Lynn J

I was at my niece's wedding recently. Prior to the ceremony, an announcement was made that we were to put away our cameras, as only the wedding photographer would be taking pictures throughout the wedding. This seemed unusual, as at other weddings I have been to, everyone and their uncle is taking pictures with their cell phones and other cameras. It wasn't long after the ceremony was over that people had their cell phones out and were snapping away. During the couple's first dance, the hired photographer became upset and made an announcement that in her contract with the couple it stated that no one else was allowed to take pictures during the wedding. (This was an uncomfortable situation. Some people stopped and others ignored her. It wasn't long before a bunch of cameras were clicking again.)

My question is: Does a hired photographer have the legal right, even with a signed contract with the wedding couple, to prohibit other people at a wedding from taking pictures?

Thank you.

ccook2004 Loc: Rockledge FL

Wouldn't work in my family. Maybe it should have been included in the invitation from the Bride and Groom.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

You need a lawyer to answer that. My sense it was in the contract and the announcement was required however no way to enforce it. It has to do with greed on the photographers part.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The contract probably is binding, and the COUPLE may be sued. But collecting anything is probably as hard as getting people to put away their smartphones.

The announcement of a restriction should be very clearly stated in the invitation, but my take on it is that all such an announcement does is pi$$ people off!

Weddings, unless VERY high end, are seldom big money makers for photographers these days. It's a new world. Photography has been democratized!

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

If I go to a wedding and want to take pictures, I'll do so. I will not get in the professional's way or hinder him, but I will shoot. If he isn't and a@#$%^&, he won't mind.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Seems overly controlling to be sure. And why would a professional insist on a clause that was guaranteed to come into conflict with wedding guests?

SnappyHappy Loc: Chapin, SC “The Capitol of Lake Murray”

It doesn't seem reasonable that a contract signed by the party of the first part could legally bind the party of the second part, who wasn't party to the contract in any part. Although if the photographer could produce a cash retainer you can bet the claim to damage would be litigated. Only in America.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

I am not a lawyer, however, a contract with a photographer is not binding on others. That said if a family member asked e not to take pictures I would abide by their wishes.

al davis Loc: chesterfield virginia

I have shot weddings. I always have an announcement made. Take all the pictures you want but please do not use flash. I have no problem with the guest taking pictures it should be expected. I also have never run into a problem with guest being in the way.

Lynn J

Thank you so much to all who have taken there time to reply!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

It is NOT unusual and part of a contract. End of story.

It is BENDING for the guests too. I have seen photographer quit a job in the middle because of this. They won in court too. It is the responsibility of the contract signator to insure the contract is respected through a designated representative.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

It is becoming more common. It is sometimes referred to as an "unplugged" event. It is legal. It is binding. It is REALLY tough to enforce, however.
Many of the GOOD wedding photographers have a predetermined deliverable - usually an album and maybe parent albums and some number of prints. So they get ALL the money upfront. Therefore, they don't care too much about others shooting as it does not have any significant effect on earnings from the event. That and the fact that the good photographers are so much better than all the guests that what Uncle Fred shoots will pale in comparison.

I do not do weddings, but if I ever lost my mind and did, that would be my model: You get this, it costs this, pay me BEFORE the wedding.

If you do attend an event and are asked to refrain from taking pictures and you do so anyway, you are a horse's ass. It is THEIR event, not yours.

twinhearts Loc: Southwestern Michigan

I have been to two weddings that had this issue. Two separate photographers were used. Both sent a notice along with the invitations. Both weddings had guests that still took photos.
At the first wedding, the photographer, after realizing that pictures were still being taken, announced that after he took his photos of each pose, he would allow a few moments for guests to take a couple of shots. The guests really appreciated this and at the reception, made an effort to stay out of his way. He got some wonderful photos and everyone was happy.
At the second wedding, things did not go so well. The photographer made his announcement at the church stating that no picture taking would be allowed what so ever. He did not give an explanation and came across quite rude. When the bride and groom got their photos, every single shot had either a camera, cell phone, or a person's body part in them. The only explanation they got was that they signed a contract stating that his company was to be the exclusive photographers.
To me, it just seems like common courtesy to stay out of the paid professionals way.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Yes. without a doubt. If it is in the contract, the photographer has every right to leave if the crowd is unruly. Think about it. The couple is paying a professional to get the shots they want. If the photographer cannot get every scene clear of the relatives and friends with cellphones, point and shoots and other stuff, he/she will be in breach of contract and won't get paid. Not to mention that the couple won't get what they paid for.

So, I have no problem setting this up ahead of time. I even used to give the couple an insert that clearly stated that a professional photographer has been retained, and everyone should refrain from taking their own pictures during the ceremony and afterwards. There would be a time set aside for personal pics, but people taking unauthorized pictures would be asked to put their cameras away, and if the problem persisted they would be asked to leave. This really put a damper on Uncle Joe and Aunt Mary whipping out their cellphones and taking video or stills. On several occasions people were asked to leave, but never did, but the cameras were put away.

It's inconsiderate and disrespectful. BTW, it is not the photographer but the couple that has the right. Once it is written into the contract, they are bound to ensure clear shots without interference.

BebuLamar

I think such a clause would prevent someone like me taking pictures at wedding too. Although I don't care for pictures of the bride or the groom nor the guests but I like to take pictures of professional photographers (I mean ones that earn money) doing their work.