DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers

[Vtec44]

For my fellow wedding photographers...

DJ Sparks Outcry from Photographers After Shooting and Sharing Wedding Photos

 

[Designer]

"It is understood Carly Fuller Photography is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested on this Contract."

 

[480sparky]

Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?

That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer. The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.

 

[pixmedic]

Photographer should have gone to the bride and groom and had them ask the dj to stop photographing...as per their contract

 

[Derrel]

The DJ, Mr. Rochon, states in his written on-line response to this that he has photographed over 1,000 events over the past four years, and has used them to market his business, and the business of photographers. And this is the first time he has run into a big deal with exclusivity. Seems strange to me though that he uploaded 232 photos from the event, and he "gifted" those photos to the bride and groom. He alleges that the only way to market wedding-related businesses is by using photography...

This is a weird situation. The way I read the short excerpt was that the photographer's contract was between her, and the wedding couple; of course we did not get to see the entire contract, but the quoted excerpt mentioned "the parties"...but did not mention OTHER parties. Who knows if the contract the photographer used was iron-clad and really legally bulletproof; from what *I* read, it's not...seems to me that if that's all it said, there could be other contracts. I'm not sure on the legality of one service provider being able to legally bar any other vendor from doing things that are legal, like clicking a shutter.

As is always the case on f/stoppers, the reporting and fact checking is of very amateurish level. I've seen so much useless clickbait from them that I do not consider anything they write to be reliable.

 

[pixmedic]

I wonder how the dj would have felt if the photographer plugged their ipod into some bose speakers and started playing some song's

 

[Derrel]

Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?

That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer. The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.

HERE is the very little bit that F/stoppers wrote about this, beginning with an excerpt from the contract the photographer had the bride and groom sign:

"This agreement contains the entire understanding between Carly Fuller Photography and the CLIENT. It supersedes all prior and simultaneous agreements between the parties. It is understood Carly Fuller Photography is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested on this Contract."

Rochon says he was indeed photographing at the wedding, but believes that this whole thing was a “huge misunderstanding.”

“Either the bride and groom didn’t know of the clause, or they knew and didn’t tell me,” he tells PetaPixel. “The client was the bride and groom, and the bride and groom never told me I couldn’t bring a camera. The photographer wasn’t my client, and I didn’t have a contract with the photographer. I do have the right to take pictures.”

“When she delivers the photos she shot, she’s still delivering what she was hired to deliver,” he adds.
##################
Without more information, it's pretty difficult to say if there has been a real breach of contract. Lawyering skills and actual laws in place would probably determine what damages or legal remedies might apply in this case, if it ever gets to court or to arbitration.

 

[robbins.photo]

It will be interesting to see how this all sorts out. Quite a few interesting legal issues here. My guess is the photographer will likely win this one, while the DJ did not have a contract with the photographer the bride and groom did, and the DJ was in the bride and grooms employ at the time of the event.

 

[dcbear78]

I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?

 

[480sparky]

I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?

Depends on if his contract with the bridge & groom (not YOU!) says he's the only one allowed to play music with "professional audio equipment".

 

[robbins.photo]

I often carry a 1980's boombox with my to create my own ambience.... He'd have no qualms with that right?

If he did you could always use it as a weapon in self defense. Those things weighed a ton.

 

[Vtec44]

Personally, I don't think the contract has been breached since he is not the client. However, as a professional curtesy you don't overstep your boundary and should just do what you're hired to do best. I've had make up artists/DJ/coordinator that brought their own photographer without issues. However, they didn't share 200+ photos and have a photography side gig like this DJ. It's a great way to get back listed. LOL

 

[robbins.photo]

Personally, I don't think the contract has been breached since he is not the client. However, as a professional curtesy you don't overstep your boundary and should just do what you're hired to do best. I've had make up artists/DJ/coordinator that brought their own photographer without issues. However, they didn't share 200+ photos and have a photography side gig like this DJ. It's a great way to get back listed. LOL

I think the only thing that might override that is the fact that he was in the employ of the client who did sign a contract stating that the only pictures that could be used commercially from the event were that of the photographer. It's a bit murky legally, but I'm guessing that most likely the fact that he was there in the employ of the couple that signed the contract will obligate him to not use the photos commercially.

It will be interesting to see what a judge decides though, that's really my best guess from what I've read thus far.

 

[rexbobcat]

This guy has the audacity to write a passive-aggressive letter about how they're the victims in all this. They were hired to DJ. They weren't hired to "promote" the event or the photographer. He wasn't taking photos in the context of his DJing. He was photographing the actual wedding itself. If it was for "promotion," then he would have been taking photos to promote what he was hired to do.

Posting 230 watermarked photos on Facebook and offering them as a gift to the bride isn't just promoting.

It seems to me that he was taking photos in a professional capacity, but he's trying to point all the attention to the mean old photographer.

 

[rexbobcat]

Would someone please define 'professional camera equipment'?

That said, the contract was between the couple and the photographer. The DJ is not a party to that contract and is under no obligation to oblige by it.

Then what would be the point of the clause? The contract was between the couple and the photographer. The contrast stipulations extend to the event itself, since that is what the contract covers. Hence, the the way I see it, the contract umbrella's over every aspect of the event. The contract isn't between the couple and the DJ, but the DJ is part of the event that the contract concerns.

This isn't a case of uncle Jeb bringing his fancy camera to snap a few photos for the scrapbook.

This guy was a paid professional who basically offered a service outside of what they were hired to do and in violation of the couple's contract with the photographer (not blaming the couple, though, they meant no harm I'm sure), used the photos to promote what appears to be the photography side of their business, and then went on social media fishing for sympathy.

Thankfully their pity party isn't going so well.

EDIT: It also seems that the photographer isn't pursuing legal action anyways - that would look awful for her business - She's just calling out unprofessional behavior, and the DJ is doing terrible damage control in the wake of his hurt feelings and business image.