And a father says.....

I'm sure he didn't think it through Barry. ;)

I used to have to liaise with CPS on pretty much a daily basis at one time, and it's quite scary how bloody stupid they can be. ;)
 
pxl8 said:
Ask him to come round for a coffee, ask him to cite the laws that back up his claims and then ask if he'd like some humble pie with his beverage ;)
Click to expand...

Good idea..... Marianne makes some lovely pies!
 
CT said:
I'm sure he didn't think it through Barry. ;)

I used to have to liaise with CPS on pretty much a daily basis at one time, and it's quite scary how bloody stupid they can be. ;)
Click to expand...

They spend too much time thinking out of the box (or, I suppose IN the witness box). Are they capable of joined-up thinking?
 
LOL. Unfortunately Barry they never go in the witness box, and most of 'em would crap themselves at the very idea. ;)
 
so am i missing a point, whether the photo is taken on private or public land, once the shot is taken it is yours and noone can make you remove it(with the exception of paedophilia of course). i also thought schools ask for permission to photograph your child to overprotect rather than a legal obligation?:shrug:

at least he seems to have calmed down now at least, sue him for stress and mental anguish:p
 
i thought the schools thing was so that they could charge an absolute fortune to sell parents photos and videos of their own kids ! Didnt think it was a legal requirement ?

Barry, cant add much more to what the rest have said, this guy is a prize one all right ;)
 
No matter what situation your in, no matter what is going on, don`t ever let lawyers try to intimidate you. Stand up for yourself, be civil, but be firm.

You`d be amazed at some of the retards that say they are lawyers and expect all and sundry to kneel at thier feet.
 
Erm, I think the point to note is that he was happy for you to have photo's of your children. He obviously knows and trusts you [including allowing you to use an image of their child].

He seemed to lose it when you advised the photographer had the files and they were his to give out and not yours. I would surmise he neither knows nor trusts this person and is curious about how these images will be used.

I see it's interesting that everyone is having a reaction to the fact that he is a lawyer, why exactly did you add this to your OP? People are ignoring the fact that he's a father and acting under paternal instincts to protect his children from a perceived threat and instantly jumping in with lawyers are ******s etc etc.

Had this just been a father in the street what would you have done? Why do you seem determined to fight and undermine him? Why not discuss the matter reasonably over the phone and see what the issue is?

Oh and finally I'm not a lawyer but have used them numerous times in the past with good results for fair prices. To all those shouting how bad they are, remember that next time you buy a house or shout about your photo's being stolen.
 
h4rri said:
Erm, I think the point to note is that he was happy for you to have photo's of your children. He obviously knows and trusts you [including allowing you to use an image of their child].

He seemed to lose it when you advised the photographer had the files and they were his to give out and not yours. I would surmise he neither knows nor trusts this person and is curious about how these images will be used.

~~~~ clip ~~~~~

Had this just been a father in the street what would you have done? Why do you seem determined to fight and undermine him? Why not discuss the matter reasonably over the phone and see what the issue is?

Oh and finally I'm not a lawyer but have used them numerous times in the past with good results for fair prices. To all those shouting how bad they are, remember that next time you buy a house or shout about your photo's being stolen.
Click to expand...

Interesting comments!

How have I fought him? Or even undermined him? I laid out to him the terms of our license and have stuck by that.... I'm not the pugilist - I'm defending a position!

He was invited to our wedding..... to my mind that's a tacit assent toward photographing any person there. If he was (or anybody) refusing to have a photograph taken then he should not have come!

Man in the street is irrelevant - no permission is needed (you know that having seen your points on this in other threads you've posted on).

I mention the fact he's a lawyer because it's germaine to the whole issue and his stance/argument. Also, it shows or forewarns of the precarious position a professional can find himself in.

Perhaps a unique set of circumstances but it heralds the litigious society we're about to become embroiled in if we don't protect the moral high ground.

In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty - let's not forget that. Unless you, too, think that a pro photographer is a paedophile

Interesting also is the fact he is quite happy for me to break a confidence and dishonour agreements whilst at the same time questioning the right of anyone to photograph his children! Quid per quo, as they say, how can he be right?
 
he is a prat you know, but he's really nice too! I guess the next meal we all have together is going to get interesting! Think I might make some custard pies, not sure I could make him eat humble pie! Did you see our wedding photos BTW?
 
chuckles said:
Interesting comments!

How have I fought him? Or even undermined him? I laid out to him the terms of our license and have stuck by that.... I'm not the pugilist - I'm defending a position!
Click to expand...

I understand your point and I'm not attacking your position. I'm simply playing devils advocate and offering alternate explanations for his actions.


chuckles said:
He was invited to our wedding..... to my mind that's a tacit assent toward photographing any person there. If he was (or anybody) refusing to have a photograph taken then he should not have come!
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, he could have 'opted out' of the photo's by standing to the side. As I say though he was obviously happy for you to have the photo's nut not the tog on the day.


chuckles said:
Man in the street is irrelevant - no permission is needed (you know that having seen your points on this in other threads you've posted on).
Click to expand...

Stalker!!! ;)

It's a similar position in that the photographs were in either a public place or by invitation which as you say allows for photographs to be taken.


chuckles said:
I mention the fact he's a lawyer because it's germaine to the whole issue and his stance/argument. Also, it shows or forewarns of the precarious position a professional can find himself in.
Click to expand...

Agreed and point taken. I simply don't agree with the instant lawyer bashing and feel it could have clouded the issue. Had it been a Mum who had complained who worked in the local cake shop would the comments on them been so harsh?

chuckles said:
Perhaps a unique set of circumstances but it heralds the litigious society we're about to become embroiled in if we don't protect the moral high ground.

In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty - let's not forget that. Unless you, too, think that a pro photographer is a paedophile
chuckles said:
Agreed, and no I don't take the view that every tog is a paedophile. I judge each situation on it's merits. Interesting too that it's assumed he is fearful of the photo's being used for this purpose or was this something he noted in his conversation to you?

chuckles said:
Interesting also is the fact he is quite happy for me to break a confidence and dishonour agreements whilst at the same time questioning the right of anyone to photograph his children! Quid per quo, as they say, how can he be right?
Click to expand...

People do funny things when their young/loved ones are involved. I know personally should my family be harmed then law be damned I would deal how I saw fit regardless of repercussions, draconian I know but it's how it is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Oh and to be clear, I'm not attacking you personally or questioning your motives. I'm simply adding to the debate from another standpoint. I hope no offence has been taken, none was intended.

Added this here rather than above as that's a bit lengthy as is is ;)

Marianne said:
Did you see our wedding photos BTW?
Click to expand...

I did and there are some lovely ones in there. Can't spend too long perusing them though as I am supposed to be working :(
 
h4rri said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckles View Post
He was invited to our wedding..... to my mind that's a tacit assent toward photographing any person there. If he was (or anybody) refusing to have a photograph taken then he should not have come!

Not necessarily, he could have 'opted out' of the photo's by standing to the side. As I say though he was obviously happy for you to have the photo's nut not the tog on the day..
Click to expand...

But he is smiling and the group photos and holding one of his children.....which just goes to prove that he is talking out of his $rse whether he's a legal boffin or not! He knows he's a prat, I guess his wife has told him by now! :lol:
 
If there are children in the immediate wedding party I always get releases signed by the parents for them. I would remove any chidren featured on the website in the couples photographs if any parent objects to their inclusion, never happened though as most people seem chuffed if they are featured. This seems a bit of an OOT reaction to not getting his own way.
 
Let's not blow this debate into dark corners where it doesn't belong. Your 'friend' went into prat-mode when you made it clear you couldn't provide him with freebies. He may well be regretting his dumb-ass knee-jerk reaction but that's his problem. All you can do is to tell him you don't hold the copyright and that is the end of the conversation. Further debate with him cannot change this fact.
 
It does sound like he made a daft comment, as a response to being told he could not have a copy of the photo. Some people find it difficulty to understand that photographs need to be paid for and some people throw their toys out of the pram when they do not get their own way. He seems to fall into both camps, I'm sure now he has cooled down he'll realise that by going to a wedding there is an implied permission granted for photos to be taken.

I know he has been a prat but surely Jonathan, I’m sure, will offer a print or copy for a reasonable cost.

Congratulations by the way, the photos are lovely!
 
chuckles said:
The biggest joke of the lot is?

His youngest son features on the front page of our brochure! :thinking: He gave his permission (was chuffed to bits) nor did he charge us .... go figure
Click to expand...

That actually changes my view slightly. It seems that the problem is he's a family friend who expected the photos for nothing, didn't like it when he was told he couldn't get them, for valid reasons, and used the first argument that came into his head. He probably is/was aware of the issues surrounding copyright but as a friend wouldn't have expected that to be an issue.

But, having already done you a favour, I'd have been tempted to explain the copyright issue but say "I'll see what I can do". Then approached the tog and explain the situation to see if there was any agreement I could come to, even if it cost me a few quid. I know we get tied up in knots about copyright protection but sometimes a bit of give and take can work wonders down the line :) After all, IF you don't have a signed model release what's to stop him asking you to stop using your brochures and suing?

Friends/family and business is never a good combination ;)
 
Congets on the wedding... Looks like you had a lovely day and have some nice images for memories.....

Shutterman
 
Hmmm.... more to come I feel!
 
let's just remember here that we weren't the photographers....this is just a scenario that has caused us to think a bit. He has been directed to the photographer concerned.

He also realises he was perhaps being silly....he is a good friend, after all he was invited to the wedding lol :D

he has only recently got his qualifications in the law department so was spouting a bit :rules:

Oh and his wife cried with joy when she saw her son's photo on the brochure, we did ask permission before using the photo :razz:
 
dod said:
~~~~ clip ~~~~~

But, having already done you a favour, I'd have been tempted to explain the copyright issue but say "I'll see what I can do". Then approached the tog and explain the situation to see if there was any agreement I could come to, even if it cost me a few quid. I know we get tied up in knots about copyright protection but sometimes a bit of give and take can work wonders down the line :) After all, IF you don't have a signed model release what's to stop him asking you to stop using your brochures and suing?

Friends/family and business is never a good combination ;)
Click to expand...

Favours already turned around ;)

They have some wonderful photo books and prints - provided by us truly!
 
I would have thought that it was a fair assumption that photographs would be taken at a wedding, both by the ‘official wedding photographer’ and by numerous ‘guests’. If he did not want his children photographed at such an event then he should have left them at home.

How many of your guests with a camera also photographed his children either intentionally or inadvertently?

It sounds to me he is being either very naïve or completely unreasonable, I suspect the latter.

Personally, (and I know next to nothing about the law), I think that he does not have any rights regarding this at such a function.

Just ignore the silly b****r is my advice.
 
i would get the photo sorted for free (even if you pay). then when you need a solicitor he owes you a favour already:D
 
I like the people who claim Data Protection act. You just need to mention section 36 - Domestic purposes excemption.

The Data Protection Commisar said last christmas?
"However, parents are not covered by the Data Protection Act when filming or photographing their children. An exemption called the Domestic Purposes Exemption allows people to record information, including photographs, in a private capacity. There is no reason under the Data Protection Act why parents and relatives can't take photographs at concerts, school plays and events. It's not legally necessary to get permission from parents to allow the audience to film or take pictures of a school event."

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/Acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_5#pt4-l1g36

36 Domestic purposes

Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.
 
Strange how he started going legal AFTER he realised he wasn't going to get the photos for free. Schools ask for permission for everything, usually for insurance reasons rather than legal.

Thinking about it, I could be in serious trouble. I covered a sponsored polo tournament last month which had a creche. The club asked me to take plenty of photos of the kids having fun. I'm pretty sure the club didn't get written permission from all the parents first!

BTW, congratulations to the bride and groom! :clap:
 
Looks like you had a great day guys and love the cake. :)
 
I had a phone call last night.....

"I'm sorry...... I've been a bit of a twit! I've spoken to a couple of friends who also reckon I've been a bit of a twit!"

What can you say? :shrug:
 
chuckles said:
I had a phone call last night.....

"I'm sorry...... I've been a bit of a twit! I've spoken to a couple of friends who also reckon I've been a bit of a twit!"

What can you say? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Buy him a drink, it takes quite a lot to own up to being a twit (especially lawyers ;))
 
chuckles said:
I had a phone call last night.....

"I'm sorry...... I've been a bit of a twit! I've spoken to a couple of friends who also reckon I've been a bit of a twit!"

What can you say? :shrug:
Click to expand...

"Yes you're right, you are a twit!"
 
chuckles said:
I had a phone call last night.....

"I'm sorry...... I've been a bit of a twit! I've spoken to a couple of friends who also reckon I've been a bit of a twit!"

What can you say? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Erm... how about: Yes you have and I suggest you go back to school before you consider teaching!
 
ha ha..... I think they'll be around for a meal some when soon!

He even said he "should get out more"! :clap:
 
chuckles said:
I had a phone call last night.....

"I'm sorry...... I've been a bit of a twit! I've spoken to a couple of friends who also reckon I've been a bit of a twit!"

What can you say? :shrug:
Click to expand...


Probably just go and have a beer with him and forget about it, if he's a good friend and has apologised that's probably as much as he can do, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to rub his nose in it, i guess we've all said things to mates that we've afterwards regretted (well i know i have anyway) but there's no point in falling out over it, after all none of us knows whats round the corner, he's been a prize prat he knows it so end of story.
 
... if this reaction/attitude did become more commonplace, it might fuel a drift towards banning children from weddings generally. I know it does sometimes (often?) happen now, but it would be interesting if the attitude of bolshy parents ended up with all children being routinely banned from weddings and parents having to find babysitters for their Little Darlings.

Serve the buggers right, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top