wedding contract clause

Harvey_nikon

Harvey_nikon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,749
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just read part of a contract for a wedding on another forum and I can't believe it:

: It is understood that *** Photography will act as the sole and exclusive wedding photographer. Because of the fact that flashes from guest’s cameras may ruin shots taken by *** Photography, THE CLIENT acknowledges that they are responsible for notifying all of their guests that guest photography is not permitted at any time while the professional photographer are in session. *** Photography suggests that a separate notice be placed in the invitations.

The formal photography time is for the exclusive use of *** Photography to capture the formal wedding portraits. Because of time constraints and the need for subjects to pay full attention to the professional photographer, guest photography cannot be permitted. *** Photography will allow guests to take snapshots during the processional and recessional, during candid events at the church, and at the altar during the time *** Photography equipment is being packed up. In return for this consideration *** Photography insists no other guest photography take place when or where *** Photography is working.

No other guest/photographer using professional equipment will be allowed by *** Photography at any time during the wedding. *** Photography reserves the right to stop any photographic services paid for and leave the function should any other person take photographs with any professional equipment – with the deposit being forfeit.
Click to expand...

Now, as I am entering this area myself I can understand photographers trying to protect themselves and maximise sales but is this too far??
 
Tis extreme, families will always want to take snaps of the wedding! I've never known it to affect the pro at any wedding ive been.

If I saw that in the clause I would not be using there services
 
I take it that was from SS Photography services of the storm trooper division....
 
Someone wants a total monopoly on wedding photos, simple as that, With no guessed photos, only place they can get any is through is ****Photography at inflated prices.

Total arrogance.
 
No other guest/photographer using professional equipment will be allowed by *** Photography at any time during the wedding. *** Photography reserves the right to stop any photographic services paid for and leave the function should any other person take photographs with any professional equipment – with the deposit being forfeit.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... It would seem as though this person doesn't want to attract a great deal of business and certainly doesn't have the people skills necessary to deal with what's an integral part of wedding photography. :cuckoo:

If I were looking to book a wedding photographer, I'd definitely steer clear of someone with these sorts of draconian conditions! :(

Si
 
Having equipment that is of a high enough standard to be used by professionals does not make it professional equipment. A Nikon D3 is not a professional camera, it is a camera used by professional photographers.

If I was at a wedding and the official photographer tried to stop me using my 'professional equipment' then I'd happily point that out to him.

If I were the bride and groom being presented with that as a set of terms and conditions then I'd tell the photographer to lighten up and shove it up his arse!!!
 
If I was a bride I wouldn't have booked them based on those clauses. None of my guests took any photos that I was interested in framing but I have an album made up of guest photos and also from photos taken with disposable cameras that I left on the dining tables. My guest photo album doesn't replace the official tog album but is a completely separate and fun album that lets me see what other guests were up to while I was off getting official pics getting done.

I agree with Kemble3, total arrogance. It's fair that they need to protect their revenue but these T&C's are a step too far for me.
 
It does seem like there's been not much rational thought put into coming up with those terms. I suspect in practice they aren't held to (it would be virtually impossible to at most weddings!) but still, it's awful in terms of customer impression.

[I have a clause in my T&Cs (which I keep to a minimum) to the effect that I'm not liable for any problems which arise from other photographers interfering with my taking of photos, and even then I feel the need with every couple to clarify to them when I'm meeting with them that it doesn't mean their guests can't take photos.]
 
I've seen that before - from more than 1 photographer as well. It is total arrogance and I'm not sure how it'd ever be enforced. On the point of protecting revenues, if you need reprints to turn a profit you need to rethink you're business planning

H
 
I got married last year and our tog just asked guest to allow him to get his shot first then they could shoot away. He explained that this was to ensure flashes did not cause problems and to make sue we were looking at him and not at others trying to get shots.

He was polite about it and it also allowed others to shoot from almost the same place as he did. Is this not how it should be?

Paul
 
Dave450 said:
Tis extreme, families will always want to take snaps of the wedding! I've never known it to affect the pro at any wedding ive been.

If I saw that in the clause I would not be using there services
Click to expand...

What he said, if I was look for a photographer and read that, they would go straight in the bin. I can understand the pro having a bit of a priority over other people, though

you can't really ask families not to take photographs at there relations wedding, that's crazy!
 
If the "official" tog tried to tell me I couldn't take photos at a wedding, they would get a very short response, and possibly an accident with a tripod :naughty:

Although I guess it depends on the sort of wedding / photographer. Probably standard stuff for celebs, just in case someone scuppers their magazine deal.
 
Be serious for a sec guys... what's wrong with it??? :shrug:

I have it in my contract too, and I've added...

"The Wedding party shall (on demand) kiss my arse and bow before me; any dissenting guests will be told by the Bride to Sod Off and the Groom shall take them by the scruff of their neck and sling them off the premises. I, the Photographer, shall be referred to as 'God' throughout the proceedings and a minimum of two semi-naked beautiful females will lay rose petals at my feet wherever I go. I reserve the right to 'sample' the Bride intimately in the Bridal Suite and of course prior to the Groom doing so. If anyone incurs my displeasure at any time and for any reason, the Bride & Groom do hereby forfeit their home and all their possessions; there is no right of appeal"

So far I have built up a portfolio of 56 houses in this way, I have fathered 27 children and I'll be retiring soon :D

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Be serious for a sec guys... what's wrong with it??? :shrug:

I have it in my contract too, and I've added...

"The Wedding party shall (on demand) kiss my arse and bow before me; any dissenting guests will be told by the Bride to Sod Off and the Groom shall take them by the scruff of their neck and sling them off the premises. I, the Photographer, shall be referred to as 'God' throughout the proceedings and a minimum of two semi-naked beautiful females will lay rose petals at my feet wherever I go. I reserve the right to 'sample' the Bride intimately in the Bridal Suite and of course prior to the Groom doing so. If anyone incurs my displeasure at any time and for any reason, the Bride & Groom do hereby forfeit their home and all their possessions; there is no right of appeal"

So far I have built up a portfolio of 56 houses in this way, I have fathered 27 children and I'll be retiring soon :D

DD
Click to expand...

I see you've reduced your demands considerably since the last one, suppose it's down to your age. :p
 
PPalmer said:
I got married last year and our tog just asked guest to allow him to get his shot first then they could shoot away. He explained that this was to ensure flashes did not cause problems and to make sue we were looking at him and not at others trying to get shots.

He was polite about it and it also allowed others to shoot from almost the same place as he did. Is this not how it should be?

Paul
Click to expand...

I hope so Paul, that's exactly what I do :D

In fact it's been commented on by families before how helpful I am compared to other photographers they have encountered.
 
DiddyDave said:
Be serious for a sec guys... what's wrong with it??? :shrug:

I have it in my contract too, and I've added...

"The Wedding party shall (on demand) kiss my arse and bow before me; any dissenting guests will be told by the Bride to Sod Off and the Groom shall take them by the scruff of their neck and sling them off the premises. I, the Photographer, shall be referred to as 'God' throughout the proceedings and a minimum of two semi-naked beautiful females will lay rose petals at my feet wherever I go. I reserve the right to 'sample' the Bride intimately in the Bridal Suite and of course prior to the Groom doing so. If anyone incurs my displeasure at any time and for any reason, the Bride & Groom do hereby forfeit their home and all their possessions; there is no right of appeal"

So far I have built up a portfolio of 56 houses in this way, I have fathered 27 children and I'll be retiring soon :D

DD
Click to expand...

Ha ha! It's the child support payments that are holding you back mate, you want to have a look at your T&C's! :D
 
DiddyDave said:
"The Wedding party shall (on demand) kiss my arse and bow before me; any dissenting guests will be told by the Bride to Sod Off and the Groom shall take them by the scruff of their neck and sling them off the premises. I, the Photographer, shall be referred to as 'God' throughout the proceedings and a minimum of two semi-naked beautiful females will lay rose petals at my feet wherever I go. I reserve the right to 'sample' the Bride intimately in the Bridal Suite and of course prior to the Groom doing so. If anyone incurs my displeasure at any time and for any reason, the Bride & Groom do hereby forfeit their home and all their possessions; there is no right of appeal"

So far I have built up a portfolio of 56 houses in this way, I have fathered 27 children and I'll be retiring soon :D

DD
Click to expand...
*wiping tears of laughter off my face*
 
I agree that for certain periods he should be the only person photographing. This will ensure no distractions and allow them to get the shots they are been paid for. But these periods need to be defined and not longer than 10 mins.
 
London luke said:
I agree that for certain periods he should be the only person photographing. This will ensure no distractions and allow them to get the shots they are been paid for. But these periods need to be defined and not longer than 10 mins.
Click to expand...

I have to partially disagree with this one

Sure I let anyone who wants to step in to the group etc. shots and if they get in the way some 'serious' joking soon gets the idea across that I need them facing me at the point I need them facing me

But the only period I demand them to myself is our walkabout time when it's just me & the couple for maybe 30 mins (not 10!), this gives them a bit of breathing space too as a newly married couple before being thrown back into the thick of it

I had a funny recently when one of the Groomsmen, a keen photographer by all accounts, handed his 12 yr old son a camera and basically said "Follow him around, stand near him and shoot everything the shoots" :lol: Well the lad tried bless him, but I work very quickly and neither he nor his dad's gear could keep up - some of the shots on Facebook he took were worse than the camera-phone ones and his dad was slagging him off during the day, so I had a word with the kid and blamed his father for buying the wrong camera - cheered the lad up, and a couple of times I set a shot up for him :)

DD
 
Makes my clause at the bottom of the contract seem silly...

"The photographer shall be provided with at least one slice of wedding cake."

:lol:
 
DiddyDave said:
I had a funny recently when one of the Groomsmen, a keen photographer by all accounts, handed his 12 yr old son a camera and basically said "Follow him around, stand near him and shoot everything the shoots" :lol: Well the lad tried bless him, but I work very quickly and neither he nor his dad's gear could keep up - some of the shots on Facebook he took were worse than the camera-phone ones and his dad was slagging him off during the day, so I had a word with the kid and blamed his father for buying the wrong camera - cheered the lad up, and a couple of times I set a shot up for him :)

DD
Click to expand...

Now that's being a gentleman :thumbs:
 
icecavern said:
Makes my clause at the bottom of the contract seem silly...

"The photographer shall be provided with at least one slice of wedding cake."

:lol:
Click to expand...

Should read: The Photographer reserves the rights to :cool: either the Mother or one of the Bridesmaids.
 
Sounds like a right TP to me. Wonder if he gets any bookings??
 
Shutterman said:
I take it that was from SS Photography services of the storm trooper division....
Click to expand...

DiddyDave said:
Be serious for a sec guys... what's wrong with it??? :shrug:

I have it in my contract too, and I've added...

"The Wedding party shall (on demand) kiss my arse and bow before me; any dissenting guests will be told by the Bride to Sod Off and the Groom shall take them by the scruff of their neck and sling them off the premises. I, the Photographer, shall be referred to as 'God' throughout the proceedings and a minimum of two semi-naked beautiful females will lay rose petals at my feet wherever I go. I reserve the right to 'sample' the Bride intimately in the Bridal Suite and of course prior to the Groom doing so. If anyone incurs my displeasure at any time and for any reason, the Bride & Groom do hereby forfeit their home and all their possessions; there is no right of appeal"

So far I have built up a portfolio of 56 houses in this way, I have fathered 27 children and I'll be retiring soon :D

DD
Click to expand...

Brilliant. :D

DiddyDave said:
I had a funny recently when one of the Groomsmen, a keen photographer by all accounts, handed his 12 yr old son a camera and basically said "Follow him around, stand near him and shoot everything the shoots" :lol: Well the lad tried bless him, but I work very quickly and neither he nor his dad's gear could keep up - some of the shots on Facebook he took were worse than the camera-phone ones and his dad was slagging him off during the day, so I had a word with the kid and blamed his father for buying the wrong camera - cheered the lad up, and a couple of times I set a shot up for him :)

DD
Click to expand...

Well done, mate. :thumbs:


As far as the OP goes it can only really be construed as arrogance; passages from a dictatorship, and what happens when someone thinks that after one or two compliments they can assume officious roles of above-standard immortality. I am not denying that other flashes may ruin a photo, and I'm sure there are some pretty anal strobist freaks that would hemorrhage at the idea, but if you're a good tog they wouldn't affect what you were trying to create much, if at all. As others have said, it's just self-serving gluttony. :nono:
 
I'd assume from that clause that **** Photography are not very good at taking photographs if they are worried someone with a 'professional' camera needs to be excluded from taking any snaps.

Matt
 
Stu, where did you originally find this tosh?? I'm really intrigued to find out more about this chap (even if I already know ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top