Drunk groom video goes viral and bride sues photographer

[TheLibrarian]

According to this article we dont need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms. Yeah posting embarassing things of your clients is hardly professional.

 

[table1349]

According to this article we dont need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms. Yeah posting embarassing things of your clients is hardly professional.

Model Release forms are not required for every situation.
When Do I Need a Model Release?

 

[robbins.photo]

......... For all I know the guy might be a really wonderful person who just had a little to much to drink and did something stupid.............

Are you referring to getting plastered.............. or getting married?

Both actually.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

According to this article we dont [sic] need photo release forms as any pictures are our creative property? Time to throw out those model release forms.

The article said nothing about model releases.

The article quoted a law professor correctly stating the videographer owns copyright to the images, unless the contract states otherwise.

A model release is not needed for an editorial use.
Posting a video to YouTube is an editorial use, as long as you're not promoting or advertising your business.

However, photographers, and videographers, do not need a model release for self-promotion, self-advertising - unless:
The images are made in private and/or under controlled circumstances.

When you invite others, including a videographer you hired, to your wedding it is no longer a private shoot.

I would bet the B&G did incomplete due diligence before signing a contract with George Street Photo.
For all we know, the George Street Photo contract includes a clause that is a model release.

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things

www.photoattorney.com

 

[jeffW]

...the pros here if you would get permission from your clients before posting a questionable video of them online?

I absolutely would not be posting any questionable videos online that might embarrass a client or images that the client didn't want used publicly. I wouldn't want to do it to a close friend as a joke. Seems like a lot of stories recently are showing photographers without ethics.

The downside to these types of stories are its going to be harder to negotiate fair ownership and contracts upfront when clients of scared of these boneheaded actions.

 

[480sparky]

...the pros here if you would get permission from your clients before posting a questionable video of them online?

I absolutely would not be posting any questionable videos online that might embarrass a client or images that the client didn't want used publicly. I wouldn't want to do it to a close friend as a joke. Seems like a lot of stories recently are showing photographers without ethics.

The downside to these types of stories are its going to be harder to negotiate fair ownership and contracts upfront when clients of scared of these boneheaded actions.

99.99% of the population doesn't care diddly squat about ownership.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I don't know why a photographer would post video or photos that was work done for a client without permission/releases signed. I don't think you can always know for sure how you might use a photo and it would be better to be covered and have it in writing. It may not be necessary but seems like a good practice.

In this situation at least some of the problem is the photographer is out of state. The Daily Mail being a tabloid I don't know how accurate their stories are, but I found a video of a news report by a San Francisco TV station. The photographer's business is in Chicago. The bride said she didn't know that. So it seems the photographer is contracting with people with cameras out of state to record or photograph weddings and whatever person with a camera shot this must not have the best business ethics!

I'd consider this type event to be private since it was invitation only and not an event open to the public. And posting video shot for a client seems to be promoting the business and I think gets into being commercial more than editorial use. If it was shot by a guest at the wedding that would probably be editorial use just being posted to share/to show to people. Being shot as paid work for a client I think gets into business/commercial work.

I imagine at least some of the responsibility would fall on the photographer running the company out of state, who's I guess going to learn an expensive lesson on contracts and releases and usage and business ethics etc. etc.