Tail wagging the dog?

[iPhoto]

I don't do weddings and never will but I am always reading the wedding threads because they often deal with some very tricky photographic situations.

Anyway, the last couple I read mentioned something that comes up over and over again, "The Registrar Said" usually followed by a list of do's and don'ts from the Registrar. This got me thinking, where do they get of dictating to the Photographer what he/she can and can't do?

I can accept to a degree that when the ceremony is taking place in an actual registry office they can reasonably set out the house rules. However, with most registrar weddings taking place in private venues, hired by the happy couple, what authority do the Registrars have to dictate to the photographer?

Likewise, if the photographer goes on to ignore the Registrar and instead go with what has been requested by the client, what sanction does the Registrar have?

Surely the Registrar is only there to carry out a legal process and whilst they should rightly be treated with the same courtesy you would afford any other professional person, it seems to me they are applying greater and greater restrictions based on nothing more than an assumed power.

I am not advocating a mass rebellion or an all out war between Photographers and Registrars, I am just curious.

 

[boyfalldown]

I think from the overall tone and feel of your post your rather missing a registrar's roles and responsibilities. There is no 'assumed' power. The registrar has complete responsibility for the conduct of the wedding from a legal stand point. This includes stopping it if needed. So they aren't assuming anything. But that said, the vast majority are nothing short of fantastic

 

[Phil V]

I think from the overall tone and feel of your post your rather missing a registrar's roles and responsibilities. There is no 'assumed' power. The registrar has complete responsibility for the conduct of the wedding from a legal stand point. This includes stopping it if needed. So they aren't assuming anything. But that said, the vast majority are nothing short of fantastic

What he said^

Registrars are no more the cause of photographers woes than the people who decorate the room, layout the room, the bride who thinks she can do her own makeup, the limo driver who thinks he knows how we'd like the bride posed as she's getting out of the car (the list is endless).

But it comes down to this, the wedding isn't organised for the photography, there are loads of practicalities that make the wedding go smoothly that mean the photos suffer, it's just life and we get on with it.

Just to add (I just realised the title), if we had our own way and the wedding was designed to look good on camera to the detriment of everyone else, that really would be the tail wagging the dog!

 

[iPhoto]

I think your both getting the wrong angle on what I am saying so it must be how I have worded it, I'll try to be clearer. I am not for a moment suggesting that the photographer should be the one who has the say on how the ceremony is conducted, who can do what etc, just so he/she can have an easier time of it. What I am asking is why the Registrar is allowed to dictate to the Bride & Groom at their wedding?

I disagree when you say there is no assumed power. I have already acknowledged the fact the registrar is there to carry out a legal process but I still question where they get the authority or power to dictate to the 'customer' how their guests and hire services are utilised.

Put it this way, IF a photographer were carrying out their role and in doing so disrupted the legal process then I can see how a registrar has a legal responsibility to ensure such disruption does not take place. However, IF as seems to be the case, a Registrar dictates a Photographer must stand in a particular place or that they must only take x number of shots etc then I fail to understand how failing to comply with such a direction would result in disruption of the legal process.

Thus I suggest that such a direction from the registrar is little more than their personal preference and as such assumes authority they do not hold.

 

[Phil V]

I think your both getting the wrong angle on what I am saying so it must be how I have worded it, I'll try to be clearer. I am not for a moment suggesting that the photographer should be the one who has the say on how the ceremony is conducted, who can do what etc, just so he/she can have an easier time of it. What I am asking is why the Registrar is allowed to dictate to the Bride & Groom at their wedding?

I disagree when you say there is no assumed power. I have already acknowledged the fact the registrar is there to carry out a legal process but I still question where they get the authority or power to dictate to the 'customer' how their guests and hire services are utilised.

Put it this way, IF a photographer were carrying out their role and in doing so disrupted the legal process then I can see how a registrar has a legal responsibility to ensure such disruption does not take place. However, IF as seems to be the case, a Registrar dictates a Photographer must stand in a particular place or that they must only take x number of shots etc then I fail to understand how failing to comply with such a direction would result in disruption of the legal process.

Thus I suggest that such a direction from the registrar is little more than their personal preference and as such assumes authority they do not hold.

Hugh should have been more blunt.
The registrar is in charge, they do hold the authority. That's all there is to it.

And problems are rare, but it's common for them to dictate where we stand, and that's down to the registrar wanting to be comfortable and to have a view of the ceremony (the person reading stuff out isn't the registrar). So they don't want us in their way, which is understandable.

A limit for the number of shots is rare, and even rarer are proper bans on photography like we get in churches (now if you want to discuss 'assumed authority' or draconian rules that's where to look).

 

[boyfalldown]

I think your both getting the wrong angle on what I am saying so it must be how I have worded it, I'll try to be clearer. I am not for a moment suggesting that the photographer should be the one who has the say on how the ceremony is conducted, who can do what etc, just so he/she can have an easier time of it. What I am asking is why the Registrar is allowed to dictate to the Bride & Groom at their wedding?

I disagree when you say there is no assumed power. I have already acknowledged the fact the registrar is there to carry out a legal process but I still question where they get the authority or power to dictate to the 'customer' how their guests and hire services are utilised.

Put it this way, IF a photographer were carrying out their role and in doing so disrupted the legal process then I can see how a registrar has a legal responsibility to ensure such disruption does not take place. However, IF as seems to be the case, a Registrar dictates a Photographer must stand in a particular place or that they must only take x number of shots etc then I fail to understand how failing to comply with such a direction would result in disruption of the legal process.

Thus I suggest that such a direction from the registrar is little more than their personal preference and as such assumes authority they do not hold.

As Phil says, they do hold the authority. I can't be bothered to type it again but from (yet another) recent thread

Not only is that a rude and short sighted attitude, it's wrong. Very wrong.

The registrar (who is actually the one who sits down and writes the whole time NOT the one who stands up and talks) can at any time for any reason stop the wedding and declare it invalid. They can tell the celebrant (the one who stands up and talks) to repeat bits if they didn't hear them, they can have anybody they like removed from the room and they can suddenly decide it's a coerced wedding and abandon it and call the police. They also (and I'm quoting their manual from memory here) have "a duty to preserve the solemnity of the occasion". They absolutely do have jurisdiction over photographers.

Now the reason that they never do any of that, is that by and large they are dealt with by the professionals they meet with the courtesy and respect they deserve both because, well, people deserve respect and also because they have a surprisingly large selection of powers.

On several occasions I've been told that if I took pictures at certain points they would stop the wedding and have me removed. On one memorable occasion they actually stopped a wedding where I was the photographer and told everybody that if they heard a single more shutter go off then there would be no wedding (it was a guest that had taken pictures - not me).

But none of that has ever happened in Kent - I know lots of the registrars here and we get on great. The only time they have ever stopped a wedding in front of me is so I could get a better shot. See right back in post 7 where I said I'd have a chat and try to persuade them? Professional courtesy goes a surprisingly long way. Ignoring clear instructions by people with the power to really spoil your day, not so much.

Explains it pretty well

 

[Steve Smith]

I have done three weddings for friends in the registrar's office. The first two times I was told I couldn't photograph the ceremony as they didn't want the details of previous couples' weddings on the same page of the register being copied during the signing. They did a mock signing after the ceremony with a blank page.

The third time I was told that I could photograph whatever I wanted.


Steve.

 

[iPhoto]

From what is written in the responses it appears to me that far from countering my assertion you have both affirmed it. Assuming that Hugh is correct and I have no reason to doubt him when he states
"a duty to preserve the solemnity of the occasion" then I would say restricting or as some have stated and I witnessed as a guest, banning photographs during the ceremony appears to exceed their authority. How can it be that some Registrars do not perceive it as failing to preserve the solemnity of the occasion when they carry out some of the more strange and highly publicised ceremonies, whilst at the same time others perceive the taking of photographs at an otherwise conventional ceremony as doing so?

 

[Phil V]

From what is written in the responses it appears to me that far from countering my assertion you have both affirmed it. Assuming that Hugh is correct and I have no reason to doubt him when he states
"a duty to preserve the solemnity of the occasion" then I would say restricting or as some have stated and I witnessed as a guest, banning photographs during the ceremony appears to exceed their authority. How can it be that some Registrars do not perceive it as failing to preserve the solemnity of the occasion when they carry out some of the more strange and highly publicised ceremonies, whilst at the same time others perceive the taking of photographs at an otherwise conventional ceremony as doing so?

I would guess if you have been to a ceremony where photography was banned outright you were in Warwickshire?

It's about the only place in the country that does it (maybe Warwick council?) and frankly, whilst it's draconian, it's not beyond an interpretation of "a duty to preserve the solemnity of the occasion".

The fact that they're so far out of step with most of the country suggests to you that they're maybe overstepping the mark, but I would say they're still working within the guidelines, no matter how infuriating. And whilst it's harsh, I'd suggest that they've probably had more than their fare share of badly behaved photographers which led them to tighten down.

edit: and don't fall into the trap of presuming that the same people who get involved in 'outrageous' ceremonies then ban photography at others. They're all working for the local council and they're very small teams (even on larger councils) so you can expect widely different interpretations of the guidelines.

 

[JonathanRyan]

How can it be that some Registrars do not perceive it as failing to preserve the solemnity of the occasion when they carry out some of the more strange and highly publicised ceremonies, whilst at the same time others perceive the taking of photographs at an otherwise conventional ceremony as doing so?

Different people do different things at different times. It's called life

Bottom line: up until the words "husband and wife" (or similar) the registrar has de iure power in that room. It would actually be a bold person who challenged their authority before the register were properly signed. (There's a bit of fuzziness about exactly when people are married - in Kent the ceremony words say that it's as they their vows. Of course this can't literally be true. If the groom says the vows and then the bride doesn't then what happens? Most people seem to agree that it's the "husband and wife" bit but you could make a case that if one of them died after that point but before they signed the register then they weren't married.). Up until the point they are married the registrar in point of law gets to decide what happens since they can stop the wedding and that really will mess up your whole day. After that as a point of courtesy they still get to call the shots - as long as it's more or less what I want to do anyway.

And yeah, Warwickshire. Sigh.

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

How can it be that some Registrars do not perceive it as failing to preserve the solemnity of the occasion when they carry out some of the more strange and highly publicised ceremonies, whilst at the same time others perceive the taking of photographs at an otherwise conventional ceremony as doing so?

It is simple. On the day, the registrar is god. He or she, acting as agent for the Registrar General, has complete discretion regarding the conduct of the ceremony. What they says goes. Full stop. Put up or shut up. It really is that straightforward

(If you really want to be bemused, how about the presence of alcoholic drink in the ceremony room within one hour prior to the ceremony being grounds for the cancellation of it? And that's not registrar's discretion - it's enshrined in the Marriage Act.)