- This topic is empty.
videographer at a wedding ( complaint/action)??
-
hey guys, been at my relatives wedding recently and without going into much detail im not happy with the way the videographer is handling the video, long story short my relatives requested to see the uncut version of the video and was explained that there was a few things said at the wedding that might be caught on camera with is vital to be heard/witnessed. and the videographer said that was no problem, but now he refuses to show the uncut version of it and has told that he nolonger has it, which we thing is a lie. my question, is there anyone i can contact to complain to about this or to take action against?
please keep this serious and help as possible, cheers folks!
:?:
Did YOU hire the videographer?
If you didn’t then I would find it difficult to see how you could possibly take an action because he did not release the video in part or in full to you?
The bride and groom are likely to be the contracted parties here and without their consent I can’t see why the videographer would have to accede to any request from relatives to release a video.
Not being funny, but when the videographer heard or suspected that some form of umbrage was being taken by what was or wasn’t said during the ceremony I can fully understand his reluctance to become embroiled in such a dispute.
Can’t say I would blame him either.
I have to agree with Seoirse on this one. The videographer was there to record the happy event and if things turn and he now finds that the records are now in the realms of video surveillance rather than a wedding video, then the law would look at it with a different perspective. Any one at the wedding guests could object if they thought that they were being documented for security reasons instead of attending a happy occasion and if it came to a court case then the footage might most likely be disallowed.
It’s like recording a phone conversion without the knowledge of the other party. It’s illegal and inadmissible if submitted as evidence and would be an infringement of someone’s civil rights. I’m not a bleeding heart civil liberty extremist or anything but this is stepping in to shaky territory and if I was the photographer or videographer I would be suffering from a sudden bout of amnesia too. I’m not a solicitor so don’t take what I say as gospel but they are my gut feelings on the matter.no ur not getting me, the bride and groom want to see the uncut version because they suspect that something was said that needs to be heard, they asked me the see if there would be any action THEY could take because the videoman wont show the uncut version.
is the recorded conversation in connection with a criminal act or a bit of gossip-type-thing?
Fintan wrote:
is the recorded conversation in connection with a criminal act or a bit of gossip-type-thing?
abit of criminal act, but basically all i want to know is that can the bride and groom take action against the videoman because he wont show uncut version?
quickclick wrote:
Fintan wrote:
is the recorded conversation in connection with a criminal act or a bit of gossip-type-thing?
abit of criminal act, but basically all i want to know is that can the bride and groom take action against the videoman because he wont show uncut version?
Hi quickclick,
I suppose they could take an action, but would it be successful?
There is also the possibility that he did edit the version and discard the bit which you are concerned with – so he may well be telling the truth.
I suppose depending on the severity of the alleged criminal act the gardai might be in a position to request an order to seize the video…but is that really necessary do you think?
Some wedding that must have been eh? Mobsters or something?
Being honest I’d be of the opinion that the videographer was hired to supply a final product and nothing else. I’d imagine its the same as wedding photography where the image rights are typically owned by the photographer.
J
quickclick wrote:
Fintan wrote:
is the recorded conversation in connection with a criminal act or a bit of gossip-type-thing?
abit of criminal act, but basically all i want to know is that can the bride and groom take action against the videoman because he wont show uncut version?
Essentially its legal advice you are looking for and I’m wondering if a photography forum is really the best place for it?
I agree, sounds like legal advice and not photographic advice thats required.
I can understand why the videographer doesn’t want to get involved. I’d also
imagine that the content actually belongs to him (as it does in photography)
and therefore he’s not obliged to show.The usual thing is that the B&G hire a videographer to record their wedding and give them his version of what the wedding was all about. He will not have recorded everything that happened – he would need a camera pointed at each person there to do so – but he records the main events and edits the footage down to approx 1.5 to 2.5 hours of finished product. This is what he is hired to do and this is his brief. he is not responsable beyond this brief.
This is his agreement with the couple and unless the three people involved – Bride, Groom and Videographer – pre-agree in writing or by independently withnessed verbal agreement to record specific events or footage, he has artistic licence on what is recorded and shown in the final production. It is the call of the videographer to record and edit as he sees fit. The following is taken from the Videographers Standard Terms of Trading.
“Licence: The Videographer shall be granted artistic licence in relation to the scenes recorded, the footage compiled and the locations used. The Videographers judgement regarding the locations, the scenes and footage shot and the finished production shall be deemed to be correct.”
Eatra footage or excess is deemed to be waste and ends up being scrapped. It is the Videographers right to refuse viewing of such footage.
GCP wrote:
The usual thing is that the B&G hire a videographer to record their wedding and give them his version of what the wedding was all about. He will not have recorded everything that happened – he would need a camera pointed at each person there to do so – but he records the main events and edits the footage down to approx 1.5 to 2.5 hours of finished product. This is what he is hired to do and this is his brief. he is not responsable beyond this brief.
This is his agreement with the couple and unless the three people involved – Bride, Groom and Videographer – pre-agree in writing or by independently withnessed verbal agreement to record specific events or footage, he has artistic licence on what is recorded and shown in the final production. It is the call of the videographer to record and edit as he sees fit. The following is taken from the Videographers Standard Terms of Trading.
“Licence: The Videographer shall be granted artistic licence in relation to the scenes recorded, the footage compiled and the locations used. The Videographers judgement regarding the locations, the scenes and footage shot and the finished production shall be deemed to be correct.”
Eatra footage or excess is deemed to be waste and ends up being scrapped. It is the Videographers right to refuse viewing of such footage.
While I agree with a lot of what you have said here I’m surprised at the amount of flexibility that the quoted passage gives as regards artistic license. While obviously the artistic skills of the videographer are what draws the client, this passage more or less gives him a free run to do whatever he wants without approval and his word is final. I know that any professional will not do this anyway and will do everything in consultation but this passage leaves the client at a distinct disadvantage if the videographer makes a complete mess of things.
I know that a contract is important from the point of view that the videographer needs some sort of protection in the event of a client being particularly difficult on the day. If a bride and groom refused to cooperate according to the pre agreed and arranged shooting schedule for the day then a clause like this would indemnify the person recording the event. This can happen. A contract will also offer protection for the client in that it lays out for all parties what is expected from everyone. An ‘opt out clause’ such as this would make me very nervous if I was a client.David
This is just one clause of a pretty long document. The Photographers have a simular one as well. These have been compiled by the law experts so I dont know much about them but the fact that they exist and many operators use them.
quickclick wrote:
hey guys, been at my relatives wedding recently and without going into much detail im not happy with the way the videographer is handling the video, long story short my relatives requested to see the uncut version of the video and was explained that there was a few things said at the wedding that might be caught on camera with is vital to be heard/witnessed. and the videographer said that was no problem, but now he refuses to show the uncut version of it and has told that he nolonger has it, which we thing is a lie. my question, is there anyone i can contact to complain to about this or to take action against?
please keep this serious and help as possible, cheers folks!
:?:
If he’s a professional videographer, he would have signed an agreement with the B&G. You need to look at that. I expect it to say that the videographer’s decision on the included footage is final. (I have that in my photographer’s contract). I would also advise you not to harass the videographer.
Si
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
