No wonder things are a mess with this business!

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
This is another case of us (as a group in general) trying to make things way more complicated than they should be.

If you are a legit, full time (or dare I use the word "professional") photographer, yes of course you will want all this in your contract and have the releases and so on. If you are not, it's simple, DON'T TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE!! I ONLY take pictures of the room and set up now, if the bride and groom are around when I have the camera out, then I might grab them real quick and get a shot. Outside of that, the only thing any of us should be focused on is the job we are actually being paid to do.

By getting pictures directly from the actual photographers, and making it clear up front what you are using them for, you have NO liability in posting them. And news flash, if someone wants a picture taken down (as we have had happen because the couple is already divorced lol)....just take it down.

I will never understand why some people want to complicate things to the point of absurdity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
sightsandsounds said:
This is another case of us (as a group in general) trying to make things way more complicated than they should be.

If you are a legit, full time (or dare I use the word "professional") photographer, yes of course you will want all this in your contract and have the releases and so on. If you are not, it's simple, DON'T TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE!! I ONLY take pictures of the room and set up now, if the bride and groom are around when I have the camera out, then I might grab them real quick and get a shot. Outside of that, the only thing any of us should be focused on is the job we are actually being paid to do.

By getting pictures directly from the actual photographers, and making it clear up front what you are using them for, you have NO liability in posting them. And news flash, if someone wants a picture taken down (as we have had happen because the couple is already divorced lol)....just take it down.

I will never understand why some people want to complicate things to the point of absurdity.
Click to expand...

Nothing complicated about it. If you get a picture of someone from a photographer taken at a private event and do not have a model release you can be sued if you publish it. The photographer can be enjoined in the suit for selling/giving it to you. Very simple.

Another example of misuse: A multi-op here locally who wanted to do DJ, video, and photography used wedding pictures from the wedding of one of his DJs to advertise in a bridal magazine. The photographer who had taken those photos sued and won. Even though it was the DJ himself with his bride in the photos - they were not sold to him for commercial use.
 
Last edited:
ahoustondj said:
I think the advice Bob gave is the best Jeff. The reason being that one never knows when something can occur and if DJs are not given the facts first, then they tend to waiver and the next person after that waivers more etc. All it takes is one incidence for trouble to brew. For instance, someone was supposed to be out shopping or at home/work and their spouse or S/O sees them in a pic at a party having a good time. Then that person ends up in problems. That person in the pic may have the means to retaliate big time against the person who took the picture. Personally I have never seen the need to post a whole bunch of pics with people dancing at an event unless it was a Public Event.
Click to expand...

You're probably right Canute and probably not even at a public event since that definition is up in the air too. I was just speaking from my experience certainly not suggesting anyone follow my method

- - - Updated - - -

rickryan.com said:
This raised a question and I'm curious as to ya'll's take on it. Now keep in mind, I include a model release in my contract. It obviously covers the B&G but not the guests. Not foolproof but not wide open either. The question would be about publishing to a website. My pics are hosted on picasa and displayed from my website by linking. Since the pics aren't actually hosted at my site, then wouldn't that add a layer of difficulty in trying to prove un-authorized use? The plaintiff's lawyer would have to subpoena google for their discovery phase, would they not?
Click to expand...

Makes me glad I live in Canada :rolleyes: The frivolous lawsuits are less :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
rickryan.com said:
This raised a question and I'm curious as to ya'll's take on it. Now keep in mind, I include a model release in my contract. It obviously covers the B&G but not the guests. Not foolproof but not wide open either. The question would be about publishing to a website. My pics are hosted on picasa and displayed from my website by linking. Since the pics aren't actually hosted at my site, then wouldn't that add a layer of difficulty in trying to prove un-authorized use? The plaintiff's lawyer would have to subpoena google for their discovery phase, would they not?
Click to expand...

By and large - the way you get caught is by advertising them. So, it won't matter where they are hosted if that content is under your control or possession. The moment you start promoting them with a link, an email, correspondence, etc. you have done the discovery for them.

Not so, if you are only linking to the same picture hosted on the photographer's website, or the Picasa site of the bride, etc. In that instance the liability for that content ends with them where they have retained possession and control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
To really answer this question about the topic is MIX

hes the only one that has NO idea on how to RUN a business with out a PROPER Business plan
once he has one in place he can then start as a normal Dj .... but thats right hes not normal, he doesnt listen to anyone
that has given him a hand

have a nice day
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back