Couple sue 20 year old photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
PMN said:
Yeah, he went strangely quiet when every one of his points was broken down by various people and deemed to be nonsense too. ;)

I don't mean that to sound offensive in any way but it is kinda true. :)
Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it. :)
 
But there's no legal definition of fit for purpose. It's purely subjective.

Every single pro photographer on this thread has agreed 2 things:

The photos are awful

The customers got what they paid for.

Why is it so difficult to understand that a McDonalds 99p burger isn't the same product as a £10 burger from Gourmet Burger Kitchen.

The photographer turned up, took photos and delivered them. Therefore she fulfilled her half of the agreement. Whether we think the pictures are any good is irrelevant. Whether you think they got VFM is also irrelevant, if it goes to court, I will bet they get no more than their money back, because caveat emptor is still expected, and if someone is dumb enough to think they can expect £1000 worth of wedding photography for £100 they're dumb:cuckoo:.

The problem here are the people who've made an assumption that wedding photographers charging £1000 are a rip off, so £100 seems like a decent fee and they can't get round the fact that £100 buys you rubbish wedding photography. Because they believe it ought to be possible:cuckoo:.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Why is it so difficult to understand that a McDonalds 99p burger isn't the same product as a £10 burger from Gourmet Burger Kitchen.
Click to expand...

But it seems by what PWN is saying that Mcdonalds would be justified in putting a cow's hoof in a bun, no? Or maybe even a cow pat?

the only thing they could do to justify a claim would be to injure someone. That's it. In my eyes there's nothing, apart from perhaps sitting in a corner getting blitzed on red wine and leaving the camera turned off, that could justify a claim. Nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Besides, some people love Mcdonalds burgers. Does anyone love those pictures?
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
But it seems by what PWN is saying that Mcdonalds would be justified in putting a cow's hoof in a bun, no? Or maybe even a cow pat?
Click to expand...

A Big Mac does contain 2 beef patties....maybe that is where the pattie term comes from........
 
ZoneV said:
But it seems by what PWN is saying that Mcdonalds would be justified in putting a cow's hoof in a bun, no? Or maybe even a cow pat?
Click to expand...

No just a crap burger, just the same as the couple got crap pictures? Just like £100 will buy you a crap car and £10,000 a crap house, the figure is based on a market value for subjectively good or bad products. £100 might seem like a lot but its around 10% of the market average.
 
Phil V said:
No just a crap burger, just the same as the couple got crap pictures? Just like £100 will buy you a crap car and £10,000 a crap house, the figure is based on a market value for subjectively good or bad products. £100 might seem like a lot but its around 10% of the market average.
Click to expand...

I get that but there is a big difference.

Firstly, it would be helpful to establish: what's wrong with a Mcdonalds burger?

And, what's wrong with those photo's?
 
ZoneV said:
Firstly, it would be helpful to establish: what's wrong with a Mcdonalds burger?

And, what's wrong with those photo's?
Click to expand...

Millions of people think Maccy D's burgers are sub-standard rubbish just like this couple think their wedding photos are sub-standard rubbish, but you don't see countless people running off to try sue Maccy D's because they're cheap and you know what to expect.

This is the point that you're missing by several light years.
 
London Headshots said:
Big Mac's are really tasty.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Yup, they sell an awful lot of them too, and the customers are happy. This is the flaw of the cheap burger analogy.

PMN said:
Millions of people think Maccy D's burgers are sub-standard rubbish just like this couple think their wedding photos are sub-standard rubbish, but you don't see countless people running off to try sue Maccy D's because they're cheap and you know what to expect.

This is the point that you're missing by several light years.
Click to expand...

No. It's because they like them and are happy to keep buying them. :thumbs:

Maccy D's sell more burgers than anyone!

Now, what was that about missing the point by light years? :thinking: :p
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
But it seems by what PWN is saying that Mcdonalds would be justified in putting a cow's hoof in a bun, no? Or maybe even a cow pat?
Click to expand...

You seem to say these photos cant be justified even at £100. What does a photographer that charges £1500 have to do to justify that extra £1400?
 
ZoneV said:
:thumbs: Yup, they sell an awful lot of them too, and the customers are happy. This is the flaw of the cheap burger analogy.
Click to expand...

Again, missing the point. People who want a cheap quick standard burger will go for Maccy D's and of course they'll be happy because they know what they're getting, but what you've neglected to mention in saying the analogy is flawed is the millions of other people who'd go to gourmet burger places because Maccy D's just doesn't cut it for them.

This really isn't rocket science.
 
Last edited:
danny842003 said:
You seem to say these photos cant be justified even at £100. What does a photographer that charges £1500 have to do to justify that extra £1400?
Click to expand...

Creativity and originality. Competence should be expected of a professional (that is someone charging for a service) at any price point.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Again, missing the point. People who want a cheap quick standard burger will go for Maccy D's and of course they'll be happy because they know what they're getting, but what you've neglected to mention in saying the analogy is flawed is the millions of other people who'd go to gourmet burger places because Maccy D's just doesn't cut it for them.

This really isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that some people eat gourmet burgers. Heck, some people eat both, depending on the circumstances: busy day of meetings? Grab a quick Maccy D's in passing. Plenty of time? Go to a decent restaurant.

The point is, Maccy D's sell an awful lot of burgers and their customers are happy.

Not even brain surgery is rocket science - only rocket science is rocket science. :p
 
As the Mcdonalds analogy clearly shows - cheap product does not have to equal unhappy customers.

Now I can't put it any simpler than that!
 
Maccy D's customers are happy because they know what they're getting for their small amount of money so they don't complain about it, and they'd be stupid if they did. That's why this couple are stupid!

Ah, I give up.
 
Last edited:
You'll start the Apple crew off again if you keep comparing :gag:.

I am not sure if this falls under the sales of goods act or not but if it does then as far as i am aware the main (if not only) stipulation is that the purchase made "is fit for purpose", i'd argue that 500 photos of the day is fit for purpose as it is providing a documentation of the day, which is the aim of wedding pictures, so this would be where the skill and price element come into play.
 
PMN said:
Maccy D's customers are happy because they know what they're getting for their small amount of money so they don't complain about it, and they'd be stupid if they did. That's why this couple are stupid!

Ah, I give up.
Click to expand...

This^
Mcdonalds might have many millions of happy customers, but millions more who wouldn't eat what they consider to be unfit for human consumption.

That's the point of the analogy. You missed the point because you see that as food, whereas I don't. I understand that many people do, just like the millions on Facebook putting 'likes' on pictures that are only fit for the bin. It's subjective, see how important the subjective is now?

If you could get your head round the subjective bit, you'd see that the couple have received their photos. The court will decide whether they are fit for purpose.

I'll bet it doesn't get to court though, the publicity is about getting them another wedding day, paid for by the hordes feeling sorry for them. It's total boll ox.

The registrar is almost certainly responsible for there being no photos of the ceremony.

The photographer is responsible for the crap pictures.

The couple are responsible for booking someone who told them plainly she'd never shot a wedding before.

Many members here are responsible for their lack of understanding that 'portfolio building' is not without risk, and this is one of the possible outcomes.

I predict that within 2 months, someone will start a 'first wedding' thread, the pros will tell them not to charge, and only do it if they have sufficient knowledge and personality, backup gear and confidence.

And a load of gobby trolls will shout up that the pros are standing in the way of newbies to protect their own interests. And this episode will be seen as unique (despite there being at least one notable story a year).
 
I have no problem understanding subjectivity, Phil, but there has to be a line somewhere.

You're quite right about the court deciding whether the pictures are fit for purpose but I'll be very, very surprised if the outcome is along the lines of "anything is acceptable because you only paid £100" which seems to be the attitude amongst many on this thread.
 
Phil V said:
I won't give the exact details, but I recently spent 20 mins with a B&G following their wedding to take some portraits (2 were requested) to mark the occasion. The pricing is similar, I wouldn't ordinarily take on a job that small, but it fit round my arrangements for the day.

So I suppose that's one way of seeing it. Another is that experienced wedding togs will typically charge anything from £500 to £1500 just for that length of coverage, so 10 hrs / £1000 = £100 per hour (nothing delivered except proofs) could be 2 hrs or half an hour dependant on the 500-1500 range.
Click to expand...

So for roughly £100 they should receive a couple of good quality photos.

Not that they would get a reputable photographer for that price unless they were very lucky.

Maybe it's me being a bit cynical but maybe they took on the poor photographer hoping they would get something like this, sue them and then get the photos without paying for the service they wanted.
 
ZoneV said:
"anything is acceptable because you only paid £100" which seems to be the attitude amongst many on this thread.
Click to expand...

The point is, you simply cannot get good wedding photographs by paying someone £100 without a lot of risk. The risk was taken and they lost. The fact that they may not have appreciated the risk is down to their own lack of awareness.
 
ernesto said:
The point is, you simply cannot get good wedding photographs by paying someone £100 without a lot of risk. The risk was taken and they lost. The fact that they may not have appreciated the risk is down to their own lack of awareness.
Click to expand...

Sure, you wouldn't expect the pictures to be "brilliant" or "fantastic" but if someone's offering a professional (i.e. paid for) service then they have a duty to deliver a product of an acceptable standard. The couple clearly feel this wasn't the case and they should have a course of action available to them.
 
ZoneV said:
Sure, you wouldn't expect the pictures to be "brilliant" or "fantastic" but if someone's offering a professional (i.e. paid for) service then they have a duty to deliver a product of an acceptable standard. The couple clearly feel this wasn't the case and they should have a course of action available to them.
Click to expand...

Someone wasn't offering a professional service though, that's the point. And it's ignored because it seals the argument. The photographer told them shed never shot a wedding, and they booked her at a cheap rate as she was building a portfolio.

It's not like she had a pro website full of beautiful wedding pictures and a 'too good to be true' advertising. She had no experience and was honest with the couple.

The couple took a chance, by the way it's a chance that many 'get married on the cheap' guides often recommend. The chance didn't pay off and now they've got no decent pictures.

Like I said, people want to blame the photographer because they don't want to admit that the free lunch they assume is available is a myth.

Pay 10% of the going rate, don't expect a bargain, it's unlikely to happen.
 
As Supersammy said earlier:

Now this girl has taken payment she has formed a contract. She has lots of legal responsibilities.
Click to expand...

and

...She took money for a service and did not deliver.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant by "professional" - doing something for payment or reward.

Phil V said:
Like I said, people want to blame the photographer because they don't want to admit that the free lunch they assume is available is a myth.
Click to expand...

It's really much simpler than that: People are blaming the photographer in this case because they think the pictures are carp.

Edit: I can't find any reference in either of the articles I've read to the photographer offering a cheap rate because they were building a portfolio. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't change anything as far as what's acceptable.

Edit2: I found this reference to it in the comments at the end of the Sun's online article, but if true it makes things worse! (It was only in the comments though so have no idea if accurate.)

They met the photographer and went through her portfolio. The photos looked fine to them, nothing like the quality of the wedding photos they eventually got. They told her their budget was £500 and were surprised when she offered them a big discount as she said she wanted to use them in her portfolio. It was only after they complained that the photographer admitted she had not studied photography.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
As Supersammy said earlier:

That's what I meant by "professional" - doing something for payment or reward.
Click to expand...

But supersammy doesn't know the difference between council and counsel.

She attended the wedding and took photos, therefore she's fulfilled her contract.

But what you said was 'offering a professional service' which is an assumption. We don't know what she was offering, in fact even the article slagging her off feels the need to tell us that she'd told the couple shed not shot a wedding and was building a portfolio. Again, this is the couple buying a product loaded with risk. You're ignoring this hugely important fact.

What I said earlier about a mate opening a restaurant and someone else said about a painter. These people bought into a risky proposition and it didn't pay off.
 
ZoneV said:
Edit: I can't find any reference in either of the articles I've read to the photographer offering a cheap rate because they were building a portfolio. Even if this was the case, it wouldn't change anything as far as what's acceptable.
Click to expand...


It was in the original FB group which had all the photos and described what went on. She clearly stated that she'd just finished photography at college, showed her portfolio from her college work. Said she'd do it for £100 because she'd no experience and wanted this wedding to start her wedding portfolio. Those facts are not in dispute from either side.

Both the Daily Mail and the Sun fail to mention how much the couple paid. I notice though that on one of their previous stories where the couple paid £750, the price was mentioned on the second sentence. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-failed-couple-frame-took-blurry-shots.html)

So why not tell their readers how much the couple paid this time? The only conclusion I can make is that the 'journalist' realises that had they mentioned the agree cost, they'd have significantly weakened the impact of the story as most readers would be thinking "Well they got what they deserved then!"

From what I could see from the photos the photographer made several mistakes:

  1. She gave ALL the photos to the couple, even ones clearly she should not have.
  2. Poor composition and positioning. Eg. Too far from bride with bin inbetween them.
  3. No organisation of the wedding party. She just seemed to stand at the sidelines.
  4. Incorrect settings resulting in excess noise and blur.
  5. Did not complete group shots as requested & none during ceremony.

Now the first four are going to be subjective and as such I think the price will be relevant to the court. Clearly if I pay 50p for a beefburger I'm not reasonably going to expect prime cuts of beef as I would if I paid £10 in a restaurant.

The last is going to be the killer. It's not mentioned why she didn't take any photos during the ceremony. It was a registry office. I've never had a registry office forbid photos during the event. Churches yes, registry offices no. And failure to take the groups agreed is to me a clear breach of contract.

Personally having seen the photos I think for the amount of time she was there and the number of photos she delivered, £100 is probably about a fair reflection of the quality of said photos. But failure to take the groups is going to bite her unless in her contract there's a clause to say otherwise.
 
ZoneV said:
Edit2: I found this reference to it in the comments at the end of the Sun's online article, but if true it makes things worse! (It was only in the comments though so have no idea if accurate.)
Click to expand...

A comment in the Sun then must be accurate :thinking:. As she'd never shot a wedding before, and told them this then I'm not quite sure what she showed (if anything)
 
gadgeteer said:
I've never had a registry office forbid photos during the event. Churches yes, registry offices no.
Click to expand...

It's quite common and was the case here until recently. however, they always allowed you to shoot a staged signing of the register after the ceremony.


Steve.
 
gadgeteer said:
  1. She gave ALL the photos to the couple, even ones clearly she should not have.
  2. Poor composition and positioning. Eg. Too far from bride with bin inbetween them.
  3. No organisation of the wedding party. She just seemed to stand at the sidelines.
  4. Incorrect settings resulting in excess noise and blur.
  5. Did not complete group shots as requested & none during ceremony.
Click to expand...

1-3 are, as you said subjective. I agree on 1 though.4 is a techy matter but without knowing what she used (the facebook witchhunt contained obvious falsehoods.)

5 - We can't know this was a mistake - what if the registrar had said no photos?. Perfectly possible. I have atleast two venues this summer I know I'll be told that (although they are not Coventry registry office)

Groups? conversation with bride 'just shoot the ones the videographer sets up'. Pure speculation I admit but not unknown, far from it.

They'll be another, very interesting side to this
 
Last edited:
You're thinking like a wedding photographer, Phil. Most people aren't wedding photographers.

The article says the photographer told them she "was a pro". To the average Joe, a professional photographer is a professional photographer.

The onus should be on the photographer to refuse work they are incapable of, that's how most industries work otherwise it gives cowboys carte blanche to do as they wish, do you see what I mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top