AJ Hawk's wedding

[Brando19]

From ESPN:
Green Bay Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk wasn't happy that a photographer posted candid shots from his recent wedding on her Web site, but the photographer says she had permission to use the photos for her advertising.

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, photographer Amy Harcar said the couple signed a standard contract granting her permission to use photos for display or publication.

Harcar said she also had Hawk's bride, Laura, approve the shots she was going to use for her advertising -- including a wacky shot of Hawk's new brother-in-law, Cleveland Browns rookie quarterback Brady Quinn, dressed up in a "Village People"-style outfit that caused a stir in the Internet sports community last week.

"Because they are public figures I also contacted Laura Hawk to request her permission to use photos for advertising and publication," Harcar said. "She reviewed and approved the photos I chose for advertising."

Although there was nothing particularly scandalous in the short series of photos posted on the site, Hawk said on Sunday that the shots were used without the couple's permission and he was taken aback by the lack of privacy.

[Joemailman]

All I can say is...it must be a slow week for football news. :D

[Jimx29]

And...get used to it A.J.
You're now a public figure and there are tons of things you're not gonna like about that.

[Guiness]

Slow news day for sure. Sounds like a communication breakdown...wonder what BQ thinks of it! :oops:

[swede]

Why does this cause a "stir"?

Does "stir" mean that people laugh and forward the pics to friends?

Or does "stir" mean that BQ and AJ were being insensitive to gay guys that dress up funny?

:roll:

Life in the US of flipping A I guess.

[packinpatland]

I saw the photos before they were pulled. They were pretty funny.

I'm thinking AJ and his wife were upset by the fact, that what the photographer did could be viewed as unethical, regardless what the small print may have said.
The photos weren't that good, creatively speaking. If they were of anyone else, I doubt the photographer would have put them on her website.

[Patler]

I saw the photos before they were pulled. They were pretty funny.

I'm thinking AJ and his wife were upset by the fact, that what the photographer did could be viewed as unethical, regardless what the small print may have said.
The photos weren't that good, creatively speaking. If they were of anyone else, I doubt the photographer would have put them on her website.

What would have upset me is the selection of the pictures to broadcast to the world. You would hope that the photgrpher would use some discretion, to not make others look bad, or hold them up to ridicule. I can look back at our wedding photos (yes, they had cameras that long ago!) and there are a few "private" photos with our families that are very meaningful to us, but not ones that I would want distributed to the world. There are "funny" photos of things that happened, again not necessarily ones that I want everyone to see. And we aren't even famous.

Face it, it seems like the photographer tried to gain notoriety not based on the quality of her work, but because of the individuals who were in them. In defense of the photographer, she claims to have asked Mrs. Hawk about the specific photos, and received an OK to use them. If that is in fact what happened, there is nothing to complain about.

[packinpatland]

I saw the photos before they were pulled. They were pretty funny.

I'm thinking AJ and his wife were upset by the fact, that what the photographer did could be viewed as unethical, regardless what the small print may have said.
The photos weren't that good, creatively speaking. If they were of anyone else, I doubt the photographer would have put them on her website.

What would have upset me is the selection of the pictures to broadcast to the world. You would hope that the photgrpher would use some discretion, to not make others look bad, or hold them up to ridicule. I can look back at our wedding photos (yes, they had cameras that long ago!) and there are a few "private" photos with our families that are very meaningful to us, but not ones that I would want distributed to the world. There are "funny" photos of things that happened, again not necessarily ones that I want everyone to see. And we aren't even famous.

Face it, it seems like the photographer tried to gain notoriety not based on the quality of her work, but because of the individuals who were in them. In defense of the photographer, she claims to have asked Mrs. Hawk about the specific photos, and received an OK to use them. If that is in fact what happened, there is nothing to complain about.

The photographer furnished the contract to the press. But the part about Mrs. Hawk oking photos appears to be verbal. Sounds more like trying to 'cover her butt' kinda of thing.
Funny thing is, most of the photos that were posted included Brady Quinn in them.
To the rest of the world, AJ and his wife really aren't all that special.......or recongnizable. :wink:

[Patler]

Funny thing is, most of the photos that were posted included Brady Quinn in them.
To the rest of the world, AJ and his wife really aren't all that special.......or recongnizable. :wink:

Yup, which is why it seems like she was playing on the notoriety of Quinn more than the quality of her own work as a photgrapher.

[MadtownPacker]

Maybe he didnt like them cuz she didnt photo him from his "good side"?

Hopefully he is real pissed off and takes it out on the opponents in '07. :D

[GrnBay007]

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.aolsportsblog.com/media/2007/05/hawk-quinn-3.jpg


Photographer Defends Using Brady Quinn Photos

"Amy Harcar, the photographer who worked at the wedding of Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk and Laura Quinn (the sister of Browns quarterback Brady Quinn), has removed the picture you see above from her web site. But she says her contract with Hawk and Quinn gave her the right to make the pictures publicly available:

By request of the Hawk and Quinn families the images from A.J. and Laura's wedding have been removed. All of our contracts, including the Hawk contract, reserve the right for Harcar Photography to use images for display, advertising and publication.

I'm guessing the happy couple didn't read the contract before they signed it, which is never a wise idea. But Harcar says she specifically talked to Laura Hawk after the wedding, showed her the photos she wanted to publicize, and got permission. So what was the objection? Maybe A.J. doesn't like the fact that his brother-in-law was getting all the attention."

[packinpatland]

Once again, 'said she talked to Mrs Hawk'.... trying to cover her butt.
Any other wedding, with plain old every day folks, the photos would not have been used. They really aren't that good.
Discretion obviously isn't a word this woman is familiar with.

One more thing, if the contract was writtnen as it was, why did she need verbal approval?

[MJZiggy]

I know what you mean PIPL. If I'm a professional photographer promoting my business, the photo above is not one I use. It's just not that good.

[Fritz]

Once again, 'said she talked to Mrs Hawk'.... trying to cover her butt.
Any other wedding, with plain old every day folks, the photos would not have been used. They really aren't that good.
Discretion obviously isn't a word this woman is familiar with.

One more thing, if the contract was writtnen as it was, why did she need verbal approval?

First, if the photographer talked to Mrs. Hawk, then I see perhaps the first marital brouhaha looming between AJ and the Mrs...

Second, when will we be seeing "Brady Quinn is gay" threads popping up?

[LL2]

It was just plain stupid of the photographer to publish that photo. Sure, it got her a few minutes of media time. If she kept the photos private and respected AJ and his wife she would've received a lot of referrals to other high profile clients, which leads to more business. Instead to lowered herself to paparazzi status. Many basic wedding photo packages start around $2,000, and for clients like AJ I'm sure you can charge a lot more. My wife and I paid $1,200 for ours, but I got the company to take $400 of the price and throw in more free pictures. The photographer was stupid and lost his cool and swore at me just before the wedding ceremony. I made sure that cost the company.

[GBRulz]

http://harcarphotography.com/index.html

I'm not that impressed with their photography. I have photographed a couple of weddings myself and am in no way what I consider a professional, but anyone with simple knowledge of Photoshop and a point and shoot camera can achieve these results IMO.

This place could have really made a name for themselves, but this was NOT the way to do it !

[packinpatland]

I just read their statement. Wonder if they had a lawyer prior to this? :)

[pbmax]

The boat has already sailed on that rumor Fritz. These aren't the first goofy photos of Brady Quinn to cause a stir.



Once again, 'said she talked to Mrs Hawk'.... trying to cover her butt.
Any other wedding, with plain old every day folks, the photos would not have been used. They really aren't that good.
Discretion obviously isn't a word this woman is familiar with.

One more thing, if the contract was writtnen as it was, why did she need verbal approval?

First, if the photographer talked to Mrs. Hawk, then I see perhaps the first marital brouhaha looming between AJ and the Mrs...

Second, when will we be seeing "Brady Quinn is gay" threads popping up?