Uninvited photographer - would it annoy you?

smelltheglove

So yesterday I was shooting a wedding, knowing there would be at least one photography enthusiast, actually that lady has assisted me on weddings before and I enjoy her company so I was looking forward to it. At the church I noticed another relative with all the required equipment, had a chat as I usually do. The church was huge and concentrating on my couple it was towards the end of the mass that I realised there was yet another photographer at the very back of the church, I mean so far you would need 2-300mm to get a decent shot at that length. I didnt think about it too much until....

Walking down the aisle backing up away from the couple I bumped him once or twice, then as I moved further back waiting to get the shot as they walked out the door he was in my shot, sure fine this happens with guests and you allow for it, no bother. Fast forward 5 mns and groom asks had I brought this guy as an assistant, obviously not, turned out nobody knew him so I went over for a chat, discreetly saying I was having a break and was he enjoying the day, 'ah sure Im nothing to do with it really' he says, 'I just live across the road and want to get into wedding photography so thought Id get some practise in', going on to say he works off referrals and was building a portfolio............ Not one to cause a scene, and usually trying to keep problems away from the bride and groom I walked away, groom came to ask me what I found out, I turned around to look where the man was and off he was on his toes out of the place... I think I am still shocked that someone would think they could invite themselves into the church, not actually a public place really, to photography a couples most private day, is ths guy going to use their pictures in a portfolio, I dont know but severe bad form if he does.

So before anyone asks what did I do, why didnt I tell him off etc, firstly I really didnt think, I mean its not something I have ever come across and it was only when I turned thinking the cheeky so and so that I thought I might say something but sure he was already on his toes. After the meal the priest came over to me for a chat, lovely man, we spoke for a few minutes then I thought sure I should let him know, explained what had happened and lets just say he wasnt impressed in the slightest asking for a description and that he would ask around to see if he could find out who this guy was, at least to stop him from doing it again....

Anyway, I thought I would post this out of interest, did I do the right thing / wrong thing in not causing a scene by walking away, what would you guys have done?

Irritating the hell out of me! (Other than that, great wedding, great craic)

hbr

smelltheglove wrote: »

.......Irritating the hell out of me! (Other than that, great wedding, great craic)

I think you behaved well and did all you could do in the circumstances. It
looks like you did scare him off in the end.

I suppose it is up to the church authorities (priest, pp or bishop) to
decide who is allowed into the church to take photographs. They
are not likely to lock the door while the ceremony is taking place.
The uninvited photographer probably felt he was within his rights to
go in and take a few shots.

It was a cheeky thing to do. At the very least, he could have asked
the couple if they would mind and he certainly shouldn't have got
in the way of the professional photographer.

I wonder if he is a boards member? Perhaps he will chip in
and tell us his side of the story?

smelltheglove

Would love to see if he was a boardsie, groom wanted a word or two I tell you, I only went over to stop the groom himself from going over which was his intention intially.

Thanks for the comment, I know myself what priests are like to deal with, they like respect and this imo certainly isnt it, hopefully the images will never be used, at least without permission but sure how will he get that permission if the couple do not know him. A simple hello to the groom outside the church beforehand, do you mind if I take a few shots, I will send them on to you for free etc, would have given firstly permission, better access and possibly even oh theres Rachel over there go say hi if its fine with her its fine with me and the way I am, Id be allowing him stand by me and take pics I was setting up for albums etc, a lot more experience would be gained....

spinandscribble

Thats really awful behaviour, very dodgy but hopefully he got nothing useful from it. No tact or common sense used anyway. I think op you handled it well, he doesn't sound like the type of person to learn from you telling him off as he clearly knew he was in the wrong as he skirted off....

DeVore

wow... thats astonishing!

OP... you are their photographer... not their security! Not your job at all. What do you do if he becomes beligerent or angry with you?

Cant imagine how he thought that was cool.

DeV.

smelltheglove

DeVore wrote: »

wow... thats astonishing!

OP... you are their photographer... not their security! Not your job at all. What do you do if he becomes beligerent or angry with you?

Cant imagine how he thought that was cool.

DeV.

Haha, Im no security fella haha wouldnt be walking down an alley alone having said that, as I often say I would rather sort small issues myself and allow my couples to get on and enjoy themselves rather than upsetting themselves about little things, at this stage they will probably forget all about him as it was a few fleeting moments they spent thinking of him rather than the groom going over and having an argument and changing the atmosphere of the day. We had a fantastic day and that will overshadow his presence completely for the bride and groom but I guess this sort of behaviour is why people get uptight about privacy etc and photography!

mrboswell

First off - well handled. Best leave it to the others to sort out and so long as you can get your shots without too much hassle its better than getting stressed.

Secondly that guy has a neck like a jockey's Bo**ix!
For other wedding photographers its a good heads up so hopefully he won't get in anyones way.

I did my first wedding yesterday and they were friends so it wasn't as stressful as it could have been. I found that yesterday, and most other weddings I've been to, there always family members etc looking to get a few snaps.
I just asked everyone to move aside till I got my shots and then let them get there shots before we changed groups etc. I'll post up a few shots over the next few days.

Fair play to you though I'd find it difficult not to say something to him!!

smelltheglove

Thanks bos, love the jockeys b****** haha. When others are taking picks I tend to have a bit of banter if they are getting in the way, hey are you trying to rob my job etc etc, get them laughing and you can tell them to get their arses out of the way and they will still like you and take no insult!

I have to say, I dont find weddings stressful at all, just sheer enjoyment for me, Friday I was there for about 12hours or so, yesterday I was there 10am and left at 2.30 am, long day but didnt feel like it and I really enjoyed it. Hope yours went well and sure give me a shout if you need any info on sorting the pics out etc.

mrboswell

Many thanks for the offer of help. I'm off for the summer now and the couple are away for 3 weeks so plenty of time to work on the pics, but I def give you a shout if I'm stuck.

It was at the K club so nice venue.

Got the basics as well as candid shots and tried a few different things.
Some good stuff from the we hours as well!!

Freddie59

What a cheek. I've had the opposite from pro photographers while doing the odd wedding video from family, but this really takes the biscuit. A neck and a half if ever there was one.

-Chris-

I think you did that perfectly. You're not the security, but you did say enough to get him to scarper.
Also, if you had caused any kind of a scene, you could be remembered by the guests as the photographer who started some sort of a scene/fight at a wedding.
What you did was professional and appropriate, fair play.

smelltheglove

Thanks all, it wound me up so much that I started thinking, am I over reacting or did I handle that wrong and should I have confronted him about it.

nikonowner

Hiya, I'm new on here, but I must say that you did the right thing, as everyone else has said you are not security.
I did my second official wedding a few weeks ago, but in the past I certainly would not have gone and taken photos at a wedding like that guy did. I certainly would observe a wedding and the photographer to see how the more experienced ones do it, but my camera would stay out of it.

Dont ever feel bad about that experience, you sound like a considerate photographer. Also, think it is really cool that you offered to help one of the other boardies help if the needed it. Nice one..

Keep the faith!:D

CabanSail

I too am amazed by the neck of the guy. Legalities aside, it's just not a morally sound way to act. Even though the event is in the public there must be an implied excpectation of privacy.

Rach, do you have any shots of this guy when he got in your way? Even if they're not perfect a print could assist the clergy of the church to identify him.

hoganpoly

Well handled rachel, although would love to have seen a you-tube clip of you rugby tackling the sob ,i,ve done a handful of weddings to date and its hard enough to get the shot without some plum experimenting for the day..If you need security though i,m your man!!:):):)Cheers..

magicbastarder

as far as i'm concerned, the person best placed to deal with this would be the priest. if he does live across the road from the church, the priest might know him and should have a word with him that his presence is not welcome especially if he's building a portfolio.

3DataModem

its quite possible the priest let him do it... I have heard of this before. As photographer it is nothing to do with you really... tell your fixer (groom or best man presumably) and let them deal with it however they see fit. Public place and all that.

Ficheall

I'm not a photographer, and so my opinion is probably worthless here, but I hate being photographed, and I regard all people taking photographs of me as uninvited - be it when I'm walking down the street, at a party, or whatever, or whether it's a snap-happy friend or a professional, or some random tourist. It's all incredibly invasive.
I hate you all :P

So in answer to the OP's question - yes, it annoys me lots.
But in the instance you mention, the intruder certainly did deserve to be out on his ear - but is it moreso because he's at a private function uninvited, or because he's taking pictures thereof?

challengemaster

At the end of the day, it is a public place.. so we're back to the old arguement of taking someones photo in public. People in public, you can't really expect privacy in a public place.

So I think it's fair to assume from a photography perspective, he was well within his rights to take the photos.

That said, from a personal point of view - yes, I would see it as very disrespectful to crash a wedding and actually get in the way of the hired photographer. I also don't see what right a priest has to kick someone out of a church.

robinph

You don't need permission to enter a church though do you? It's open to the public so unless the doors were locked did he not have as much right as anyone else to be in the church? Just show a bit of respect and keep out of the way of whatever service is happening at the time, but have never heard of church services being ticketed events.

Borderfox

I would agree with Challengemaster regarding public place, you cant make a church private. It is a pita but you know you work around it, if people get in the way I would explain to them the importance of this day to the couple and I have a job to do and see how that sits with them.

magicbastarder

legally speaking, a church is private property. but it is generally open to the public, which would muddy the waters legally i would imagine.

put it this way - if the priest *did* tell this chap that he was not welcome in the church, i suspect the gardai would take the priest's side if he asked them to remove him if called.

the biggest issue i suspect here is that if he is using the photographs he is taking to promote a business, he'd on the wrong side of the line as regards commercial use of the photos?

smelltheglove

Magic has it down to a t there, public access does not mean public property, i.e. shopping centres can deny access and photography take for example Stephens green where permission must be sought to take the like of wedding photos. When it comes to use of the images yes I do think it would be bad form and I just hope they will not be used, fingers crossed.

AH Im getting over it it was just irritating the hell out of me and I wanted to be sure it wasnt me over reacting to something, looks like I wasnt but will keep an eye out for pics anyway and if I ever do come across them I can point the couple in that direction. As for the priest, he had no idea and was disgusted to hear it. Priests can be strange at times and it is often they do not allow photography in a church so I would be surprsed if a priest came to such an agreement with a neighbour.

AnCatDubh

This isn't an unheard of concept - i'm a little surprised that it's new to so many.

My opinion, As the hired photographer it isn't your concern. Get on with what you have to do. If the gorilla ambush photographer gets in your way or is hanging around unduly, ask him to keep out of your way. If they don't respond, politely explain to the groom/bride/bestman that their "other photographer" is compromising their wedding photographs, and continue your job. Best man will most likely deal with it em., rationally.

In any case, leaving inside the church aside, if they're outside when the bride groom as posing outside the church and the take photographs from a safe distance, then you (or the bride/groom/party) won't really be able to do a whole lot (legally).

However, if the groom and groomsmen want to beat 20 shades of s**** out of the guy, then just make sure you get the appropriate candids (they may be of a kind that would want them afterwards )

smelltheglove

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In any case, leaving inside the church aside, if they're outside when the bride groom as posing outside the church and the take photographs from a safe distance, then you (or the bride/groom/party) won't really be able to do a whole lot (legally).

However, if the groom and groomsmen want to beat 20 shades of s**** out of the guy, then just make sure you get the appropriate candids (they may be of a kind that would want them afterwards )

Fully aware of that, outside the church fair enough but what I was dumbfounded by was inside the church....

I know it is not in my job description to sort out details, on Friday it wasnt in my job description to sew a couple of buttons on the page boy suit but sure I did it because it needed to be done and by getting it sorted created less stress than seeing an upset worried bride, last thing I want for a wedding day is my bride crying her eyes out because her new hubbie and his crew are throwing fistcuffs around....

Just because things arent in my job description doesnt mean they should be ignored though for the greater good, i.e. a smoothly flowing day resulting in successful images and good memories combined with an intact reputation as a sociable and friendly photographer.

Tigger

weddings are spefically not allowed to be private events. you have to allow anyone that wants to watch in

donno why don't agree but i found that out while going over the minutae for my own wedding

robinph

Tigger wrote: »

weddings are spefically not allowed to be private events. you have to allow anyone that wants to watch in

donno why don't agree but i found that out while going over the minutae for my own wedding

It will be so that anyone is able to dispute it happening. Can't remember how the line goes, but one of the line the bloke in a dress says before the "I do's" is asking if anyone protests.

smelltheglove

robinph wrote: »

It will be so that anyone is able to dispute it happening. Can't remember how the line goes, but one of the line the bloke in a dress says before the "I do's" is asking if anyone protests.

That line I am pretty sure is actually only legally required in the last 4 yrs and is usually a quiet word in front of the couple rather than a shouting out to all as is seen in the movies. Here it is a declaration that neither of you know of a reason not to marry or have any relation to each other.

eas

This is exactly why I've rigged my flash to double as a taser.

decsramble

As someone who's recently been through the process of picking a wedding photographer I wonder how good a portfolio built up of shots grabbed while crashing a wedding could be?

When we were picking our photographer we went through the websites of dozens in the area and especially blog posts with several shots from the weddings they had shot from start to finish. If I saw a portfolio where there were just church shots (from the same church) or none of the couples in the church were in afters shots I'd get immediately suspicious and wouldn't risk hiring them. Though maybe others are not so picky.

Duddy

If he had asked the bride and groom they might have let him stay on the condition that he gave them the shots for free, would always be nice to have another set! Apart from that he had a bloody cheek!

magicbastarder

Tigger wrote: »

weddings are spefically not allowed to be private events. you have to allow anyone that wants to watch in

even onto private property? what's the source on this?

how come (for example) david and victoria beckham were able to keep people out of their wedding?

pixbyjohn

magicbastarder wrote: »

even onto private property? what's the source on this?

how come (for example) david and victoria beckham were able to keep people out of their wedding?

Kate and William also as well as all the Royals.
JP Mc Manus daughter etc.

Buckz

The requirement to have a wedding in a public church (as opposed to say a chapel in a school or convent or hotel grounds) is a catholic church requirement, other faiths and Civil ceremonies and humanist weddings may have different rules. The wedding is supposedly a public celebration and they are allowed to attend.
The church (building) belongs to the Church (people) but it is the Parish Priest or Bishop who can decide who can enter, and can permit or ban photography certain music etc (there is a Dylan song permitted at Funerals in some Dublin Parishes, but not others). As for the photos if the PP doesn't permit it, he can't show the photos to anyone, regardless of that he cannot suggest that the couple endorse his work unless they confirm they do.
But but but ignore all that photogaphing a strangers' wedding is just weird. and skulking in the back of the church shooting with a long lens is weirder. who should sort it out- the PP should, tell Mr Weird he (like everyone else) is welcome in the Church, but NO photos thanks.)Can you get married by video link? that might be safer...

robinph

Buckz wrote: »

Can you get married by video link? that might be safer...

Yes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077947/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/cosmonaut-worlds-first-space-wedding/

Tigger

magicbastarder wrote: »

even onto private property? what's the source on this?

how come (for example) david and victoria beckham were able to keep people out of their wedding?

Source was the marriage lisence people and yup that's a verb valid point about the beckhams etc

challengemaster

Buckz wrote: »

As for the photos if the PP doesn't permit it, he can't show the photos to anyone

Sorry, but you've just pulled that one from thin air. If I take a photo, I own the photo. I can show it to whoever I bloody well like. He could be Jesus himself and he still couldn't tell me what I can or can not do with photos I've taken.

OldGoat

challengemaster wrote: »

He could be Jesus himself and he still couldn't tell me what I can or can not do with photos I've taken.

I'm expecting to see a bolt of lightening soon, what's the best way to shoot that?


Just to play Devils Advo for a moment, if the church is a public place and if there are already camers being used in the church then isn't it implied that photography is permissable? Granted the photographer may have been crass and tactless in taking the photos and his eventual use of them but he wasn't wrong in taking them. I would have though that we would be standing up for his right to take the shots whereever he wanted to.

magicbastarder

but there's an implication that the wedding guests won't be using the images for commercial purposes.
there's more than an implication that the gatecrasher will.

Tigger

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Kate and William also as well as all the Royals.
JP Mc Manus daughter etc.

i think kate and will got married in england

magicbastarder

you sure about that? the TV footage showed was ambiguous.

randylonghorn

OldGoat wrote: »

Just to play Devils Advo for a moment, if the church is a public place and if there are already camers being used in the church then isn't it implied that photography is permissable?

A church (and indeed its grounds) are private property, albeit private property which normally allow public access.

Obviously, it's taken for granted that a wedding photographer will have permission to take photographs, even if it hasn't been explicitly sought and granted, nor is it likely that anyone will complain too much about wedding guests taking photographs. But because it normally isn't a problem doesn't mean that the owners have ceded their rights. And some churches do in fact have restrictions in place re: photography.

Now, if someone stands on the public pavement outside the church, and takes photographs of what is visible within the bounds, that's a different matter I'm sure.

As smelltheglove pointed out:

smelltheglove wrote: »

Magic has it down to a t there, public access does not mean public property, i.e. shopping centres can deny access and photography take for example Stephens green where permission must be sought to take the like of wedding photos.

challengemaster wrote: »

Sorry, but you've just pulled that one from thin air. If I take a photo, I own the photo. I can show it to whoever I bloody well like. He could be Jesus himself and he still couldn't tell me what I can or can not do with photos I've taken.

You're right, Jesus couldn't interfere, as his name isn't on the title deeds.

On the other hand, the parish priest (or vicar, in the case of CofI) as the agent of the trustees / owners, would have rather more legal standing in the matter.

challengemaster

randylonghorn wrote: »

You're right, Jesus couldn't interfere, as his name isn't on the title deeds.

On the other hand, the parish priest (or vicar, in the case of CofI) as the agent of the trustees / owners, would have rather more legal standing in the matter.

No, they wouldn't. They can tell you to stop taking photos, but they have no say over any photo you have taken. Any photo you take, you own. That's all there is to it. Nobody else can dictate what you do with that photo (commercial stuff aside, for now) be they a trustee, owner, member of the gardaí, or the president herself. My point being, no matter what the situation (again, not commercially), nobody else has any legal standing regards whats done with a photo they do not own

Fionn

Was once a guest at a wedding where the priest stopped the ceremony because someone (not me ) took a flash photograph.
It was one of those moments that was so soo uncomfortable he waited an interminable long time to compose himself and continue, the person was absolutely mortified!

I was at a wedding recently where the priest directed the attention of the congretation to two people one, the photographer and the other me - doing the video and requested that no one else take photographs or move about during the main part of the ceremony, as it's very distracting to all involved and can ruin the ceremony, nearly all complied, i did notice a few sneaky shots being taken ok but no flashes going off, I have to say it makes for a much nicer and relaxed affair.

I remember covering a civil ceremony where the registrar asked that i dont photograph the actual register as it's a legal document etc. privacy and all that! so we posed it after the actual one was taken away.

Perhaps churches and other venues should have some sort of conditions drawn up to prevent this sort of behavour. I'm sure the bridal party were'nt impressed.

magicbastarder

challengemaster wrote: »

Nobody else can dictate what you do with that photo (commercial stuff aside, for now)

but that's avoiding the point entirely. he said it was being taken to build up a portfolio - so the debate (as far as i'm concerned) is precisely about commericial use of the shots.

challengemaster

The point I was making was, the priest can not tell you what to do with your own photos.

magicbastarder wrote: »

but that's avoiding the point entirely. he said it was being taken to build up a portfolio - so the debate (as far as i'm concerned) is precisely about commericial use of the shots.

I don't see how a portfolio is commercial use of the shots if it's for a portfolio. Commercial use of the shots would be gaining money directally from those photos (ie. selling them).

If every photographer in the world needed a release to say they could use shots in their portfolio, most would be covered in a mountain of paper by now.

randylonghorn

challengemaster wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. They can tell you to stop taking photos, but they have no say over any photo you have taken. Any photo you take, you own. That's all there is to it. Nobody else can dictate what you do with that photo (commercial stuff aside, for now) be they a trustee, owner, member of the gardaí, or the president herself. My point being, no matter what the situation (again, not commercially), nobody else has any legal standing regards whats done with a photo they do not own

So you're saying that anyone can enter private property, take any photograph they want without permission, and provided they have managed to take it before someone runs them out of there, they have absolute rights over the photographs they have taken and the owner of the property has none?

Is that really the law? Because if it is, I doubt if the vast majority of the (non-photographer) general public are aware of it or would be happy about it if they were.

Jaysus, last time I leave my front door open in the summer! :pac:

challengemaster

randylonghorn wrote: »

So you're saying that anyone can enter private property, take any photograph they want without permission, and provided they have managed to take it before someone runs them out of there, they have absolute rights over the photographs they have taken and the owner of the property has none?

Is that really the law? Because if it is, I doubt if the vast majority of the (non-photographer) general public are aware of it or would be happy about it if they were.

Jaysus, last time I leave my front door open in the summer! :pac:

That's exactly what I'm saying. IFSC is private property, and there's plenty of photos taken on that before people get kicked out for taking photos. The photographer owns the photo, end of.

mrboswell

challengemaster wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying. IFSC is private property, and there's plenty of photos taken on that before people get kicked out for taking photos. The photographer owns the photo, end of.

If there is public access - as in a public roadway passing through somewhere like the IFSC - surely you can be on the road and then it is ok to take pics of what you want? (so long as you are not impeding traffic etc...)

-Chris-

challengemaster wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying. IFSC is private property, and there's plenty of photos taken on that before people get kicked out for taking photos. The photographer owns the photo, end of.

If you walked into a private building, into a private meeting, and took a photo of people in that meeting without permission, would they have the ability to stop you from publishing or otherwise using that photo?

*note, I'm not saying they can ask you to delete it, merely if they can restrict the use of it due to the circumstances in which it was taken

randylonghorn

challengemaster wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying. IFSC is private property, and there's plenty of photos taken on that before people get kicked out for taking photos. The photographer owns the photo, end of.

Wow!

If you're correct, I think you've just made me (and possibly others reading) an advocate for a change in the law! :pac:

mrboswell wrote: »

If there is public access - as in a public roadway passing through somewhere like the IFSC - surely you can be on the road and then it is ok to take pics of what you want? (so long as you are not impeding traffic etc...)

That's a different scenario though ... in the context of the original discussion, that's more akin to someone standing on the public pavement outside the church and taking photographs, as I mentioned above.