Problem with wedding photographer

[Robin_Usagani]

You should not get the raw files but you should get your money back.

Sorry about the crappy photos though.

 

[nycphotography]

And if you have to sue, be sure to request compensation for actual damages (cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress) and punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson).

I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advise, this what I actually do myself in cases such as yours. I find it a lot cheaper to show people how much it could cost them to play in court, before paying my own lawyer. Suddenly, they get a lot more cooperative not in court.

In your case, I would demand a full refund from the photog plus the raw files. If you only get the full refund, well not the end of the world.

But the format in which you make this demand is important. Read this: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../339354-how-would-you-handle.html#post3051055

So, get an example of a pleading / initial complaint from your county court house. You can probably find one online. I can email you an example of one for PA if you need, as I'm currently in the process of doing this myself for an insurance claim (my car was hit while parked. meh.) and it's just as good as any for your purposes as courts tend to be more flexible and the clerks will guide you somewhat when your pro se.

NOW, write up your complaint, following the examples you find. Spell out the facts, establish jurisdiction snd venue, state the torts committed by the tortfeasor. lol. And demand a jury trial.

Be sure to include that you are demanding compensation for actual damages (full refund of cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress), punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson), and compensation for legal expense incurred (if you have to file, your lawyer will cost more than the cash refund, and you want that covered as well).

I don't use small claims court, because it doesn't require a lawyer to play ball. I make sure the other party knows that if they don't settle with me, it's gonna cost them lawyer dollars of their own just to argue their point of view. They usually know their wrong already.

THEN fax it to the photog. Tell her you want your money back and the raw files. Unless they prefer that your lawyer file this on Monday in which case you'll see her in court.

VERY few people have the backbone to stand in front of a lawsuit. And I find they respond much better to an actual lawsuit about to be filed than they do to a letter from a lawyer. It shows that you have already put the wheels in motion and are serious about pulling the trigger.

ONE THING, if you do this yourself, you may very well screw it up. But in my mind, all you have to lose is what you've already lost, ie you really have nothing to lose, and the photog could be slammed for thousands, espectially if you get sympathetic jury.

If you really care, you should probably have a lawyer deal with this. If you do actually have to file, don't use the pleading, hire a lawyer and have them write the one that gets filed.

But chances are, this will get the log jam broken.

 

[gsgary]

And if you have to sue, be sure to request compensation for actual damages (cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress) and punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson).

I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advise, this what I actually do myself in cases such as yours. I find it a lot cheaper to show people how much it could cost them to play in court, before paying my own lawyer. Suddenly, they get a lot more cooperative not in court.

In your case, I would demand a full refund from the photog plus the raw files. If you only get the full refund, well not the end of the world.

But the format in which you make this demand is important. Read this: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../339354-how-would-you-handle.html#post3051055

So, get an example of a pleading / initial complaint from your county court house. You can probably find one online. I can email you an example of one for PA if you need, as I'm currently in the process of doing this myself for an insurance claim (my car was hit while parked. meh.) and it's just as good as any for your purposes as courts tend to be more flexible and the clerks will guide you somewhat when your pro se.

NOW, write up your complaint, following the examples you find. Spell out the facts, establish jurisdiction snd venue, state the torts committed by the tortfeasor. lol. And demand a jury trial.

Be sure to include that you are demanding compensation for actual damages (full refund of cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress), punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson), and compensation for legal expense incurred (if you have to file, your lawyer will cost more than the cash refund, and you want that covered as well).

I don't use small claims court, because it doesn't require a lawyer to play ball. I make sure the other party knows that if they don't settle with me, it's gonna cost them lawyer dollars of their own just to argue their point of view. They usually know their wrong already.

THEN fax it to the photog. Tell her you want your money back and the raw files. Unless they prefer that your lawyer file this on Monday in which case you'll see her in court.

VERY few people have the backbone to stand in front of a lawsuit. And I find they respond much better to an actual lawsuit about to be filed than they do to a letter from a lawyer. It shows that you have already put the wheels in motion and are serious about pulling the trigger.

ONE THING, if you do this yourself, you may very well screw it up. But in my mind, all you have to lose is what you've already lost, ie you really have nothing to lose, and the photog could be slammed for thousands, espectially if you get sympathetic jury.

If you really care, you should probably have a lawyer deal with this. If you do actually have to file, don't use the pleading, hire a lawyer and have them write the one that gets filed.

But chances are, this will get the log jam broken.

Sueing should make it all better, it will just cause more stress

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[CanadianKaren]

I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?

 

[pixmedic]

I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?

it totally depends on what the contract between the photographer and the second shooter says.
if there is no contract, then the shooter retains copyrights to the photos.
if there was no contract, the main photographer was foolish, at best.

 

[robbins.photo]

Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter. If they have no such contract things are going to get more complicated from there, but it's probably the first step in this process before you start threatening any legal action. It would be best to know who you should sue before you start threatining to sue.

 

[kathyt]

I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?

I edit all of the images that my second shooter takes. She shoots on my CF cards, and then I take the cards at the end of the day. Once I have them uploaded and backed up I let her use the cards to upload to her own computer and use for her portfolio. A wedding should be consistent and cohesive. Having multiple editing styles doesn't generally work.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

The first shooter should have gotten the raw files from 2nd shooter and edited them. But that does not mean you SHOULD get the raw files. If you don't like the edit, then tough luck. It is your own fault hiring a noob photographer. Experienced wedding photographers will always edit the 2nd shooter and hire awesome seconds.

If someone hires me as 2nd and expect me to edit the photos as well, I better get paid way more than $400.

 

[IByte]

Reason why I stick to physics.

 

[jowensphoto]

I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?

My second shooter contract essentially states that I own their images, as they are an at-will employee of my business, but I also release some/all of the images to the shooter for portfolio use. I'm going to assume your lead shooter didn't have this sort of agreement with her second.

I edit all of the images myself and do not include any edits done by the second.

 

[Steve5D]

Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter.

Under what legal pretense would she be entitled to that? I won't argue that it would be good to have, but I don't believe either the main or second shooter would be under any obligation, whatsoever, to provide it...

If they have no such contract things are going to get more complicated from there, but it's probably the first step in this process before you start threatening any legal action. It would be best to know who you should sue before you start threatining to sue.

There's one person to sue (if that's the road to be taken), and that's the main shooter. That's the person who has a contract with the couple. The second shooter has no contract with the couple. It would therefore be difficult to sue that person for not adhering to the stipulations of that contract, simply because no such contract exists. Additionally, I don't see how the couple could successfully sue the second shooter for not adhering to the stipulations of a contract made with the primary...

 

[Steve5D]

I don't make a habit of shooting weddings but, if I did, there's no way in Hell I'd offer them the raw images and, if I ever did, it would come with a profoundly steep price tag...

 

[robbins.photo]

Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter.

Under what legal pretense would she be entitled to that? I won't argue that it would be good to have, but I don't believe either the main or second shooter would be under any obligation, whatsoever, to provide it...

If they have no such contract things are going to get more complicated from there, but it's probably the first step in this process before you start threatening any legal action. It would be best to know who you should sue before you start threatining to sue.

There's one person to sue (if that's the road to be taken), and that's the main shooter. That's the person who has a contract with the couple. The second shooter has no contract with the couple. It would therefore be difficult to sue that person for not adhering to the stipulations of that contract, simply because no such contract exists. Additionally, I don't see how the couple could successfully sue the second shooter for not adhering to the stipulations of a contract made with the primary...

Legally she isn't "entitled" to it at this stage, however depending on the contract or the lack thereof the photographer might be willing to volunteer it - if there is no contract or if the contract essential states that which the original photographer has already stated, that the second shooter actually has ownership of those photos, it's quite possible the first photographer might be willing to offer the contract as a show of proof of those statements.

Regardless it certainly doesn't hurt to ask, if the photographer is unwilling to produce a copy of the contract between themselves and the second shooter then you are really no worse off than you are now. My guess is there probably is no contract, and by simply requesting one most likely the original photographer will admit no such contract exists. But it would be useful information to have prior to going down this particular road.

Like most people I'm sure the second shooter would most likely prefer to avoid a full blown lawsuit as well, a lot of times merely showing that you are serious about persuing such a course of action is all that is needed to bring the matter to a resolution.

 

[Steve5D]

I don't make a habit of shooting weddings but, if I did, there's no way in Hell I'd offer them the raw images and, if I ever did, it would come with a profoundly steep price tag...

 

[Steve5D]

Like most people I'm sure the second shooter would most likely prefer to avoid a full blown lawsuit as well...

That goes directly to my point. The couple likely has no legal ground on which to successfully sue, and I'd be willing to bet that the second shooter is well aware of that.

"Threatening" a lawsuit would be little more than hot air...