blackroseangel89: The most important thing outside of equipment, shot list or ANYTHING is a contract! And these points need to spelled out and signed off on by both the bride and groom:
1. You are in no way a professional with any specialized training or experience. You are just a friend helping out.
2. As you are not a professional, you make no garuntees on the outcome of the photos
-----------------------------------------------
This is VERY important for you and i totally agree I too recommend not to accept payment.
Personally I think if you will be the only photographer there (or the wedding won't have any professional photographers) don't go for it, the risk is just too great if you don't have any experience and just one body not only that you screw up and they get angry but you can also get sued for your work (specially in US).
Anyway good luck.
1. You are in no way a professional with any specialized training or experience. You are just a friend helping out.
2. As you are not a professional, you make no garuntees on the outcome of the photos
-----------------------------------------------
This is VERY important for you and i totally agree I too recommend not to accept payment.
Personally I think if you will be the only photographer there (or the wedding won't have any professional photographers) don't go for it, the risk is just too great if you don't have any experience and just one body not only that you screw up and they get angry but you can also get sued for your work (specially in US).
Anyway good luck.
If her profile is correct, she's only 15 - she isn't old enough to enter into a contract in the United States.
I suspect her age would also make it difficult to sue her.
I suspect her age would also make it difficult to sue her.
oh, i am no way going to be sued, they know i am not a professional and they have seen some of my work. these will be people i know
Ok, thats good. I still think its not a smart idea to charge them for your work but"sjphoto" had a good ideas about the prints.
I still think its not a smart idea to charge them for your work but"sjphoto" had a good ideas about the prints.Ummmmm... don't count on that. Ever.
Friends sue friends every day.
In your case, all it takes is for a wedding guest to trip over your bag, hit their head and end up in the hospital. The injured party may not want to sue you, but it is possible their insurance company will. And it is also possible they will not go after you, but after your parents.
That's why I carry liability insurance. If I shot more weddings, I'd also carry errors and omissions (E&O).
Getting sued is very expensive - even when you win, you lose.
Friends sue friends every day.
In your case, all it takes is for a wedding guest to trip over your bag, hit their head and end up in the hospital. The injured party may not want to sue you, but it is possible their insurance company will. And it is also possible they will not go after you, but after your parents.
That's why I carry liability insurance. If I shot more weddings, I'd also carry errors and omissions (E&O).
Getting sued is very expensive - even when you win, you lose.
"
In your case, all it takes is for a wedding guest to trip over your bag, hit their head and end up in the hospital. The injured party may not want to sue you, but it is possible their insurance company will. And it is also possible they will not go after you, but after your parents."
This is where I believe the importance of not charging comes in. Feel free to correct me, but I think this is how it works. If she did decide against charging, she (or her parents) would only be liable for damages if anything like the above scenario were to happen. Also a judge would be more likely to take her age into account, and put the liability on the person who tripped for not being careful. Also, by not charging she is just a guest with a camera, which means the hall itself would probably cover the damages anyway. If she were to charge, that opens up a whole can of worms. If they sued, she (or her parents) could get in trouble for her operating a business with the proper liability insurance. Judges are generally much harsher with business operations and much more likely to give a tough ruling. Also, the bride and groom could get in trouble for conducting an illegal contract with a minor. The chances of these things happening is unlikely, but these things do happen.
In your case, all it takes is for a wedding guest to trip over your bag, hit their head and end up in the hospital. The injured party may not want to sue you, but it is possible their insurance company will. And it is also possible they will not go after you, but after your parents."
This is where I believe the importance of not charging comes in. Feel free to correct me, but I think this is how it works. If she did decide against charging, she (or her parents) would only be liable for damages if anything like the above scenario were to happen. Also a judge would be more likely to take her age into account, and put the liability on the person who tripped for not being careful. Also, by not charging she is just a guest with a camera, which means the hall itself would probably cover the damages anyway. If she were to charge, that opens up a whole can of worms. If they sued, she (or her parents) could get in trouble for her operating a business with the proper liability insurance. Judges are generally much harsher with business operations and much more likely to give a tough ruling. Also, the bride and groom could get in trouble for conducting an illegal contract with a minor. The chances of these things happening is unlikely, but these things do happen.
First, I'm not a lawyer and am only going by conversations I've had with lawyers and insurance agents.
I don't believe compensation has any impact upon liability. I know from an insurance point of view, State Farm considers the photography to be of commercial nature as soon as you are presenting yourself as a professional and intend to eventually make money (even if you are not yet charging for photography services) (at least, that's what my State Farm agent told me as I was negotiating a business policy - which in the end, they decided not to offer to me).
Of course, if she is a guest with a camera, then she is only a guest - but if she presents herself as "the photographer" that could change the issue. Compensation would only make it easier to show that she was presenting herself as a professional photographer.
Remember, in the US, anybody can sue anybody else over anything. Her age is not likely to get her out of a civil action if there is a reasonable chance of liability.
As far as a contract goes, it isn't illegal as much invalid. She isn't old enough to enter into a contract at all, therefore her parents would need to sign it in her stead... She could promise anything she wants in a contract and generally can't be held to it.
Personally, I think the B&G are idiots for offering to pay a minor to shoot a wedding - far too many bad things can happen with that...
Truthfully, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those sort of "what ifs". I'm a professional and I get paid for my photography. I also carry insurance. I suspect that most of those $300 craigslist wedding photographers don't.
I don't believe compensation has any impact upon liability. I know from an insurance point of view, State Farm considers the photography to be of commercial nature as soon as you are presenting yourself as a professional and intend to eventually make money (even if you are not yet charging for photography services) (at least, that's what my State Farm agent told me as I was negotiating a business policy - which in the end, they decided not to offer to me).
Of course, if she is a guest with a camera, then she is only a guest - but if she presents herself as "the photographer" that could change the issue. Compensation would only make it easier to show that she was presenting herself as a professional photographer.
Remember, in the US, anybody can sue anybody else over anything. Her age is not likely to get her out of a civil action if there is a reasonable chance of liability.
As far as a contract goes, it isn't illegal as much invalid. She isn't old enough to enter into a contract at all, therefore her parents would need to sign it in her stead... She could promise anything she wants in a contract and generally can't be held to it.
Personally, I think the B&G are idiots for offering to pay a minor to shoot a wedding - far too many bad things can happen with that...
Truthfully, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those sort of "what ifs". I'm a professional and I get paid for my photography. I also carry insurance. I suspect that most of those $300 craigslist wedding photographers don't.