I offer this somewhat tongue in cheek since you've received excellent advice above; but I'd take it down and make sure she knows how concerned you are for her happiness..... then you'll get to cover her next wedding ... Mike
LeeSimms wrote:
I have a lot of divorced couples in my portfolio, but their names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Hey, that's not a bad idea.
OP, just ask her if you can re-title/re-page her blog post, and change the names. This way, the engine won't show it, and it'll fall off - while you get to keep the beautiful work, and it gets re-spidered without her name.
You haven't done anything the equivalent or better in the last 5 years and are relying on this wedding to bring you new business all these years later??
I think you need to take the images down and have a good hard look at what you are currently doing and why such an old wedding is so still important to your business?
If these pics from 5 years back are still significant to your bookings, something is really very wrong!
glort wrote:
You haven't done anything the equivalent or better in the last 5 years and are relying on this wedding to bring you new business all these years later??
I think you need to take the images down and have a good hard look at what you are currently doing and why such an old wedding is so still important to your business?
If these pics from 5 years back are still significant to your bookings, something is really very wrong!
mr. glort... i stated similarly in different context... :')
I have several blogged weddings with fictitous names. Does anyone care? You should always show your best work from venues where you want to get booked again.
Just retitle the blog post "awesome wedding venue wedding photographer" or "beautiful spring wedding in paris" or whatever's appropriate and in keeping with your SEO scheme. Then make sure their names are removed from any alt tags (no sure why they would be there in first place).
Then drink a cocktail and move on ... to more important matters.
If a disgruntled couple dragged a photographer through the court for spoiling their special day but wound up paying the photographer $1 million, how much does the bride think she can get from this photographer for spoiling her wish to hide a previous marriage... danger, Will Robinson. This ain't Vegas.
glort wrote:
You haven't done anything the equivalent or better in the last 5 years and are relying on this wedding to bring you new business all these years later??
I think you need to take the images down and have a good hard look at what you are currently doing and why such an old wedding is so still important to your business?
If these pics from 5 years back are still significant to your bookings, something is really very wrong!
I think that is too hard a statement. You don't know why he believes so, whether it is because the couple is so attractive, the light was perfect, the location the best he ever got etc. etc. I just waited for comments like this.
glort wrote:
You haven't done anything the equivalent or better in the last 5 years and are relying on this wedding to bring you new business all these years later??
I think you need to take the images down and have a good hard look at what you are currently doing and why such an old wedding is so still important to your business?
If these pics from 5 years back are still significant to your bookings, something is really very wrong!
Says the person who said that he could show his albums and photo's from the 90's and still get people oohing and aahing just as much as any image taken recently.
Really, If you need to ask the question, then you know the right thing to do...just take down the photos. Remember the simple business rule: A happy customer will tell a few people, and unhappy customer will tell everybody.
JHerr wrote:
Says the person who said that he could show his albums and photo's from the 90's and still get people oohing and aahing just as much as any image taken recently.
You really are just here to be contrarian.
That's probably the most honest post I've seen here in a year. 😂
tonyhart wrote:
Really interesting reading these replies. I didn't use full names. I'm struggling to work out how Google is attributing the full name to this picture.
This is the bigger issue that none seems to be commenting on...
How the heck did Google figure out the last name of your client based solely on the pixels in the image?
OP: You said that you definitely did not write their last names anywhere.
Conspiracy Theory: Could this mean that Google may have used face-scanning tech to figure out the identity (first and last names) of people in your images based only on the pixels in the image itself cross referenced with their database for facial recognition (like how Facebook uses facial recognition when tagging people) . If this is true, then Google probably knows the first and last names of each person in EVERY photo EVER posted online, regardless of if the names were purposely left out for anonymity.
I did have a like-issue once, about 10 years ago. Their names where not on the images (or blog post) in anyway. The groom was an ego-maniac and a bit OCD. If I ever wrote a war stories book about wedding photography, he and his wedding would easily get a chapter. They divorced less than a month later. Both bride+groom were actors.
Under my breath, I'm implying Google might not be whats at issue here.
tonyhart wrote:
Really interesting reading these replies. I didn't use full names. I'm struggling to work out how Google is attributing the full name to this picture.
Probably the same way FB auto tags peoples faces. Scary shit haha.
I would talk to her about what can be done to help you both.
If the photos are that good then it will hurt you more than her possibly.
There has to be a way to make it so the photos don't show up on google or something.
We have had couples split up and I have taken down posts but only because they were not portfolio level couples.
If one of the couples on my main page split I doubt I would take the photos down honestly.
DoubleDragon wrote:
Conspiracy Theory: Could this mean that Google may have used face-scanning tech to figure out the identity (first and last names) of people in your images based only on the pixels in the image itself cross referenced with their database for facial recognition (like how Facebook uses facial recognition when tagging people) . If this is true, then Google probably knows the first and last names of each person in EVERY photo EVER posted online, regardless of if the names were purposely left out for anonymity.
Actually, if it's possible she posted the exact same image somewhere, and put her full name with it, Google may have linked the two. However, this is MOST LIKELY and EXIF overlook by the OP.
1. You do not remove it and will lose both of them and any possible future referrals.
2. You remove the image(s) and down the road both may come to you for the 2nd marriages( from experience...)
... Mike