definitely unbelievable. I understand that you must be really upset. But you know what? It's over, you can't undo what that awful woman did. You have paid the photographer and he knows this isn't your doing. You're going to get his beautiful pictures, and I'm sure your family is in his just as much as Ashley's step-family. Those awful people aren't worth getting too upset over. You're just hurting yourself, they don't care if you're angry and upset.

[taz sharratt]

ide be well annoyed too. ide say this woman has a damn cheek

[jerseyangel]

Jeez--the nerve of some people I can't believe a "friend" would do something like this! I hope Ashley gives it to her good....

[Guest nini]

oh now that's just LOW... I hope Ashley calls this "friend" on the carpet about this... that's just underhanded...

[ravenwoodglass]

Is she selling the pictures or is the site selling copies and enlargements of them? I ran into something similar when my family went to an aunts 90th birthday. I am not able to travel so I asked for lots of pictures. Almost everyone used a digital camera and they uploaded the pictures onto a photo site so that others could purchase the prints they wanted. I haven't much money so I was not a happy camper about it. After I pitched a fit about it, my husband said they did it that way so that people could get copies of only the shots they wanted and that the folks that took the shots couldn't afford to get copies of everything for everyone who wanted one so that was the way they went with it. I am kind of old fashioned and like pictures I can hold not just ones to look at on my computer. He did manage to get a nice group shot for the family wall on real photo paper so I stopped fussing but I am still disappointed and my film camera will be going with them for the kids college graduations this year.

Anyway before you get upset with this freind check and make sure this is not what she did. She may not be making any profit off these pictures she may just be trying to share them in a way that does not break the bank.

[angel-jd1]

What a HIEFER!!!

I'd casually drop some comment about intellectual property rights. The photo set-ups were the photographers vision therefore HIS work, not this hiefers.

If she wasn't out to make a buck then she would have handed over a photo celiac disease without any hesitation.

People like this are soooo annoying.

Good luck!!

-Jessica

[LKelly8]

I'm thinking along the same lines as Raven. Is it this woman's personal website? Or a photo-share site like Snapfish or Picasa? If it's a photo share site the monies go to the website, not her.

[NicoleAJ]

That is really aweful that she's trying to make a profit from the photos. The fact that the pictures are between $1 and $50 means that she is, in fact, trying to make a profiit from them. I constantly have friends send me pictures on kodak, snapfish, or O photo.com, and usually one has to pay $.30 or so for a single print, but it doesn't sound like this is what she is doing at all. What a conniving person.

[2kids4me]

I agree that what she did was incredibly thoughtless and had ulterior motives. But when all is said and done - she does have the "rights" to any photos she took - regardless of who set the lights up etc.

I write "on the side" and if I take picture myself, I sign a waiver that states that - if someone else takes the picture - all I have to do is assign credit to the person on a copyright form.

Legally she has done nothing wrong - BUT morally she did

We have photograper in town , he related that this is common at weddings. He asserts himself if camera snappers are butting in to a shot he has set up; but, as he said if they take a shot - "what are you going to do?". As a professional he will not make a big deal about it and add commotion to someone's wedding day. He stated it very well - they can snap all the pictures they want - AFTER I am done. Many have no clue on lighting or positioning so their shots won't be as good as the professional anyway.

This friend has shown her true colors - I agree with Ursula on this one. Its done and over - get the poses you want from the professional. If you make huge dela nd confront her etc - then you are coming down to her level ...then the "story" will become about how confronational you are...and on and on...

Rejoice in the wedding. Focus on the road ahead.

Those caught looking in the rear view mirror all the time - can get run off the road....

[jenvan]

Wow Lynne, more drama! That is pretty shocking. I hope it gets resolved... And whever they came from--hope there are lots of beautiful ones of you ) (Still can't wait to see a few)

[tiredofdoctors]

She posted these on "smugmug" . . . the bad ones, I believe, you can simply download. The good ones, however, have her logo across the front (more like a foreground watermark), and are noted "available for purchase". I do see that at the top of the smugmug website, I know ONE, but I think TWO of the pictures for their logo are her daughter.

My daughter won't tell this woman anything. She is her "friend" -- spent much of her honeymoon with she and her family. This woman is ACTUALLY the MOTHER of a friend of Brandon's -- she's in her 50's. Ashley will think that she has done nothing wrong . . . .

[tiredofdoctors]

Found out . . . . it is her site -- I guess she pays for it, because you go to jsphotography.smugmug. . . .

She has the site for their wedding locked . . . if any of you guys want to see it , PM me and I'll give you the password.

[tracey*]

Hi Lynne, I'm a wedding photographer myself so I know a bit how photographers might work

Did she sign ANYTHING before the wedding or on the day of the wedding? What was discussed about after the wedding and what she was going to do with these photos?

smugmug is commonly used to set up a preview or a portfolio of wedding photographs - and pricing is set so that if anyone (from the bride herself, to a wedding guest) wanted a print - they can get it quickly and easily direct from smugmug. Like me, the photographer probably doesn't have a darkroom set up or a reliable professional print lab that will do this service for her cheaply and fast. It's not a con at all, it's just the way digital photography is going these days.

Speak your mind on the matter directly to the photographer first. I definately understand the surprise and shock of seeing $$ next to your photos, but it's always best to consult with the photographer directly as 1 bad review can ruin her entire business and reputation.

If the folder is locked, then that's even better for YOU because it will allow control as to who is seeing these photos and who is buying them.

As for her not being the one who set up lighting etc - that really should be up to the official photographer of the day to judge. If it was a problem, they would of asked everyone to hold off taking photos - and would of spoken to the bride & groom to arrange someone to let the guests know what was going on and to not taking photos. Or even better, the guests could of been asked to wait at a different location away from these formal set ups.

IMO, the 'smugmug' friend photographer hasn't done anything wrong - but she should of let you know beforehand the process after the wedding day and how photos & prints were going to be handled. That's my main problem.

[tiredofdoctors]

Hi tracey* --

This woman's intentions were made very clear prior to the wedding . . . she was taking pictures as a gift to Ashley and Mark. She does a LOT of scrapbooking, she makes her own cards, and she told Ashley and Mark that they "could guess what their wedding gift was going to be". That was at the rehearsal dinner. If she made any other agreements with Ashley, I was unaware of it. Not ONCE during the entire time that she was doing this did she make mention that her intent was to sell these. That is also the biggest problem I have with what she did.

I was so embarrassed when I had to call the photographer which we had hired to do the wedding -- formally, contractually -- all done in the "traditional" manner in which you hire a photographer. I was concerned that we had broken the contract, and I also wanted him to know that I wouldn't set him up or sabotage him that way. We are talking about this man's living. He spent an entire day doing what he does to support his family. To have someone sabotage that by "slithering" in using the pretense of a gift and of friendship is rude, at minimum, but also HIGHLY unethical. I honestly thought that this woman's intentions were solely to photograph shots for Ashley and Mark as a friend. Really, I'm appalled.

ADDENDUM: For those of you who know me, you also know that I can't keep my mouth shut, particularly when it comes to my daughter and her skewed view of the world. I e-mailed her and first asked her questions with regard to her knowledge of what was going to happen, then other questions which were intended just to get her thinking. I asked her if the contracted photographer knew that Kim was going to be selling these pictures. Then I told her that if she knew that Kim was going to be selling these pictures, and she DIDN'T inform the photographer with whom we contracted, at minimum she owed him a HUGE apology. I told her that I was glad that this woman took beautiful pictures of her, and I felt secure that she was going to give them to her. I told her that I certainly hoped that she didn't PURCHASE any pictures from her, because she was contracted with the original photographer. She'll probably send a nasty e-mail back to me, but heck, I'm used to that!

[tracey*]

Hi Lynne,

Fair enough

I would ask her to remove all photographs from the smugmug site immediately - or at least move the photos to an online album site where you CAN'T purchase photos (and therefore she can't make money on it).

She might of just picked smugmug first and uploaded everything not thinking what would happen next. (She might of wanted to try their printing facility for herself?) There are places like Open Original Shared Link where photos can be uploaded but not bought.

I hope it all works out in the end.

[tiredofdoctors]

Thanks tracey . . . .

My daughter called me today -- NOT very happy with either me OR my sister!! I think one of her statements was something to the effect of "I can't believe that you two can get something so wrong . . . " Not exactly sure, because I was going to let her blow off some steam before I REALLY started listening!

Her version of the story is this . . . . this friend of hers wanted to try posting to Smugmug and asked her if she would let her do it for "practice". She already has two or three others on there, but I just went along with it. My daughter said that this woman was going to give Ashley the PICTURES, and give all of us (me, my sister, my parents) a celiac disease of the pictures. Of course, Ashley THEN went on to say that this woman didn't get ALL the shots that the photographer got -- when I challenged her and said, "I saw her snapping at about all of them", she then followed with "she had to use a wide-angled lens and she had to take the pictures at awkward angles because she didn't want to get in the photographer's way." My thought was "so DID she or DIDN'T she get the shots? I'm confused" -- kept that to myself, as well.

Then, of course, the statement that got my goat: "I don't even think I'm going to ORDER my pictures from him." I did not handle that part well. I said, "This is the person that we contracted with to photograph your wedding. He spent his ENTIRE morning afternoon and part of his evening at our beckon call." She said, "We paid him $1,000 for the proofs . . . and I STILL haven't gotten them. HE has broken the contract. He said that he would have them to us in 5 weeks. I keep calling him, and he keeps saying he has just been so busy. Such-and-such already has the pictures edited and POSTED." I said, "Well, such-and-such took pictures of ONE wedding, and hasn't posted anything else. This man has been swamped for the entire months of June, July and August." We sort of did the ping-pong thing, she told me that the reason her wedding site was locked was so that only the people she WANTED accessing the site would be able to do so . . . but THEN said that the official photographer has each individual wedding locked on his website as well. Quite the confusing conversation.

Of course, my sister, who is the feistier of the two of us, had to make a parting shot to my daughter: "Tell her when she makes my celiac disease that she can just put the pictures of you, you and Mark and our family on mine. I don't care about having pictures of those other people."

So, I don't know if I really got any answers, but at least I think I planted some additional seeds of what is right and what is ethical in my daughter -- even at age 20! In some ways she wants to be so grown up, but in some ways, she is just so very naive. Sometimes an endearing quality, sometimes a real pain to deal with . . . .

[tracey*]

Aw Lynne, I just sent you a private message but I'll reply again here

I think what it comes down to is

- there is an obligation and contract to the professional photographer

- there is no obligation and contract with the other photographer

5 weeks is not a lot of time to get professional wedding photographs done in most cases. In most cases, professional photographers are working 2-3 weddings a week, sometimes alot more! In most cases, it takes 6-12 months to get it all finished in the end.

Yes, the professional photographer should have something done for you if he has told you a DEFINATE time but you have to appreciate that they want to spend time on your photographs - not just churn them out like a butter factory. And of course the other photographer has the photos posted online already, she's not a working photographer and has plenty of time to do it.

Oh boy, feel free to let off steam with me. I can take it!!!