Interesting Photography Debate

[MarkBarbieri]

I understand that Disney doesn't allow pro photos to work in their parks without being under contract to them. That seems reasonable. How do they enforce it?

What if your friend or relative is a pro photographer and is invited to your wedding? Can they not shoot? Can they only use amateur equipment? Can they use pro equipment but not sell the pictures to you? I'm struggling to think of how Disney can allow someone's idiot brother-in-law with an OK camera to shoot a bunch of amateur shots while at the same time banning someone from hiring a pro to shoot them at the park. How can they distinguish between the two.

When I was last at the parks, I was dressed up (for Halloween, mind you) as a pro photographer. It was obvious, of course, that I didn't have a clue what I was doing, but even still I was asked by a few park employees what the purpose of my shots was. In that case, they simply trusted me. I wonder if they'd be so understanding of a wedding party.

 

[jann1033]

I understand that Disney doesn't allow pro photos to work in their parks without being under contract to them. That seems reasonable. How do they enforce it?

What if your friend or relative is a pro photographer and is invited to your wedding? Can they not shoot? Can they only use amateur equipment? Can they use pro equipment but not sell the pictures to you? I'm struggling to think of how Disney can allow someone's idiot brother-in-law with an OK camera to shoot a bunch of amateur shots while at the same time banning someone from hiring a pro to shoot them at the park. How can they distinguish between the two.

When I was last at the parks, I was dressed up (for Halloween, mind you) as a pro photographer. It was obvious, of course, that I didn't have a clue what I was doing, but even still I was asked by a few park employees what the purpose of my shots was. In that case, they simply trusted me. I wonder if they'd be so understanding of a wedding party.[/QUOTE

i remember a thread somewhere that they tell the party to stop or else ( organ chord) they will be BANNED FOR LIFE . as far as idiot brotherinlaws go, there could be a problem unless he can provide some proof he's an amateur, like lousy shots...oh wait that wouldn't work since that was the problem with the op wasn't it

oh so the brown shorts were a costume? hah! how's that old song go? liar liar brown shorts on fire?

 

[lurkyloo]

lurkyloo, your wetting photog has got some serious skillz!!!!!! I spent a good HOUR on his/website. The Disney folks should take note.

I'm so glad you enjoyed their stuff! We were SO fortunate to find them...

actually i like the castle shots set ups, they are just out of focus.(maybe it's the resolution?) well not the cheesy armour one but the others...ok not the holding up the wall one either...ok i like a few

You may also ask if the photography is contracted out or is this Disney....I know on the cruise they are a contract company that comes in and does the work.
Did you get a chance to see any of the work ahead of time? If so how did that look?

Disney has its own stable of wedding photographers (although their wedding videography is contracted out like you describe). The only work we saw ahead of time was other couples' MK shots, but it's hard to know who took them. Disney assigns photographers based on schedules, so you don't know who you're going to get and therefore can't see samples of your photographer's work.

Are you going through your FTW planner or have you contacted DPS directly? I sent a letter by mail (certified, return receipt, blah blah blah) to DPS and they responded immediately w/ do you want a reshoot or 50% refund. Though, if they're getting a lot of complaints, I could see how they'd be less inclined to offer refunds. I mean, they KNOW people can't/won't take them up on reshoots.

Maybe a letter is the way to go - I've been dealing with Disney Photographic directly rather than our wedding planner, but it's all been email and a few phone calls. I do know that sometimes letters get more response than emails... thanks for the tips!

 

[wdwpluto]

Maybe a letter is the way to go - I've been dealing with Disney Photographic directly rather than our wedding planner, but it's all been email and a few phone calls. I do know that sometimes letters get more response than emails... thanks for the tips!

Wouldn't hurt to CC your event manager on that letter too. You just never know!

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok, so I gotta put in my 2 cents here. I would put it on the original thread, but hey, they hate us!

I would say that if the wedding participants do not get written permission to duplicate the photos in any way, then it is obviously a violation of copyright law. However, if these are Disney employees taking these photos, I have to ask why these rights aren't just signed over by Disney when the payment (of what, $1000 for the shoot and $1000 for the CD) is made? Why would they want to keep it going? Just give them the rights to duplicate and move on? I would think that if there are this many complaints, they would take their $2000 and move on. Do they think that these photos will be re-ordered? How long do you have to re-order them? Are they available forever? I just don't get this policy. I know, money is what Disney is all about, but this seems a bit over the top.

Now, if this work was contracted out to a real professional photographer, this would be all different. Then it should be between the consumer and the photographer to come to this conclusion.

 

[PrincessBride010103]

Ok, so I gotta put in my 2 cents here. I would put it on the original thread, but hey, they hate us!

I would say that if the wedding participants do not get written permission to duplicate the photos in any way, then it is obviously a violation of copyright law. However, if these are Disney employees taking these photos, I have to ask why these rights aren't just signed over by Disney when the payment (of what, $1000 for the shoot and $1000 for the CD) is made? Why would they want to keep it going? Just give them the rights to duplicate and move on? I would think that if there are this many complaints, they would take their $2000 and move on. Do they think that these photos will be re-ordered? How long do you have to re-order them? Are they available forever? I just don't get this policy. I know, money is what Disney is all about, but this seems a bit over the top.

Now, if this work was contracted out to a real professional photographer, this would be all different. Then it should be between the consumer and the photographer to come to this conclusion.

It is Disney themselves, not contracted out. The question in the original post was if it was okay to scan the pics to share online, not get re-printed, without owning rights. The complaints about quality have nothing to do with owning the rights or not, it just usually comes with the territory of talking about an MK bridal shoot.

 

[MICKEY88]

. The question in the original post was if it was okay to scan the pics to share online, not get re-printed, without owning rights. .

the answer would be no, scanning and creating a digital file is still a violation of copyright law..

 

[AndrewWG]

the answer would be no, scanning and creating a digital file is still a violation of copyright law..

Unfortunately, that is how I understand it too. These are the reasons why I think they should just sign over the rights right from the beginning. If prints and CD have been ordered, it should just be a given that they give the rights out to the couple. However, if they don't, it is unfortunately illegal to reproduce them in any way. Sure, if noone is caught doing it, noone will get in trouble with it. The same holds true if someone doesn't get caught robbing a home. Illegal is still illegal.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If scanning and reposting is not expressly forbidden by the contract, I would do it and leave it up to Disney to complain.

 

[ukcatfan]

Is it illegal? Yes.
Will you likely get caught? No.
If caught, will Disney automatically sue you? Not likely.
You would more likely get a cease and desist letter.

 

[jaineparr]

Wedding photographers that are any good up here in the DC area charge 8-10 grand and up for a wedding. For $1,000.00 you are going to get lousy photos. No halfway decent wedding photographer would touch a wedding for that little money. Caveat emptor.

 

[AndrewWG]

Wedding photographers that are any good up here in the DC area charge 8-10 grand and up for a wedding. For $1,000.00 you are going to get lousy photos. No halfway decent wedding photographer would touch a wedding for that little money. Caveat emptor.

8-10 GRAND?????????????

They wouldn't have work here in Massachusetts from what I've seen. Good or not, noone here will take out a loan for photos, especially nowadays with all the advances in digital cameras.

 

[MICKEY88]

Wedding photographers that are any good up here in the DC area charge 8-10 grand and up for a wedding. For $1,000.00 you are going to get lousy photos. No halfway decent wedding photographer would touch a wedding for that little money. Caveat emptor.

maybe in your area that holds true, but I know wedding photographers who will shoot for 1000 and they are very good.

in my area, a wedding photographer trying to make 8-10 grand on a wedding would soon be out of business... it depends on what the market will bear

 

[My2Girls66]

When my brother got married in '96, in Ct, his in laws paid $7500+ for their photographer plus they paid extra for extra prints!(they can well afford it) Their photographer has since published a book and he used a photo with my girls in it. 'The Art of Bridal Portrait Photography' by Marty Seefer.
My uncle(former portrait photographer) did my wedding in '87 as a gift to us. He did a fine job.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I also got married in 87 and at the time, paid $800 for the photographer, which was quite a splurge for us since we were paying for things ourselves, had just finished college and were trying to buy a home - the latter of which was really the most important to us (good decision).

Anyway, I picked this photographer because he'd shot a show that my BIL was in, and I couldn't believe the acrobatics this guy was doing trying to capture the essence of the show. (I believe at the time he was working for the local newspaper, but I'm not really sure.) He was very nice and easy to deal with. Pictures were nice, too. I called him a few years later to shoot some pictures of my dog, and that day he handed me all the proofs from our wedding to keep.

Reading this thread, I wondered about his giving us the proofs - what exactly did that mean? Was he handing over the rights to the photos?

 

[PrincessBride010103]

Wedding photographers that are any good up here in the DC area charge 8-10 grand and up for a wedding. For $1,000.00 you are going to get lousy photos. No halfway decent wedding photographer would touch a wedding for that little money. Caveat emptor.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA You thought $1000 was for an entire wedding??

No no, my friend, $1000 is for a 45 minute to 1 hour photoshoot in the Magic Kingdom in your Bridal Attire before the park opens.

 

[MICKEY88]

I also got married in 87 and at the time, paid $800 for the photographer, which was quite a splurge for us since we were paying for things ourselves, had just finished college and were trying to buy a home - the latter of which was really the most important to us (good decision).

Anyway, I picked this photographer because he'd shot a show that my BIL was in, and I couldn't believe the acrobatics this guy was doing trying to capture the essence of the show. (I believe at the time he was working for the local newspaper, but I'm not really sure.) He was very nice and easy to deal with. Pictures were nice, too. I called him a few years later to shoot some pictures of my dog, and that day he handed me all the proofs from our wedding to keep.

Reading this thread, I wondered about his giving us the proofs - what exactly did that mean? Was he handing over the rights to the photos?

proofs or negatives, they are 2 different things

generally proofs are given so you have something to look at to pick the pics you want to order copies of, with film, they are usually 4x6 prints, that have proof stamped or printed on them,, with digital, they can be digital files on a disk, that are usually a reduced file size and lower resolution than the original files..they often have a watermark on them to help deter copying..

 

[jann1033]

Unfortunately, that is how I understand it too. These are the reasons why I think they should just sign over the rights right from the beginning. If prints and CD have been ordered, it should just be a given that they give the rights out to the couple. However, if they don't, it is unfortunately illegal to reproduce them in any way. Sure, if noone is caught doing it, noone will get in trouble with it. The same holds true if someone doesn't get caught robbing a home. Illegal is still illegal.

i don't know what photographers do commonly but i don't think i'd ever give them the rights to scan and put online or just give the rights away...saying they have the right to scan is basically giving them the right to give your photo to the entire world...without getting paid for it. fine if you are a friend not so good if you want to earn money. people order wedding prints after the wedding to give to relatives etc. if you say they can scan it you probably are losing a good deal of business

 

[AndrewWG]

i don't know what photographers do commonly but i don't think i'd ever give them the rights to scan and put online or just give the rights away...saying they have the right to scan is basically giving them the right to give your photo to the entire world...without getting paid for it. fine if you are a friend not so good if you want to earn money. people order wedding prints after the wedding to give to relatives etc. if you say they can scan it you probably are losing a good deal of business

Oh, yeah, I agree completely. My point on this is that these "photographers" as they call themselves seem to be just cast members at Disney. Sure, they may be photographers, but they aren't contracting the work for themselves, so these photos (I would think) effectively belong to Disney. For the prices people are saying, I would think that Disney could give these people the rights to do with them as they please. Now if they were photographers that are in business for themselves (and not Disney employees), that is different. It's their company, so they can do what they want with the negatives/originals. That is their way of making a living. In this case though, it seems as though they are just Disney employees.

Is this making any sense?

 

[PrincessBride010103]

Oh, yeah, I agree completely. My point on this is that these "photographers" as they call themselves seem to be just cast members at Disney. Sure, they may be photographers, but they aren't contracting the work for themselves, so these photos (I would think) effectively belong to Disney. For the prices people are saying, I would think that Disney could give these people the rights to do with them as they please. Now if they were photographers that are in business for themselves (and not Disney employees), that is different. It's their company, so they can do what they want with the negatives/originals. That is their way of making a living. In this case though, it seems as though they are just Disney employees.

Is this making any sense?

YES! That's what we're saying!!