Photographer vs. DJ

Winder · 09-04-2015, 06:16 AM

DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers After Shooting and Sharing Wedding Photos

mohb · 09-04-2015, 06:46 AM

As long as the photographer gets paid what difference does it make or are they relying on 'after sales' to rake in the money?

**logomancer** · 09-04-2015, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by mohb

As long as the photographer gets paid what difference does it make or are they relying on 'after sales' to rake in the money?

Seriously. If someone in the wedding party or a friend of the bride or groom showed up with a K-50 or a T3i or a D3300, would the photographer have conniptions? This kerfuffle is highly irrational.

pathdoc · 09-04-2015, 08:35 AM

I think the DJ is being disingenuous at best. One or two promo shots? Fine. I think he was well within his rights to do that, regardless of what the pro-photog might have said. But putting up a gallery of TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional.

The impression the article gives me is that he did the wrong thing and knows it, and he's trying for emotion-based acquittal in the court of public appeal.

ppppsssstttt · 09-04-2015, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional.

I'd like to see a photographer bring a boombox to the DJ's next event to set the mood for his/her photos.

mohb · 09-04-2015, 09:23 AM

Why do they (the photographers) describe themselves as "Wedding vendors"?

vonBaloney · 09-04-2015, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by mohb

Why do they (the photographers) describe themselves as "Wedding vendors"?

Pretty standard. Weddings are an industry. Photographers, caterers, musicians, DJs, event planners, etc are all "wedding vendors" -- people and companies that provide the services that go into weddings. I know one wedding photographer that dislikes being referred to as a "vendor" but can't seem to get away from it...

stevebrot · 09-04-2015, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by logomancer

Seriously. If someone in the wedding party or a friend of the bride or groom showed up with a K-50 or a T3i or a D3300, would the photographer have conniptions? This kerfuffle is highly irrational.

I showed up at my daughter's rehearsal, wedding, and reception with a K-3 and a bag of appropriate lenses. I did not shoot during the ceremony (bad form for a participant), but I did manage a couple hundred exposures both before and after. The better ones I posted as a private gallery on Flickr and gave my daughter the link to share. Several made their way to Facebook. At some point, after the pro has had a chance to make most of their money, I may make a few of the better Flickr images public.

It was all cool with the pro. From what I have seen, we shot completely different stuff. Go figure

Steve

Winder · 09-04-2015, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

I think the DJ is being disingenuous at best. One or two promo shots? Fine. I think he was well within his rights to do that, regardless of what the pro-photog might have said. But putting up a gallery of TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional.

The impression the article gives me is that he did the wrong thing and knows it, and he's trying for emotion-based acquittal in the court of public appeal.

I don't think he did anything wrong.

The photographer was the only commercial photographer there, and the contract the photographer holds is with the Bride and Groom. If the photographer can demonstrate standing (financial harm) then he can seek recourse from the other party in the contract (the bride and groom). If the photographer was going to enforce the contract she should have done it at the beginning and approached the bride and groom about the issue. The photographer should have had the Bride/Groom or wedding coordinator approach the DJ and explain that he was not allowed to take pictures at the event due to contractual obligations. This is the only real window that the photographer has to enforce this.

The DJ has no contract with the Photographer. His only obligation is to the Bride & Groom.

The quantity of images in the gallery isn't important. He either has a right to take pictures or he doesn't.

The problem is that apparently the DJ is a really good photographer. If the images captured by the DJ sucked or were just average, the professional photographer wouldn't care. Actually the professional photographer loves it when idiots with cameras show up and churn out thousands of crappy images because it makes it easier to justify you price. You point to the crappy photos and say "see this is why you hired a professional". If the DJ sucked the photographer would have never brought the issue up after the fact. The problem appears to be that the photographer sucked and got embarrassed by the quality of work by the DJ.

Murfy · 09-04-2015, 04:35 PM

I don't see the issue, they didn't not pay the hired photographer because the dj photos were better. And the dj did his job. Maybe the dj should be a wedding photographer and switch careers. He filled the contract with bride and groom and so did the photographer. If a friend showed up and took photos that were better, would she ask the friend to take them down?

what does she deem professional equipment anyway? If a guest showed up with a better camera and lens would she say they weren't allowed to take photos because they happened to have the money to afford 'professional' equipment. It's not like pro photographers can buy special equipment that is not available to non-professionals.

BrianR · 09-04-2015, 05:44 PM - **1 Like**

From the PetaPixel article:

"Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge."

First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc.

Second, I'm pleased to see marriages with inanimate objects are now legal. Excuse me, my Electrolux is calling.

**sholtzma** · 09-04-2015, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

From the PetaPixel article:

"Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge."

First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc.

Second, I'm pleased to see marriages with inanimate objects are now legal. Excuse me, my Electrolux is calling.

LOL. Yes, it appears that the photographer wanted a clean sweep of the sold photos.

Winder · 09-05-2015, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by sholtzma

LOL. Yes, it appears that the photographer wanted a clean sweep of the sold photos.

She did have a "clean seep of the sold photos". The DJ gave this away as a gift.

stevebrot · 09-06-2015, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Winder

She did have a "clean seep of the sold photos". The DJ gave this away as a gift.

Market dilution...

Steve

Winder · 09-06-2015, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

From the PetaPixel article:

"Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge."

First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc.

My guess is he shot from where he setup his equipment and the vast majority of his shots would be of the dance floor. Its possible the DJ shadowed the photographer during the wedding, but that would be surprising.

I have actually scene a DJ setup like a "photo-booth" with two softboxes flanking his table. People would dance into the zone he taped off on the floor and he would snap a shot. Its a lot of fun for the dancers, but covers only one small part of the wedding reception. He was running a Fuji X100 withe leaf shutter he could freeze everything. He could easily hit 500 pictures in a night.

09-04-2015, 06:16 AM	#1
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Photographer vs. DJ DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers After Shooting and Sharing Wedding Photos

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
elk vs. photographer	Beachnutt	General Talk	8	11-20-2013 11:33 AM
Photographer meets Def Jam exec through Instagram, becomes Ne-Yo's photographer	EarlVonTapia	Photographic Industry and Professionals	4	05-31-2013 02:39 PM
Legendary DJ Pete Fornatale dies	luftfluss	General Talk	4	04-27-2012 09:12 AM
Uncle Bob vs. A Professional Wedding Photographer	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	43	09-13-2011 12:16 AM
Pentax K20D vs Nikon D700 at The Online Photographer	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	19	12-13-2008 06:39 AM

09-04-2015, 06:46 AM	#2
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	As long as the photographer gets paid what difference does it make or are they relying on 'after sales' to rake in the money?

09-04-2015, 08:00 AM	#3
logomancer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery Posts: 107	Originally posted by mohb As long as the photographer gets paid what difference does it make or are they relying on 'after sales' to rake in the money? Seriously. If someone in the wedding party or a friend of the bride or groom showed up with a K-50 or a T3i or a D3300, would the photographer have conniptions? This kerfuffle is highly irrational.

09-04-2015, 08:35 AM	#4
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	I think the DJ is being disingenuous at best. One or two promo shots? Fine. I think he was well within his rights to do that, regardless of what the pro-photog might have said. But putting up a gallery of TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional. The impression the article gives me is that he did the wrong thing and knows it, and he's trying for emotion-based acquittal in the court of public appeal.

09-04-2015, 08:57 AM	#5
ppppsssstttt Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 152	Originally posted by pathdoc TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional. I'd like to see a photographer bring a boombox to the DJ's next event to set the mood for his/her photos.

09-04-2015, 09:23 AM	#6
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Why do they (the photographers) describe themselves as "Wedding vendors"?

09-04-2015, 09:30 AM	#7
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by mohb Why do they (the photographers) describe themselves as "Wedding vendors"? Pretty standard. Weddings are an industry. Photographers, caterers, musicians, DJs, event planners, etc are all "wedding vendors" -- people and companies that provide the services that go into weddings. I know one wedding photographer that dislikes being referred to as a "vendor" but can't seem to get away from it...

09-04-2015, 09:49 AM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by logomancer Seriously. If someone in the wedding party or a friend of the bride or groom showed up with a K-50 or a T3i or a D3300, would the photographer have conniptions? This kerfuffle is highly irrational. I showed up at my daughter's rehearsal, wedding, and reception with a K-3 and a bag of appropriate lenses. I did not shoot during the ceremony (bad form for a participant), but I did manage a couple hundred exposures both before and after. The better ones I posted as a private gallery on Flickr and gave my daughter the link to share. Several made their way to Facebook. At some point, after the pro has had a chance to make most of their money, I may make a few of the better Flickr images public. It was all cool with the pro. From what I have seen, we shot completely different stuff. Go figure Steve

09-04-2015, 12:04 PM	#9
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by pathdoc I think the DJ is being disingenuous at best. One or two promo shots? Fine. I think he was well within his rights to do that, regardless of what the pro-photog might have said. But putting up a gallery of TWO DOZEN? No. That's unprofessional. The impression the article gives me is that he did the wrong thing and knows it, and he's trying for emotion-based acquittal in the court of public appeal. I don't think he did anything wrong. The photographer was the only commercial photographer there, and the contract the photographer holds is with the Bride and Groom. If the photographer can demonstrate standing (financial harm) then he can seek recourse from the other party in the contract (the bride and groom). If the photographer was going to enforce the contract she should have done it at the beginning and approached the bride and groom about the issue. The photographer should have had the Bride/Groom or wedding coordinator approach the DJ and explain that he was not allowed to take pictures at the event due to contractual obligations. This is the only real window that the photographer has to enforce this. The DJ has no contract with the Photographer. His only obligation is to the Bride & Groom. The quantity of images in the gallery isn't important. He either has a right to take pictures or he doesn't. The problem is that apparently the DJ is a really good photographer. If the images captured by the DJ sucked or were just average, the professional photographer wouldn't care. Actually the professional photographer loves it when idiots with cameras show up and churn out thousands of crappy images because it makes it easier to justify you price. You point to the crappy photos and say "see this is why you hired a professional". If the DJ sucked the photographer would have never brought the issue up after the fact. The problem appears to be that the photographer sucked and got embarrassed by the quality of work by the DJ.

09-04-2015, 04:35 PM	#10
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	I don't see the issue, they didn't not pay the hired photographer because the dj photos were better. And the dj did his job. Maybe the dj should be a wedding photographer and switch careers. He filled the contract with bride and groom and so did the photographer. If a friend showed up and took photos that were better, would she ask the friend to take them down? what does she deem professional equipment anyway? If a guest showed up with a better camera and lens would she say they weren't allowed to take photos because they happened to have the money to afford 'professional' equipment. It's not like pro photographers can buy special equipment that is not available to non-professionals.

09-04-2015, 05:44 PM - 1 Like	#11
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	From the PetaPixel article: "Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge." First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc. Second, I'm pleased to see marriages with inanimate objects are now legal. Excuse me, my Electrolux is calling.

09-04-2015, 07:32 PM	#12
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043	Originally posted by BrianR From the PetaPixel article: "Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge." First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc. Second, I'm pleased to see marriages with inanimate objects are now legal. Excuse me, my Electrolux is calling. LOL. Yes, it appears that the photographer wanted a clean sweep of the sold photos.

09-05-2015, 05:36 PM	#13
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by sholtzma LOL. Yes, it appears that the photographer wanted a clean sweep of the sold photos. She did have a "clean seep of the sold photos". The DJ gave this away as a gift.

09-06-2015, 11:39 AM	#14
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Winder She did have a "clean seep of the sold photos". The DJ gave this away as a gift. Market dilution... Steve

09-06-2015, 02:02 PM	#15
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617 Original Poster	Originally posted by BrianR From the PetaPixel article: "Rochon says he shared 232 photos he captured from his DJ station as a gift to the bride and broom with the couple’s full knowledge." First, that's an awful lot of photos for a DJ to take for supposedly promotional purposes. It's not hard to imagine he was in the way of the hired photographer (as they claimed) and confusing guests during posing, etc. My guess is he shot from where he setup his equipment and the vast majority of his shots would be of the dance floor. Its possible the DJ shadowed the photographer during the wedding, but that would be surprising. I have actually scene a DJ setup like a "photo-booth" with two softboxes flanking his table. People would dance into the zone he taped off on the floor and he would snap a shot. Its a lot of fun for the dancers, but covers only one small part of the wedding reception. He was running a Fuji X100 withe leaf shutter he could freeze everything. He could easily hit 500 pictures in a night.