HELP - ADVICE/OPINION WANTED

[Steve5D]

personally, I would TOTALLY opt out of this deal. these people are going to be trouble. with a capital F.U.

No kidding.

I would reply as such:

Dear Pain In My Ass,

I'm sorry to learn of your resolve to be in breach of the contract you originally, and willingly, signed.

As such, I will retain the full amount you paid me in lieu of taking you to court for breach of contract.

Today is Thursday.

Your wedding is in 48 hours.

Good luck finding a photographer willing to bend to your demands.

Moi

Seriously, the odds that these people are ever reasonable are slim to none. Bail on this now. Keep the money. Have a Coke and a smile.

Don't shoot the wedding...

 

[Steve5D]

I haven't replied with the above message yet. I think I will refund all but the deposit (40%) if this is how it goes. I fail to see her logic, anyone worthwhile is already booked... well she fails to see the importance of a good photographer I suppose.

Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...

 

[Steve5D]

The offer that she sent earlier, sounded awfully lawyer(ish). I'm guessing she has a friend/relative who's a lawyer and she's pestering them to formulate a response for her.

My impression is that it was written by someone who's not a lawyer who's trying to sound like a lawyer.

I know a few lawyers, and I can't imagine any of them penning tripe like that. "Search engine tricks"? Yeah, no lawyer's gonna' use a term like that...

 

[runnah]

Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...

Nah, on principal its a good idea but on paper its bad. You'd be out 10x the money just in legal fees.

 

[Steve5D]

Honestly, I would keep every dime they paid me. To get any of it back, they would have to take you to court, and they will be forced to face the "signed contract" issue...

Nah, on principal its a good idea but on paper its bad. You'd be out 10x the money just in legal fees.

Legal fees for what?

Would she sue me? Well, she could try but, again, there's the issue of the signed contract which she would need to overcome. Given what's been provided here, I just don't see how that's done.

I'd get the legal fees back in my counter suit...

 

[PixelRabbit]

I swear Steve, if there ever comes a time that I need to be hard nosed and ruthless about something in going to recruit you as an advisor.

 

[orljustin]

This just received

Hi Bill,

Since we're apparently having problems communicating now, and even back when we signed this contact, how about we make this quick & simple and propose our best compromise that we'd be willing to accept.

This would make this less stressful for all of us, and it seems like we all need less stress here.

If you refuse, we will try to find a new photographer at the last minute willing to agree to our privacy terms, or ask a friend to take dedicated pictures for us. You don't come to our wedding - keep what you think is fair from our payment, already made in full - keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion.

Additional terms:

- Photographer (Bill Grayson, WSG) does not share any of client's photos unless approved by client on any medium, including Facebook, webpages, everything.

- Client (Mark & Van) agree to select a minimum 4 pictures from the photoshoot, and 4 pictures from the wedding, which include the Bride & Groom in the picture, to be shared on WSG website and WSG facebook page only - for WSG promotion purposes as basically a small online example album.

- Photographer agrees to not include any keywords/tags with the pictures that may help cause the pictures to be found with search engine type software. Any wording / tagging / search-tricks must be approved by client.

- Client co-owns full rights to hi-resolution version of all pictures, as clearly discussed during the original meeting, but not described correctly on the fine print / back page of the contract.



Please respond with a Yes/No by today 8/13.

You know, I did miss this somehow when responding earlier. Obviously, you're dealing with a client concerned with privacy, who doesn't deal with this sort of thing on daily basis, and was unaware of what the promotion section in the contract meant. Of course, the owning the rights bit is silly, but...

This echos what I've said before "- keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion." . Customers want their photos taken for them, not necessarily to be used to promote your business. I'd say if you need portfolio fodder that badly, hire some models with a real model release, and use those for your promotion. Or make it veeeeeery clear, big and obvious what you would like to do in the contract. Did the OP specifically tell the client that they planned to use their photos for his promotional use, or did that just get skimmed over? When sitting down, discussing the price, "By the way, my contract includes a release from you so that I can use the content in my business promotional works, online and in print. Do you have any issue with that?"

 

[Trever1t]

They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?

 

[kathyt]

This just received

Hi Bill,

Since we're apparently having problems communicating now, and even back when we signed this contact, how about we make this quick & simple and propose our best compromise that we'd be willing to accept.

This would make this less stressful for all of us, and it seems like we all need less stress here.

If you refuse, we will try to find a new photographer at the last minute willing to agree to our privacy terms, or ask a friend to take dedicated pictures for us. You don't come to our wedding - keep what you think is fair from our payment, already made in full - keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion.

Additional terms:

- Photographer (Bill Grayson, WSG) does not share any of client's photos unless approved by client on any medium, including Facebook, webpages, everything.

- Client (Mark & Van) agree to select a minimum 4 pictures from the photoshoot, and 4 pictures from the wedding, which include the Bride & Groom in the picture, to be shared on WSG website and WSG facebook page only - for WSG promotion purposes as basically a small online example album.

- Photographer agrees to not include any keywords/tags with the pictures that may help cause the pictures to be found with search engine type software. Any wording / tagging / search-tricks must be approved by client.

- Client co-owns full rights to hi-resolution version of all pictures, as clearly discussed during the original meeting, but not described correctly on the fine print / back page of the contract.



Please respond with a Yes/No by today 8/13.

You know, I did miss this somehow when responding earlier. Obviously, you're dealing with a client concerned with privacy, who doesn't deal with this sort of thing on daily basis, and was unaware of what the promotion section in the contract meant. Of course, the owning the rights bit is silly, but...

This echos what I've said before "- keeping in mind we obviously intended to sign up for our wedding pictures being taken for US, not WSG Wedding Photography Promotion." . Customers want their photos taken for them, not necessarily to be used to promote your business. I'd say if you need portfolio fodder that badly, hire some models with a real model release, and use those for your promotion. Or make it veeeeeery clear, big and obvious what you would like to do in the contract. Did the OP specifically tell the client that they planned to use their photos for his promotional use, or did that just get skimmed over? When sitting down, discussing the price, "By the way, my contract includes a release from you so that I can use the content in my business promotional works, online and in print. Do you have any issue with that?"

Any wedding he shoots should be fair game for his portfolio as stated in his contract. A regular shoot is another story. If they did not read the contract that is their problem. If there was a privacy issue then if should have been addressed from the very START, not after the images have been sitting on his website for a while. The wedding is in a few days and now it's an issue? I don't think so. It doesn't work like that.

 

[orljustin]

They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?

Well yes.

"I also plan on displaying the work created at your event. That is stated in the contract, and here's the section regarding that."

They don't know your agreements with others. For all they know, you've shot 8 weddings, and had agreements to display 4 of those.

The wedding is in a few days and now it's an issue? I don't think so. It doesn't work like that.

Well, sure it does. In fact it just did. Depends when people realize it.

 

[Steve5D]

I swear Steve, if there ever comes a time that I need to be hard nosed and ruthless about something in going to recruit you as an advisor.

Well, sometimes things are pretty damn black and white. A contract, which two parties agree to and sign, is one of those things.

In this case, if the bride-to-be doesn't want photos of her used online, after basically signing a contract which permits it, she needs to be overly accommodating in other areas, and she's not; not at all. Given that, I would lean on the contract that is in effect, and let her deal with her freely-made decision to sign it...

 

[sm4him]

They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?

Well yes.

"I also plan on displaying the work created at your event. That is stated in the contract, and here's the section regarding that."

They don't know your agreements with others. For all they know, you've shot 8 weddings, and had agreements to display 4 of those.

^And THAT is the reason that we now have all these silly disclaimer statements on products, like hair dryers that have to specifically state "do not use this product in water," fast-food coffee cups with the warning "Caution: Contents may be hot," or one of my favorites, on a shirt label: "Do not iron shirt while wearing it." :lmao:

Yes, people are just that stupid these days...BUT:
As a photographer, what is one to do? If he's got to be so clear as to say, "Now, look--not only have I mentioned that I use recent shoots on my website to show what I can provide, and not only is it written in the contract, but you should know that I actually PLAN to use the photos I take for you in these specific ways..."
Well, if he's gotta break it down quite that much, then he's gotta do that with the whole contract--trying to ANTICIPATE which each client may be about to skip over, misunderstand, misinterpret or choose to ignore.

And that, folks, is a LOSING battle because as Murphy's Law states, "It's impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."

Trev, man, imo, you did everything you reasonably could. But she's a FOOL, and evidently quite determined to stay a fool. Don't waste even one second regretting any part of this--just thank your lucky stars that you aren't going to have to deal with her on her wedding day.

 

[kathyt]

They very clearly and plainly told me that they chose me over other photographers because they loved my images as displayed on my website to which I thanked her them and stated they were recent weddings and that I display my newest work. Uhm, could that be more clear?

Well yes.

"I also plan on displaying the work created at your event. That is stated in the contract, and here's the section regarding that."

They don't know your agreements with others. For all they know, you've shot 8 weddings, and had agreements to display 4 of those.

The wedding is in a few days and now it's an issue? I don't think so. It doesn't work like that.

Well, sure it does. In fact it just did. Depends when people realize it.

Huh? When people realize what? Their engagement pictures have been on his website, but they are just now asking him to take them down? The client cannot make changes to the contract just because they feel like it. Trever, you are entitled to at least all of the retainer, and possibly all of the money paid at this point. (Depending on state law) This is why contracts are in place, to protect both parties involved. In this case Trever would get the upper hand.

 

[orljustin]

I actually PLAN to use the photos I take for you in these specific ways...

As far as a member of the general public goes, the point of hiring a photographer is to gain photos of themselves or their event. Most people wouldn't think the photographer "plans to use the photos" taken in any way other than that.

Trev, man, imo, you did everything you reasonably could.

Except, apparently, to make a point to actually bring up the subject during the contract signing, knowing that many people today are uncomfortable with having their images spread online when they can't control it.

I'm just trying to point out that better customer service would be to avoid this problem by covering the subject during the signing, instead of coming back and going "Well, la la la, even if you didn't realize it, you signed it, so suck it up.".

 

[Trever1t]

You are a great Devil's Advocate, point noted.