If Client did not like your photo and decides not to pay you, is that right?

[Kerbouchard]

Hello everyone!

I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.

Anyway, the main photog and me did not have any contract. He hired me over the phone saying he'll pay me $150 per wedding. When I started doing weddings, he said he did not say he's going to pay me $150/wedding but instead $11/hr.

He told me to edit my own photos and give it to him.

I never talk to his clients. I never get to speak with the bride.

It's been over the month since the wedding and was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.

My main photog is a man and I am a woman. My photog boss can't edit the screwed up photos because the bride is lebanese and no man can see her hair except for her husband and family. There. I hope that answers your questions.

That certainly does shed some light on this. Sounds like whoever you were working for is complete scum. Personally, I would walk away from the entire thing and consider it a lesson learned, but I can understand you wanting your money.

I know nothing about your law and don't know if you have some sort of small claims solution, but it sounds like that may be the only way you are ever going to get paid for this gig.

 

[raider]

i've seen hair before. she shouldn't describe her hair if no one can see it. that's like an American woman describing her hooha - totally indecent. i'm off this thread - hope the OP has a day job - jeez.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Reading comprehension = fail You've got to be kidding me. Who spends half his post talking about a "mentor"? Where the hell did you get the mentor thing?

For one thing, the OP is not being asked for money. The OP is in a position where his paycheck is being withheld. Really big difference!

I agree that the second half of your post did say good, useful stuff and I missed it. Maybe you can agree that it is only in a non-specific way and quite vague to the OP considering the OP seems to know or understand very little about the whole deal.

Hello everyone!

I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.

Anyway, the main photog and me did not have any contract. He hired me over the phone saying he'll pay me $150 per wedding. When I started doing weddings, he said he did not say he's going to pay me $150/wedding but instead $11/hr.

He told me to edit my own photos and give it to him.

I never talk to his clients. I never get to speak with the bride.

It's been over the month since the wedding and was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.

My main photog is a man and I am a woman. My photog boss can't edit the screwed up photos because the bride is lebanese and no man can see her hair except for her husband and family. There. I hope that answers your questions.

Thank you for chiming in and making it clear this person has no idea what he is doing. And because you don't either, you got caught in the middle. At least, we know why he can't PP the photos. Although it has very litle to do with Lebanon. There are plenty of Catholics there. You are talking about Muslims. Or, at least, I imagine.

But this gives us the answer to the problem. You don't get paid, you don't do any more work.

And you don't do any more work until you have gotten paid.

And that includes pay for the extra work...

 

[c.cloudwalker]

If I wasn't clear enough for some, get paid before you do any more work.

 

[KmH]

Anyway, the main photog and me did not have any contract.

Big mistake.

You're done.

In court it's his word against your word.

In short, you failed to protect your interests and willingly put yourself in a situation making it very easy for him to take advantage of you.

When an inexperienced business person does business with an experienced business person, the unexperienced business person often gets some expensive experience.

 

[bennielou]

Oh Lord, another simple issue made crazy.

Here is the easy peasy rundown on how these things TYPICALLY work in photoworld:

Main shooter sells wedding, talks to client, manages the big day and PROCESSES THE IMAGES. After all, THEY are the one that has to deal with the client, and SHOULD KNOW the client expectations. They are the ones, ultimately, that will be sued if some suing crazyness happens.

I mean, why in the hell did
A: the main photog turn over some images that didn't work with the client?
B: Not take said blame for said images?

I would NEVER throw someone under the bus like that, and CERTAINLY never give out an team members phone number.
I WOULD know, having a relationship with the client, that the photos wouldn't work and would have culled them before the client ever saw them.

In my opinion, the associate shooter, second, assistant, whatever....owes absolutely nada, and shouldn't be involved in the fight between the MAIN SHOOTER AND THE CLIENT in the first place.

I've had crappy, flaky (not saying the OP is) people work with me in the past, but that was ME BAD.

I mean after all, if you are hired to lay bricks on someones house, you don't go after the poor guy that laid the crooked one. You go after the contractor. He's the guy that sold you the deal, and should have OVERSEEN the project.

 

[CCericola]

It's been over the month since the wedding and was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.

This bothers me. First he tells you he already paid you, then changes his story and says there is a problem with the pictures. Which one is the lie?

 

[KmH]

It doesn't matter which is the lie. Clearly, she isn't going to get paid.

She has no leverage, because there was no written contract and the guy has the photos.

 

[CCericola]

I wouldn't say that. He can't deny he hired her to do a job. He will have to prove he paid her. Small claims may take her side. Actually a letter from a lawyer may scare him into coughing up the cash. But neither of us are lawyers so who knows.

 

[Overread]

It's been over the month since the wedding and was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.

This bothers me. First he tells you he already paid you, then changes his story and says there is a problem with the pictures. Which one is the lie?

I agree it does sound very fishy. If this is how the photographer normally manages their business chances are they've been scamming both their clients and their interns/students - getting away with it mostly because they charge a very low rate and don't have contracts - making any claims very hard to chase up and generally not to be worth the time or investment for the small amount that can be reaped from such actions.

I'd say cut it - forget it - learn from it and get a proper processional mentor. A letter from a lawyer might help scare them, but chances are they might already be hardened to not fearing a letter with no real threat behind it.

 

[mjhoward]

I'm not real keen on the legal ends of things, but if the guy doesn't want to admit that he hired you to do the job, then you should still own all the rights to the photos taken, right? You might even own the rights to them for the simple fact that there was no contract outlining that anyone other than the person that took the photos owns the rights. As long as the files retain the EXIF data that shows that they were taken with your camera, it shouldn't be too hard to prove. I could certainly be wrong though, I'm interested to hear opinions on this.

 

[raider]

I wouldn't say that. He can't deny he hired her to do a job. He will have to prove he paid her. Small claims may take her side. Actually a letter from a lawyer may scare him into coughing up the cash. But neither of us are lawyers so who knows.

You condone this type of business relation? she should lose the case for a terrible decision. this case says she is in high school, has no business sense, or someone's dodging paying taxes.

 

[KmH]

I'm not real keen on the legal ends of things, but if the guy doesn't want to admit that he hired you to do the job, then you should still own all the rights to the photos taken, right? You might even own the rights to them for the simple fact that there was no contract outlining that anyone other than the person that took the photos owns the rights. As long as the files retain the EXIF data that shows that they were taken with your camera, it shouldn't be too hard to prove. I could certainly be wrong though, I'm interested to hear opinions on this.

It is a piece of cake to strip the EXIF data or even to re-write it. A well known EXIF data writer/editor application is found at www.photome.de.

Consequently, it makes poor evidence.

 

[RamanMaan]

This is not fair. As you did mistake so you have to pay for it. But that payment should be not so much, that will be around thirty percent. Try to understand your client.

 

[BlairWright]

Change them to B&W and be done with it.

Also, if you're second shooter it's not your issue. You shouldn't even be editing in the first place, it's the main photographer's fault for being careless with his business.