Church places restrictions on performance rights

Don Bloom · October 3rd, 2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip Howells

They seem to think Z1s and DS3s have lenses that can spot missing 4inch tiles on a Space Shuttle flying 25,000 miles above us

you mean they can't. Oh man I'm in trouble. :-(

Dave Partington · October 3rd, 2010, 03:33 PM

I've had both very good and very bad experiences in C of E establishments. I've had one vicar in particular say to me..... "Where would you like me to stand?" Perfect :)

Another was an ex-rocker (he gets my vote for best vicar of the year), very funny, and was very helpful throughout the entire process.

Then there were a couple of troublesome ones that insisted on listening to the equipment (it's silent!) and telling the photographer that his 'click' would not be tolerated. We had to stand at the back with ONE camera (I sneaked two in) and not to move one inch from before the bride arrived until after they left. Then they turned on three different kinds of lighting (tungsten, and two different colours of fluorescent over the altar) in additional to the daylight through the windows. It's almost like they deliberately set out to screw with white balance ;)

A few weeks ago I had a problem in a Catholic church. We went to the rehearsal (as we always do), discussed the discreet positioning of all (4) cameras and the fact that we would not be moving at all during the ceremony (hence the use of 4 cameras) and that we fully understood that this was a solemn occasion etc etc. Having agreed everything on the "monday", when "saturday" came the priest stopped the ceremony as soon as the bride arrived at the alter and stated that for health and safety reasons we couldn't have a camera at the back of the isle and this was not what was agreed to "yesterday"! Arrgghh!

Another vicar (who was actually very helpful) told me stories of videographers creeping up behind him and sticking a camera over his shoulder during the vows and a photographer wanting to creep up the isle on a mechanics trolly so he could be UNDER the rings as they were exchanged ! These are the kind of people who get the rest of us a bad name :(

Another one said no video at all during the ceremony. The father of the bride told him that if it was good enough for the head of the C of E's (the Queen) children then it's good enough for his daughter. But, the vicar said they'd had too many bad experiences and he was not going to allow it. Fortunately we talked through the issues (mostly listening!) and eventually came round to allowing 3 cameras as long as no one moved (including the photographer).

Recently I've had more bad experiences with (less than professional) photographers just walking all over the place, click click click all through the vows. One that we had a couple of days ago was up and down the isle so much that he decided to walk back and take a picture of US filming and missed the first kiss. Not only did HE miss the first kiss but he also blocked our camera from seeing it! Arrgghh!! Fortunately the balcony camera got it, but it there had not been a balcony we would have missed it completely.

So, with all the unprofessional people around I can see why Vicars want to clamp down on people filming. As much as I completely hate large government and regulation, I really can see the benefit of some sort of code of practice or other regulation in this industry. It would be a sad day, but perhaps it would stop the weekend warriors with low ball pricing screwing with the market.

In terms of organists charging more for their services if it's being recorded, well, maybe it's to compensate for the embarrassment they feel when they hear how BAD their performance was. If I had a pound for every bum note I've heard from a church organist I'd be a very very rich man.

Tom Hardwick · October 7th, 2010, 01:21 PM

Interesting that you 'only cover it with video as a formality'. I consider the signing of the register to be a high point in the entire wedding process, the BCU of pen and ink on paper has great significance. To each his own of course. Good job we're all different.

Ethan Cooper · October 7th, 2010, 01:44 PM

Not to steer this too far off topic but I too view the signing of the document as... I don't know, boring. I almost never feature it in the highlights. If I got a decent shot of it I'll cut to that CU in the raw footage but I've never viewed it as something important to feature. Funny how our perceptions shape what we focus on during the course of the day.

Back on topic, overly strict churches are annoying but when they start talking about performance rights they've crossed the line into insanity.

Philip Howells · October 7th, 2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Interesting that you 'only cover it with video as a formality'. I consider the signing of the register to be a high point in the entire wedding process, the BCU of pen and ink on paper has great significance. To each his own of course. Good job we're all different.

Tom, I don't disagree with you actually, it's just that most of the vicars and all of the registrars we've worked with over the past 3 years have forbidden any recording or photography of the actual registers on Data Protection Act grounds, because (as I'm sure you are aware but some non-UK readers may not know) the registers contain the details of more than one couple.

Thus the actual recording and photography is a set-up with the bride then the groom holding a pen with either no ink or certainly not "register" ink (ie permanent) above a blank piece of paper. If it was the actual register Tom, I'm with you.

Incidentally am I not right in thinking that anyone can buy a copy of a Birth, Death or Wedding Certificate on payment of a fee? In which case the DP objections are a load of bureaucratic obfuscation.

Tom Hardwick · October 8th, 2010, 01:03 AM

I consider the signing such an integral part of the entire day I will film it even if forbidden to do so. As I never have tally lights on my camera I can lean on my tripod, looking bored and looking the other way while still capturing the moment of marriage. If either of the couple decide not to sign, we can all go home; the deed is not done. Actually consummation seals the deal, but we'll leave that alone.

I have never had a church refuse me (so your 'most of the vicars' really surprises me Philip), and only about 50% of registrars at civil ceremonies flex their moment of power in this way. They never cover up the previous weddings signatures, so they obviously have no problem with everyone signing having a good look-see.

The Data Protection Act cover is nonsense because any one of the 150 congregation can ask to see the signed register. I'm just one of those, and I happen to have a visible camera. I'm often filming at an oblique angle, from the wrong way up, and with the BCU meaning very little is in frame apart from the pen nib and the ink it leaves behind.

tom.

Philip Howells · October 8th, 2010, 01:57 AM

Tom, I can only write as I find - maybe it's a regional thing!

Anthony J. Howe · October 8th, 2010, 11:30 AM

I have had some good and some awkward vicars. But listening to some of these bad stories in this thread in comparison my experiences have been quite mild. I have attended, Anglican, Catholics, Church of England, methodist churches and 98% have been quite good and co-operative.

I remember one church I attended, where I was only allowed to record from the balcony at the back, but the photographer was not allowed to photograph anything during the whole service. He was allowed to come into the church after the service to take some shots. So in this instance the videographer was allowed to record the whole service albeit at the back, but not the photographer.

George Kilroy · October 8th, 2010, 12:44 PM

Anthony, I'd be pretty certain that your couple had paid the church for the privilege of having their wedding recorded, albeit from the back. They haven't found a way of charging for the photographers' presence in church yet.

I have had exactly the opposite experience to yours recently where video was prohibited during the service yet the couple were told by the priest to pose for the photographer as they exchanged rings; he turned them to the side.

One thing that we learn from this site is that that every wedding has it's own challenges.

Philip Howells · October 8th, 2010, 01:29 PM

That's true George but I think it's more than that.

For their part it seems to me it means that couples planning to get married in church can't necessarily trust the advice of the "Church" (the organisation) but must be advised to check out the individual parish's rules as early as possible; they should be encouraged to confirm in writing whatever the vicar says/agrees and include in that letter the fact that they are contracting photographer/videographer etc on the basis of that agreement.

For our part we should meet the clergy as early as the couple, ensure that we present the most professional image so that and fears or concerns the pastor has are allayed and on the day ensure that we stick by what we agree.

In the UK couples marrying in the CofE are no longer restricted to "their" parish church. Eventually, even if it's not apparent already, the parishes discouraging couples from marrying in church will show in the Church's own statistics, then perhaps they'll do something about the negativity.

Anthony J. Howe · October 9th, 2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Kilroy

Anthony, I'd be pretty certain that your couple had paid the church for the privilege of having their wedding recorded, albeit from the back. They haven't found a way of charging for the photographers' presence in church yet.

I'm not sure George what the arrangement were for the photographer, but I remember the photographer moaning to me afterwards about not been allowed into the church during the service.

A short clip when I was in the church on the balcony, even though a very small clip there is no sign of the photographer.

Philip Howells · October 9th, 2010, 10:39 AM

Obviously it's not easy to see everything from a single angle Anthony but this is an instance when I think I'd understand any restrictions the church places on cameramen. Where exactly could you be sited which wouldn't be right on top of the couple? I know it's not everyone's solution but I think in this case I'd have suggested two remote control cameras on hotheads at the front and one on the balcony. Alternatively if we could only use the balcony I'd have put two cameras at the extreme ends taking three-quarter rear close ups of the couple and one overview camera in the centre.

I have to say though that if the space is as limited as it looks this is one instance when I'd ask the couple if they realise the limitations of their choice of church.

Finally you don't say whether the photographer visited the church before the day and talked to the vicar. If not I think he had only himself to blame. Not recceing a job is simply unprofessional.

Anthony J. Howe · October 11th, 2010, 01:28 AM

Yes Phillip space is a problem in this church and you can understand why the vicar wanted the recording done from the balcony.
This was no problem as the couple faced each other during the vows and we were able to easily zoom in.
No equipment was allowed at all and the front of the church, so we had to make do with the balcony.

But it was the restrictions on the Photographer.
I don't know if the photographer had seen the vicar previously to speak to her and no idea why the photographer was not allowed to take any shots until after the service was finished.
He just moaned to me afterwards outside the church that I was allowed to record the service and he had to wait until after the service was finished to take his shots and some of his shots were rearranged
as though the service was still on. (which makes me think that he must have known something about the restriction before he arrived)

Tom Hardwick · October 11th, 2010, 01:33 AM

Sounds to me as if the priest was saying no flash, not no photography. That shouldn't bother anyone with a modern DSLR, though the zoom range needed to capture closeups from the balcony could be harder for stills than video.

I wonder if the new Sony Alpha SLRs are quieter in operation, now that they have fixed mirrors? I've worked alongside some Nikon-toting pros up near the alter and the clacking of their mirrors and shutters is very annoying. So why do they come stand right next to me when then can see I've got a mic on top of my camera? I've had to use sign language to point this all out to them.

tom.

Philip Howells · October 11th, 2010, 02:50 AM

I think Tom's almost certainly right. The fact is that, as we know but other seem not to always, the video cameramen is recording sound as well as pictures and must be silent. On the other hand the clack-clack of DLSR shutters (which isn't necessary anyway), is always intrusive.

This sort of photography always seems to me to be the mark of an inexperienced or young photographer; if they're old enough to remember when each shot meant a frame of film to be bought and processed (at the very least) they're more circumspect about shooting un-planned, unframed, un-composed shots on the basis that 1 in 50 might be saleable.

If they want to record 25 frames a second why not become a video cameraman - and that's where, I personally believe this is heading.

October 3rd, 2010, 03:33 PM	#17
Dave Partington Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: York, England Posts: 1,323	I've had both very good and very bad experiences in C of E establishments. I've had one vicar in particular say to me..... "Where would you like me to stand?" Perfect :) Another was an ex-rocker (he gets my vote for best vicar of the year), very funny, and was very helpful throughout the entire process. Then there were a couple of troublesome ones that insisted on listening to the equipment (it's silent!) and telling the photographer that his 'click' would not be tolerated. We had to stand at the back with ONE camera (I sneaked two in) and not to move one inch from before the bride arrived until after they left. Then they turned on three different kinds of lighting (tungsten, and two different colours of fluorescent over the altar) in additional to the daylight through the windows. It's almost like they deliberately set out to screw with white balance ;) A few weeks ago I had a problem in a Catholic church. We went to the rehearsal (as we always do), discussed the discreet positioning of all (4) cameras and the fact that we would not be moving at all during the ceremony (hence the use of 4 cameras) and that we fully understood that this was a solemn occasion etc etc. Having agreed everything on the "monday", when "saturday" came the priest stopped the ceremony as soon as the bride arrived at the alter and stated that for health and safety reasons we couldn't have a camera at the back of the isle and this was not what was agreed to "yesterday"! Arrgghh! Another vicar (who was actually very helpful) told me stories of videographers creeping up behind him and sticking a camera over his shoulder during the vows and a photographer wanting to creep up the isle on a mechanics trolly so he could be UNDER the rings as they were exchanged ! These are the kind of people who get the rest of us a bad name :( Another one said no video at all during the ceremony. The father of the bride told him that if it was good enough for the head of the C of E's (the Queen) children then it's good enough for his daughter. But, the vicar said they'd had too many bad experiences and he was not going to allow it. Fortunately we talked through the issues (mostly listening!) and eventually came round to allowing 3 cameras as long as no one moved (including the photographer). Recently I've had more bad experiences with (less than professional) photographers just walking all over the place, click click click all through the vows. One that we had a couple of days ago was up and down the isle so much that he decided to walk back and take a picture of US filming and missed the first kiss. Not only did HE miss the first kiss but he also blocked our camera from seeing it! Arrgghh!! Fortunately the balcony camera got it, but it there had not been a balcony we would have missed it completely. So, with all the unprofessional people around I can see why Vicars want to clamp down on people filming. As much as I completely hate large government and regulation, I really can see the benefit of some sort of code of practice or other regulation in this industry. It would be a sad day, but perhaps it would stop the weekend warriors with low ball pricing screwing with the market. In terms of organists charging more for their services if it's being recorded, well, maybe it's to compensate for the embarrassment they feel when they hear how BAD their performance was. If I had a pound for every bum note I've heard from a church organist I'd be a very very rich man. __________________ Qualified UAV Pilot with CAA PFAW Aerial Photo / Aerial Video \| Corporate Video Production Last edited by Dave Partington; October 3rd, 2010 at 04:56 PM.

October 7th, 2010, 01:44 PM	#19
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	Not to steer this too far off topic but I too view the signing of the document as... I don't know, boring. I almost never feature it in the highlights. If I got a decent shot of it I'll cut to that CU in the raw footage but I've never viewed it as something important to feature. Funny how our perceptions shape what we focus on during the course of the day. Back on topic, overly strict churches are annoying but when they start talking about performance rights they've crossed the line into insanity. __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

October 7th, 2010, 01:21 PM	#18
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Interesting that you 'only cover it with video as a formality'. I consider the signing of the register to be a high point in the entire wedding process, the BCU of pen and ink on paper has great significance. To each his own of course. Good job we're all different.

October 8th, 2010, 01:03 AM	#21
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I consider the signing such an integral part of the entire day I will film it even if forbidden to do so. As I never have tally lights on my camera I can lean on my tripod, looking bored and looking the other way while still capturing the moment of marriage. If either of the couple decide not to sign, we can all go home; the deed is not done. Actually consummation seals the deal, but we'll leave that alone. I have never had a church refuse me (so your 'most of the vicars' really surprises me Philip), and only about 50% of registrars at civil ceremonies flex their moment of power in this way. They never cover up the previous weddings signatures, so they obviously have no problem with everyone signing having a good look-see. The Data Protection Act cover is nonsense because any one of the 150 congregation can ask to see the signed register. I'm just one of those, and I happen to have a visible camera. I'm often filming at an oblique angle, from the wrong way up, and with the BCU meaning very little is in frame apart from the pen nib and the ink it leaves behind. tom.

October 8th, 2010, 01:57 AM	#22
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Tom, I can only write as I find - maybe it's a regional thing!

October 8th, 2010, 11:30 AM	#23
Anthony J. Howe Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 55	I have had some good and some awkward vicars. But listening to some of these bad stories in this thread in comparison my experiences have been quite mild. I have attended, Anglican, Catholics, Church of England, methodist churches and 98% have been quite good and co-operative. I remember one church I attended, where I was only allowed to record from the balcony at the back, but the photographer was not allowed to photograph anything during the whole service. He was allowed to come into the church after the service to take some shots. So in this instance the videographer was allowed to record the whole service albeit at the back, but not the photographer.

October 8th, 2010, 12:44 PM	#24
George Kilroy Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Midlands UK Posts: 699	Anthony, I'd be pretty certain that your couple had paid the church for the privilege of having their wedding recorded, albeit from the back. They haven't found a way of charging for the photographers' presence in church yet. I have had exactly the opposite experience to yours recently where video was prohibited during the service yet the couple were told by the priest to pose for the photographer as they exchanged rings; he turned them to the side. One thing that we learn from this site is that that every wedding has it's own challenges.

October 8th, 2010, 01:29 PM	#25
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	That's true George but I think it's more than that. For their part it seems to me it means that couples planning to get married in church can't necessarily trust the advice of the "Church" (the organisation) but must be advised to check out the individual parish's rules as early as possible; they should be encouraged to confirm in writing whatever the vicar says/agrees and include in that letter the fact that they are contracting photographer/videographer etc on the basis of that agreement. For our part we should meet the clergy as early as the couple, ensure that we present the most professional image so that and fears or concerns the pastor has are allayed and on the day ensure that we stick by what we agree. In the UK couples marrying in the CofE are no longer restricted to "their" parish church. Eventually, even if it's not apparent already, the parishes discouraging couples from marrying in church will show in the Church's own statistics, then perhaps they'll do something about the negativity.

October 9th, 2010, 10:39 AM	#27
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	Obviously it's not easy to see everything from a single angle Anthony but this is an instance when I think I'd understand any restrictions the church places on cameramen. Where exactly could you be sited which wouldn't be right on top of the couple? I know it's not everyone's solution but I think in this case I'd have suggested two remote control cameras on hotheads at the front and one on the balcony. Alternatively if we could only use the balcony I'd have put two cameras at the extreme ends taking three-quarter rear close ups of the couple and one overview camera in the centre. I have to say though that if the space is as limited as it looks this is one instance when I'd ask the couple if they realise the limitations of their choice of church. Finally you don't say whether the photographer visited the church before the day and talked to the vicar. If not I think he had only himself to blame. Not recceing a job is simply unprofessional.

October 11th, 2010, 01:28 AM	#28
Anthony J. Howe Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 55	Yes Phillip space is a problem in this church and you can understand why the vicar wanted the recording done from the balcony. This was no problem as the couple faced each other during the vows and we were able to easily zoom in. No equipment was allowed at all and the front of the church, so we had to make do with the balcony. But it was the restrictions on the Photographer. I don't know if the photographer had seen the vicar previously to speak to her and no idea why the photographer was not allowed to take any shots until after the service was finished. He just moaned to me afterwards outside the church that I was allowed to record the service and he had to wait until after the service was finished to take his shots and some of his shots were rearranged as though the service was still on. (which makes me think that he must have known something about the restriction before he arrived)

October 11th, 2010, 01:33 AM	#29
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Sounds to me as if the priest was saying no flash, not no photography. That shouldn't bother anyone with a modern DSLR, though the zoom range needed to capture closeups from the balcony could be harder for stills than video. I wonder if the new Sony Alpha SLRs are quieter in operation, now that they have fixed mirrors? I've worked alongside some Nikon-toting pros up near the alter and the clacking of their mirrors and shutters is very annoying. So why do they come stand right next to me when then can see I've got a mic on top of my camera? I've had to use sign language to point this all out to them. tom.

October 11th, 2010, 02:50 AM	#30
Philip Howells Trustee Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester UK Posts: 1,212	I think Tom's almost certainly right. The fact is that, as we know but other seem not to always, the video cameramen is recording sound as well as pictures and must be silent. On the other hand the clack-clack of DLSR shutters (which isn't necessary anyway), is always intrusive. This sort of photography always seems to me to be the mark of an inexperienced or young photographer; if they're old enough to remember when each shot meant a frame of film to be bought and processed (at the very least) they're more circumspect about shooting un-planned, unframed, un-composed shots on the basis that 1 in 50 might be saleable. If they want to record 25 frames a second why not become a video cameraman - and that's where, I personally believe this is heading.