Amateur wedding 'tog got in the way!

[kiwi]

That's all very well Brian, but be aware that i believe based on the standard contracts that i have access to that most professional photographers will have in their standard contract a clause saying that interference by guests with cameras can cause a breach of contract which could be a cause for cancellation and non performance....now I'm sure you wouldn't do anything to lead it to that but certainly something to be aware of if push comes to shove.

[Scotty72]

That's all very well Brian, but be aware that i believe based on the standard contracts that i have access to that most professional photographers will have in their standard contract a clause saying that interference by guests with cameras can cause a breach of contract which could be a cause for cancellation and non performance....now I'm sure you wouldn't do anything to lead it to that but certainly something to be aware of if push comes to shove.

Kiwi,

That may well be so but, the guests sign nothing; therefore your (the hypothetical you) contract cannot be enforced on them. So, the couple may well be able to asks guests to stay out of your way - or don't show but, you have no right of enforcement over guests behavior (or lack of it).

However, if guests make it unreasonably difficult for you, I guess they should be made to accept a reduced level of product but, if that means a dummy spit and the 'tog runs off - well that is hardly very professional, is it?

Scotty

[kiwi]

As you say the contract is between the couple and the photographer, but an extreme scenario could see the pro tog cancel the contract. Id hope any professional or guest would avoid that recourse, but never the less the contract terms are there for a reason I guess

[Scotty72]

As you say the contract is between the couple and the photographer, but an extreme scenario could see the pro tog cancel the contract. Id hope any professional or guest would avoid that recourse, but never the less the contract terms are there for a reason I guess

If, by cancel the contract, you mean a 'tog simply walks out with his bat & ball then, that would be unprofessional (not to mention extremely whimpy) - unless of course the interference of others was posing some safety hazard.

Absolutely, the hirers must be aware that shot quality will suffer if uncle Fred keeps sticking his camera in your shot or getting in your way but, to simply spit the dummy and walk out: that would be outrageous.

Gee! How good would it be if I could walk out every time my students (or their damned parents ) got in the way of me doing my job? Yes please!

Scotty

[kiwi]

No, I didn't suggest that. I can't imagine anyone doing that unless things got really out of control so you couldn't actually take photos, could it ?

[campo]

Kiwi,
...So, the couple may well be able to asks guests to stay out of your way...

My contract states something along the lines of "if guests interfere, then the couple accepts that this may adversely impact the quality of my work. It is the couple's responsibility to ensure guests don't interfere."

I've not had too many issues with guests, in fact the only real problem i had was a celebrants wife standing in front of me and the videographer during the certificate signing. We asked her to move and she outright refused, even after I told her i'd be happy to send her one of my images.

[Longshots]

Scotty

To respond to your comments in particular. While I no longer shoot weddings myself, I have a similar clause. Its a standard. It has nothing to do with taking bat and balls, or cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. And in particular it doesnt seem to long ago, that you were needing help about images that were used by your school when you hadnt wanted them to be used, and you sought advice from Photographers. So its probably more productive to remove the hint of a "them and us" approach. The reason most people have this type of clause is because they have been commissioned or employed to provide a service. And if something stops them from providing that service, then they need some business protection to explain themselves. That would be standard for many services. For instance you are employed, I recall to teach children, what you're not employment does not cover, (again if I recall correctly) is to take and provide pictures. And that is within your terms and conditions of your contract of employment.

As a teacher, what do you do when you are probably reasonably regularly faced with a child who simply will not comply with the rules and regulations of the school. I believe that your schools last resort is to exclude that child ? Its a situation which is simply not workable for either party.

So back to the wedding. The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access. So in general its the couple's responsibility, often accomplished by the best man to explain to the guests what the agreed protocol is - ie most photographers would want to set up their shots first, and then encourage the guests to go for it. And that would be explained and one hopes that the photographer would also gently make that known as well. I know I would always do that, and never had a problem. The real trouble happens when the couple who may be expecting that one particular action shot, which will probably have been even discussed well before the event, and a guest unintentionally gets in the way, and that shot is missed. Its at that point, having a clause in your contract is the most important about client cooperation.

So I'd agree with Campo entirely.

And if some "dammed parents" (sorry but the irony here made me laugh, as I have many friends and family who are teachers) were in your classroom, or in a classroom environment (like an excursion), and got in your way or made it difficult to teach, I think you would be happy to have a clause in your contract, which would enable you to go up to them and quietly and politely remind them that you have a role to play, a task to complete, and that their actions were hindering your work. Lets be honest here, you would appreciate that wouldnt you ?

[bb45pz]

The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access.

I know this is probably slightly out of context, but this is more or less why I don't bother taking my camera to weddings. To get decent shots you need the right access and if the couple has a pro then quite often you won't be able to get that access.

IMO, enjoy the day and don't take your camera unless you're the #1 or the #1's second shooter.

[Scotty72]

Scotty

To respond to your comments in particular. While I no longer shoot weddings myself, I have a similar clause. Its a standard. It has nothing to do with taking bat and balls, or cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Umm yes, it does. Previous posters have said that guest interference would be grounds for cancellation of contract. To me: if you (the hypothetical you) are in the middle of performing a service, and a behaviour of a third party prompts you to cancel that service - it seems to me as though you are threatening to walk out. Not-withstanding this, I asked Kiwi if that is what he meant and he replied that he did not - unless the situation got way outta control (we seem to agree).

So, to wave the contract and say, "I got crap pics because your guests kept interfering; here are the photos of them standing in the way - but your problem - not my fault.". That seems fair.

But, to wave the contract and say, "Your guests keep getting in the way so, I am leaving." That, to me, seems outrageous and a dereliction of what you have been hired to attempt to do. Again, if a threat surfaces eg. a fist fight or verbal abuse etc. That would be grounds to split.

It seems that if you agree with that, there is no us & them: there is only us.

And in particular it doesnt seem to long ago, that you were needing help about images that were used by your school when you hadnt wanted them to be used, and you sought advice from Photographers.

A totally different issue. This was about my property being stolen, not me not liking my work environnent but, if you'd like me to start up about the 3rd world conditions that most public school teachers are forced to endure (filthy toilets, workspaces that do not comply with OH&S standards - as the NSW govt has exempted the DET, same for fire and egress regulations etc, etc.), I'm happy to give you a three hour lecture.

So its probably more productive to remove the hint of a "them and us" approach. The reason most people have this type of clause is because they have been commissioned or employed to provide a service. And if something stops them from providing that service, then they need some business protection to explain themselves. That would be standard for many services.

And, that is fair enough but, that shouldn't allow the 'tog to march out on a whim.

For instance you are employed, I recall to teach children, what you're not employment does not cover, (again if I recall correctly) is to take and provide pictures. And that is within your terms and conditions of your contract of employment.

I'm sorry, your wording has me at a loss.

As a teacher, what do you do when you are probably reasonably regularly faced with a child who simply will not comply with the rules and regulations of the school. I believe that your schools last resort is to exclude that child ? Its a situation which is simply not workable for either party.

WRONG!

A school never has the right to exclude a child (I'm talking about NSW public). Exclusions can only be by the Minister and therefore, becomes very political.

I have VERY few rights to remove a child from my class. I may only do it if a child becomes a threat. Even then, I am responsible for that child until s/he is in the care of another teacher. So, if I say, "Go to the principal." and the child, on the way, trips, self-harms, gets into a fight, runs away, gets abducted by aliens etc., I'm responsible. We even have to be careful of moving them within the classroom: standing them nose to the corner (remember that) is now considered abuse, as is hands on heads etc (physical torture); even moving them away from their friends is a risk as you can be accused of socially isolating them.

So, only in the most extreme circumstances can I even think of getting rid of a kid - and even then, it's usually not worth all the arse covering I'd have to do.

So back to the wedding. The couple have been given a good explanation by their paid or professional photographer, that to "get the right shots" they need unimpeded access. So in general its the couple's responsibility, often accomplished by the best man to explain to the guests what the agreed protocol is - ie most photographers would want to set up their shots first, and then encourage the guests to go for it. And that would be explained and one hopes that the photographer would also gently make that known as well. I know I would always do that, and never had a problem. The real trouble happens when the couple who may be expecting that one particular action shot, which will probably have been even discussed well before the event, and a guest unintentionally gets in the way, and that shot is missed. Its at that point, having a clause in your contract is the most important about client cooperation.

No issue there.

So I'd agree with Campo entirely.

And if some "dammed parents" (sorry but the irony here made me laugh, as I have many friends and family who are teachers) were in your classroom, or in a classroom environment (like an excursion), and got in your way or made it difficult to teach, I think you would be happy to have a clause in your contract, which would enable you to go up to them and quietly and politely remind them that you have a role to play, a task to complete, and that their actions were hindering your work. Lets be honest here, you would appreciate that wouldnt you ?

I'd love it but, it'll never happen. You think brides can be unreasonable... you ain't seen nothing yet? Parents?????

Each of these are actual things parents have said to me over the years.

"My child needs special help because she is so special and I want her to have an advantage."
"My child was not at fault, he threw the garbage can at the other kid's head is self-defence - (5 times)."
"My girl can't do the test today because it's her period - (for the 12th time this month)."
"Why the F###ing hell can't you get my F###ing child to stop swearing?"
"Well, I do think it is reasonable that I ring you at work 3 times a day to ask about my child."
"You're a public servant; my taxes pay your salary; you work for me."
"Why can't my kid listen to her iPod or make phone calls in class? It helps her to concentrate."

and, my favourite: when on an excursion, we stopped at the public toilets outside Circular Quay (Sydney city) railway station. One 15 year old girl opened the toilet cubical door and interrupted 2 homosexual men (yes, in the ladies) 'going at it'. The men, punched her to the ground then fled. The girl was superficially injured but understandably in a bit of shock. That afternoon, the girl's angry parents came to the school looking for someone to blame and actually said to me (with an accusatory tone),

"Why didn't you go in with [his daughter] to make sure it was safe?"

I then pointed out the obvious;

"I'm a man. If I did [go into a toilet with your 15 yo girl], we'd be having a whole different conversation. Probably through the bars at the police lock-up."

That appeal to common sense only incensed the strange man.

And all I am allowed to say is

"Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir... I think you'll have to speak to the principal about that."



Bridezillas, ppffftt, after some parents, I'd eat those pussy cats for breakfast.

Scotty

[Longshots]

I think the simplest way I can respond to all of your points Scotty is to say that looking back to the original topic, no half decent photographer is going to walk out on a wedding. I've personally never heard of that. But to explain that just because someone has a clause in their terms and conditions that they should have free access isnt a case of if they dont they'll throw a tantrum, but simply because they are looking at achieving the best from the event - ie a case of common sense.

Last resorts are rare if ever used.

This situation that the OP raised, strikes me that communication failed by virtually all parties, especially the OP.

My reference to your earlier situation about images used incorrectly or illegaly, was to refer to that same need for terms and conditions.

And thanks I'm well aware of teachers crap conditions, my partner works in the education system, and my mother was also a teacher for a couple of decades

And just a small point, but I was meant to use an analogy that as a last resort a school can expel a child from a school. And I'm not sure if I garbled that part of my message, but a quick check confirms what I mean to say, and that is a school principal can expel a student from a school as a last resort. The relevant Minister is the only one who can expel a child entirely from the school system - reference:

http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/studen.../behaviour.php

And yes, you and I are in total agreement on the issue of parents and brides - I've always completely enjoyed the interactions between myself, the brides and guests, its never them that have been the issue. Its virtually always been the parents/mother of the brides that led me to leave the wedding market

[Scotty72]

A principal may, with departmental permission (good luck getting that), EXPEL a student only after the principal has found an alternative 'appropriate' place for the student within the same area. So, the 'principal A' must 1) get the department to approve and 2) find a 'principal B' in a nearby equivalent school to agree to take a troublemaker that 'principal A' wants to get rid of. If you were 'principal B', would you agree? This is almost always used as a mechanism to swap the bad eggs - "I'll take yours if you take mine."

But, only the Minister can EXCLUDE (total banning from the system) and you are literally more likely to win lotto than have this done to you.

[zollo]

many people reckon their iphone can rival a high end dslr, so why o why, as a guest, bring along big white lenses. the bloke is a tool.

[sapook]

there's been some really interesting thoughts on this topic... and i agree with a lot of what's been said.

My contract states something along the lines of "if guests interfere, then the couple accepts that this may adversely impact the quality of my work. It is the couple's responsibility to ensure guests don't interfere."

i have something along these lines also in my contracts i have, a lot of it can't be enforced, but as its been mentioned i think communication is the key.

my last wedding resulted in a friend of the bride's who tagged along to the formal shots session i was doing. now usually i'm more than happy for people to tag along if they want, but what annoyed me was that he was taking the same shots over my shoulder which i was taking after i had posed the bride and the groom. i think it just came down to communication - if he asked whether he could shoot at the same time i probably would have given him a chance to shoot between shots, but to take the exact same shots as what i was taking really got to me. that plus it was a real hot day out in the summer sun.

i politely told him that i couldn't concentrate hearing his shutter constantly going off. i think he got the idea soon after.