No I won't shut up. I was going by what you said and not what I think you meant. Good thing you didn't have to exercise your clause in your contract so you didn't have to find out what would have happened..Again, you’re clueless. Shut up.
No I won't shut up. I was going by what you said and not what I think you meant. Good thing you didn't have to exercise your clause in your contract so you didn't have to find out what would have happened..Again, you’re clueless. Shut up.
What does YOUR clause say ...????No I won't shut up. I was going by what you said and not what I think you meant. Good thing you didn't have to exercise your clause in your contract so you didn't have to find out what would have happened..
I don't take pictures as part of my job to sell to clients. So I don't have a clause for that.What does YOUR clause say ...????
OK .. maybe it's just music and you show up to a "jam" and one of the guest's brother is a "DJ" and has already set up his Ion Rockblocker before you get there. What does your contract say about that? Or someone's sister's boyfriend's kid has a playlist on their phone that "needs" to be played and was approved by some minor member of the committee?I don't take pictures as part of my job to sell to clients. So I don't have a clause for that.
I do have a clause that in the event something happens to us or our gear the client is responsible.
The other thing we reserve the right to cancel an agreement and refund any money paid to us. Never have I ever inforced either clause so far.
Taso I hear what you said. What I read is that he said we would walk if an issue like this wasn't resolved due to what their contract says. So by saying we that says to me both his wife and him would be leaving. So the client will be left with no DJ and photog that they paid for.
Again it's about what he said here and not what we are to guess what he meant.Mix....if YOU were the groom....would allow your vendor to leave.... over something like this?
No. You would solve the problem by letting your paid photographer do their job.
Rick really wasn't threatening to leave...
he was just reminding everyone of the contract terms they are working under.
OK .. maybe it's just music and you show up to a "jam" and one of the guest's brother is a "DJ" and has already set up his Ion Rockblocker before you get there. What does your contract say about that? Or someone's sister's boyfriend's kid has a playlist on their phone that "needs" to be played and was approved by some minor member of the committee?
Photographer's are a little different. The field is crowded and many are trying to make money on product, hoping to sell photos long after the event has ended. Really talented photographers generally don't take issue with other cameras - provided no one gets in the way of them doing their work, or clings to them in an effort to frame all the same shots.
I find the less talented the photographer is the more threatened and hostile they are about other cameras in the room. The top guys charge sufficiently more just for the coverage, so they aren't dependent on the quantity of photos sold. Their work is premium and their customers can afford to buy so, the post event sales are all gravy.
Again it's about what he said here and not what we are to guess what he meant.
As much as I don't care for Bob because of a lot of his posts. This time you missed what he said and he made a great point. A photographer that is truly a professional charging truly a professional price wouldn't even have a situation like that come up. The reason is their price is so high that they would clearly be the only one there unless they hired a second shooter.You're so full of B.S. In the past, anytime I got shutdown over an exclusivity clause, you'd trumpet on and on about how it was their right (it is) and perfectly justified to hold a client to their agreement. Now, you're turning around and saying "Only the insecure photogs will complain." You're full of crap. I don't know of any professional photographers who are going to be okay with having to work around a 2nd, PAID photographer.
As much as I don't care for Bob because of a lot of his posts. This time you missed what he said and he made a great point. A photographer that is truly a professional charging truly a professional price wouldn't even have a situation like that come up. The reason is their price is so high that they would clearly be the only one there unless they hired a second shooter.
Yes you have people excited about you offering both services for the price you charge. The thing is how good is the service they are getting? Not saying your wife taking pictures and editing them is of poor quality. If it's of really great quality then why isn't costing more?
You're so full of B.S. In the past, anytime I got shutdown over an exclusivity clause, you'd trumpet on and on about how it was their right (it is) and perfectly justified to hold a client to their agreement. Now, you're turning around and saying "Only the insecure photogs will complain." You're full of crap. I don't know of any professional photographers who are going to be okay with having to work around a 2nd, PAID photographer.
I didn't offer any opinion at all about this instance of you enforcing your own clause.
I've commented on Steve's DJ analogy and photgraphers in general. Personalize it at your own risk.
Your inference was quite clear.