posted under: AJ Hawk, Amy Harcar, Brady Quinn
Photog Squawks: Hawk Wedding Scandal Grows
The controversy surrounding A.J. Hawk’s wedding and the subsequent release of scandalous pictures from the festivities is threatening to take on a life of its own.
Probably stung by Hawk’s negative review of her services and comments that the pictures have become “an issue,” Amy Harcar, the photographer in question, is taking her side of the matter to the press. According a story on PackersNews.com, Harcar told the AP that the happy couple agreed to allow the photos for use in advertising and that she even got approval on the shots from Laura Hawk.
Of course, I’m pretty sure Laura probably wasn’t thinking through all the scenarios of what might happen if pictures from the wedding, especially the one of her brother Brady dancing around in leather chaps, found their way onto the Interweb. But Ms. Harcar is even more clueless about what happens when you publish potentially embarrassing photos of famous sports figures on a web site; she should have seen it coming. (Maybe she did and just hates Brady Quinn?)
In the end I hope this whole thing leads to a national referendum on wedding photographers. They run a shady, dirty business: The negatives and rights to the photos should belong to the people hiring the photographer, not the photographer. I call for federal legislation — we can call it Hawk’s Law — to end this practice.
RSS
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
[...] It doesn’t surprise me that Brady Quinn was dancing around in chaps. I guess that’s always a good way to blow off some steam after getting humiliated at an NFL draft. [...]
March 18th, 2008 at 6:39 am
“They run a shady, dirty business”
Not everyone does … and how is maintaining ownership of the Copyright to one’s photos ’shady’? Photos have ALWAYS been owned by the photographer, and should always be. It’s no different than a songwriter owning the Copyright to a song. The session musicians don’t own it just because they played on the song.
Neither does the subject own the photos because they were simply in them.
In my mind, this is a Copyright issue.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:40 am
“They run a shady, dirty business”
Not everyone does … and how is maintaining ownership of the Copyright to one’s photos ’shady’? Photos have ALWAYS been owned by the photographer, and should always be. It’s no different than a songwriter owning the Copyright to a song. The session musicians don’t own it just because they played on the song. Neither does the subject own the photos simply because they were in them.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Tim,
I assume from the URL you left that you are yourself a photographer, in which case I can understand why you have that opinion.
However, from my point of view — to use your example — the photographer is the session musician, a hired hand to perform a service. Any and all rights to the finished product should belong to the person for whom the work was performed, ie in this case the people getting married.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
You seem like a level-headed person … and I press the issue not to be a jerk, but to attempt to change your mind.
I don’t think James Nachtwey (http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/) would agree with your assessment of him as a ’session musician’ … he puts his life on the line to get images. HIS is the legacy of photography … he and those who come before him and after him (like me) … and that legacy includes the photographer owning the Copyright, not the subjects owning it.
I might not be shooting through a hail of flying bullets, but I do take my craft very seriously. And also, let it be noted, I do give my clients the RIGHTS to use my photos for certain uses (as do a LOT of wedding photogs) … but the Copyright remains mine. As does an Author, a Songwriter, an Inventor … anyone who’s creative decisions inform the final product, making it more than a sum of it’s parts.
It’s the difference between photographer as vendor (like a cake) vs. photographer as artist (adding something to the interpretation of the wedding). Some are fine with being considered simply vendors … I am not.
I won’t bug you any more
Thanks for indulging me!