No contract, now client wants originals

[gossamer]

Hi, I took pictures at an engagement party with about 25 people where I was paid $550. I'm an amateur photographer with a D500 and a 24-70mm lens and an SB700. I was paid in cash on the spot. It's probably the most I've ever received for an event. I typically just do this as a hobby or for an occasional political event or campaign for a few hundred bucks.

The host has now asked for the originals (NEF versions). This was never discussed until well after the event. We have no signed agreement. Many of the pictures are under-exposed, requiring me to do more work in photoshop, so I'm a little embarrassed about that, but they are generally good pictures.

Should I charge them more? Should I now have them sign some kind of waiver? I realize it's pretty much up to me on how I handle this, but I'm looking for recommendations. What are my options? How would you handle it? Simply turn them over? Just continue processing them and do as we initially agreed with only the processed JPGs?

 

[ac12]

If it was never discussed, there was/is no agreement.
So, you could SELL the NEF files to him. Or just say NO.
Personally I would say NO. My final product is AFTER culling, editing and processing.

Now if you do repeated business with this host, then that is a consideration.

Whatever you do, write it up as an invoice.
If you want to put conditions on the NEF, then do a contract.

 

[AlanKlein]

You didn't say what you did for the $550. What did give him for it?

 

[smoke665]

This is what happens when you don't do it right from the beginning. If I'm doing work pro bono then at best I get a release, so I can use the work in my portfolio, but theres no expectations of anything.

If it was never discussed, there was/is no agreement.

First rule of Business Law, once money changes hands it become a contract whether you want it or not. Unless you spell out the terms of what you're providing you open yourself up to a huge gray area (he says/she says) that may ultimately end up in court.

I would agrree with you about giving them the raw files. My experience has been that most non-photographers don't even know what raw files are. I'd send them high resolution JPEGS with watermark embedded and on the face, and call their bluff on the raw files.

 

[AlanKlein]

This is what happens when you don't do it right from the beginning. If I'm doing work pro bono then at best I get a release, so I can use the work in my portfolio, but theres no expectations of anything.



First rule of Business Law, once money changes hands it become a contract whether you want it or not. Unless you spell out the terms of what you're providing you open yourself up to a huge gray area (he says/she says) that may ultimately end up in court.

I would agrree with you about giving them the raw files. My experience has been that most non-photographers don't even know what raw files are. I'd send them high resolution JPEGS with watermark embedded and on the face, and call their bluff on the raw files.

What I use to do if it was a small deal was confirm the verbal discussion with an email. Of course, we weren;t in photo business, but the procesdure would be similar, for example:
"Hi Jim, Regarding our discussion, we;ll take pictures of your son;s birthday party for $1000 on 6/7/23. We'll include 10 8x10's and 24 5x7's. All semi-glossy, no album. We'll send the full set for you initially to select which ones you want printed. If you want the RAW images, afterwards, there;s an additional $200 charge. Please mail a $150 deposit to etc etc. Thanks again, Alan"

 

[santino]

First rule of Business Law, once money changes hands it become a contract whether you want it or not.

Is that the case in the US system of laws? Interesting! It is quite different in most European countries.

 

[AlanKlein]

Is that the case in the US system of laws? Interesting! It is quite different in most European countries.

A contract requires an offer and acceptance and an stipulated amount. If you sent money and it was accepted, then there would be a contract as there's an assumption of one since money changed hands.

Of course, if it's verbal, there can be he-she said argument as to the terms which reminds me of the quip by Samuel Goldwyn of MGM Studio (Metro Goldwyn Mayer) movie fame when he famously said; "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on."

 

[AlanKlein]

Is that the case in the US system of laws? Interesting! It is quite different in most European countries.

How does it work there?

 

[Rickbb]

Did you provide prints or digital copies? If you provided prints maybe they just meant the files so they can do their own printing/sharing.

It seems unusual since most people don’t know about NEF files let alone ask for them.

 

[gossamer]

You didn't say what you did for the $550. What did give him for it?

I haven't actually given him anything yet, but have committed to delivering only the finished JPG images.

This entire deal was conducted over the phone with his mother. It was basically just to show up and take some pictures. It was a referral from a mutual friend.

"First rule of Business Law, once money changes hands it become a contract whether you want it or not. Unless you spell out the terms of what you're providing you open yourself up to a huge gray area (he says/she says) that may ultimately end up in court."

And my thinking is that there is nothing that would have prevented this from ending up in court if that's what they wanted to do. That's not to say I'm somehow excusing not having something in writing, but it was more of a "favor for a friend" kind of thing.

Is there anything wrong with delivering the JPGs as I promised, and then either charging them more and/or getting something in writing at that time if they want the originals?

 

[gossamer]

Did you provide prints or digital copies? If you provided prints maybe they just meant the files so they can do their own printing/sharing.

It seems unusual since most people don’t know about NEF files let alone ask for them.

He used the words "raw files". He may have actually even meant the JPGs straight out of the camera, actually.

There was never a discussion about prints. This was a much more casual conversation than a structured one involving precise time commitments, defining the exact shots she/they wanted, how long it would take to process them, licensing terms, different print options, etc.

If I had started talking about that, it wouldn't have been worth my time for $550 (I'm a cybersecurity guy, not a pro photographer), and she would have been overwhelmed with the options and gotten frustrated.

 

[Rickbb]

If the deal was just show up and take pics, I’d deliver the finished jpgs as promised and call it done. If they still harp on originals explain that wasn’t part of the deal and see what happens.

 

[smoke665]

Is that the case in the US system of laws? Interesting! It is quite different in most European countries.

I can't speak to that for sure, but as most US law is based on tenets of English law I'd suspect theres something similar. Important to note that it doesn't have to be money. Here, if you offer a product for money or other valuable consideration, the buyer pays you and you accept the money or other valuable consideration, then a contract of will have been established.

 

[AlanKlein]

I haven't actually given him anything yet, but have committed to delivering only the finished JPG images.

This entire deal was conducted over the phone with his mother. It was basically just to show up and take some pictures. It was a referral from a mutual friend.

"First rule of Business Law, once money changes hands it become a contract whether you want it or not. Unless you spell out the terms of what you're providing you open yourself up to a huge gray area (he says/she says) that may ultimately end up in court."

And my thinking is that there is nothing that would have prevented this from ending up in court if that's what they wanted to do. That's not to say I'm somehow excusing not having something in writing, but it was more of a "favor for a friend" kind of thing.

Is there anything wrong with delivering the JPGs as I promised, and then either charging them more and/or getting something in writing at that time if they want the originals?

Give them what's reasonable since you didn;t spell out what you'd do for them in the first place. How many prints? What size? Data files? You're trying to nickle and dime them after the fact when they already paid you in full and you haven't given them a damn thing. It's unseemly.

 

[ac12]

I can't speak to that for sure, but as most US law is based on tenets of English law I'd suspect theres something similar. Important to note that it doesn't have to be money. Here, if you offer a product for money or other valuable consideration, the buyer pays you and you accept the money or other valuable consideration, then a contract of will have been established.

As I remember, the exception is Louisiana, where state law was/is based off of French law.

I do not know if that difference still exists today. But with more interstate commerce via the internet, I can see it being a real PITA.
Way back, I do recall that some companies did not want to deal with a Louisiana company, because of the difference in commercial laws.