Couple sue 20 year old photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Same old problem. Anyone can take photos so we don't need to spend much on that part.
They are only proved wrong after the fact when it is too late. Be interesting to see the photographers previous work to see if they were somehow duped into thinking they would get better results or if they really are just stupid.
 
ernesto said:
Same old problem. Anyone can take photos so we don't need to spend much on that part.
They are only proved wrong after the fact when it is too late. Be interesting to see the photographers previous work to see if they were somehow duped into thinking they would get better results or if they really are just stupid.
Click to expand...

Yeah I bet most of TP are googling at the moment, cannot find anything myself :(
 
There's a Louise Garrett as a tog on Facebook. Don't know if she's the same one.
 
Stuart M said:
There's a Louise Garrett as a tog on Facebook. Don't know if she's the same one.
Click to expand...

Don't think so, seems to be foreign.

So this 20 year old wedding photographer is such a pro, she doesn't have a Facebook, or website, or any online presence..

Just where did they find her and book her from?


Whilst I feel bad for them, they have to take some of the blame on this one.

Would she have bought a wedding dress without seeing it and checking it fitted?
Would they have bought the rings without checking the size.
Would they have booked the venue without checking it was suitable......
 
TCR4x4 said:
Don't think so, seems to be foreign.

So this 20 year old wedding photographer is such a pro, she doesn't have a Facebook, or website, or any online presence..

Just where did they find her and book her from?


Whilst I feel bad for them, they have to take some of the blame on this one.

Would she have bought a wedding dress without seeing it and checking it fitted?
Would they have bought the rings without checking the size.
Would they have booked the venue without checking it was suitable......
Click to expand...

To be honest though my friend was in The sun (albeit as being outed as Cheryl Coles boyfriend falsely) and he hid his entire online presence. I believe many people do this if they are suddenly in national press.
 
"They claim snapper Louise Garrett took NO images of them swapping vows, exchanging rings — or even their first kiss."

Not shot Coventry Register Office but I wouldn't be surprised if they are the house rules.
Local Register Offices I have shot enforce those rules so we could all end up in the Sun!

Not excusing the rest of the photographs but having seen the full set the blame rests with both parties.
 
paul_g said:
"They claim snapper Louise Garrett took NO images of them swapping vows, exchanging rings — or even their first kiss."

Not shot Coventry Register Office but I wouldn't be surprised if they are the house rules.
Local Register Offices I have shot enforce those rules so we could all end up in the Sun!

Not excusing the rest of the photographs but having seen the full set the blame rests with both parties.
Click to expand...

Got married in Coventry Registry Office & there were no problems shooting what you wanted- however that was 26 years ago so it may have changed!

EDIT

27 years ago- now I am in trouble!
 
johnb said:
Got married in Coventry Registry Office & there were no problems shooting what you wanted- however that was 26 years ago so it may have changed!

EDIT

27 years ago- now I am in trouble!
Click to expand...

The rules have changed at many venues thanks to an influx of muppet photographers treating wedding ceremonies as free for all photoshoots
 
How the hell can you say a 14th-century manor house — was not “the best to shoot in i am not a pro asnd i know it's dam hard work but i would have tried to shoot as much as possable in a 14th century manor house

Ian
 
How you can sue when you only paid £100 for the photographer who you knew had never shot a wedding is beyond me
 
In fact, I'm going to go further- yes the photographer should of said no. But I know a little more about this, and know there has been quiet a vicous, vindictive campaign against the photographer, arranged by some one in no way connected. I realise that the point of this thread isn't to do so, but there has been a lot of bullying of the photographer. Lets not join that
 
TBH I think this will just get laughed out of court.

They pretty much sealed the fate of the case by launching a hate campaign on Facebook.


:)
 
boyfalldown said:
In fact, I'm going to go further- yes the photographer should of said no. But I know a little more about this, and know there has been quiet a vicous, vindictive campaign against the photographer, arranged by some one in no way connected. I realise that the point of this thread isn't to do so, but there has been a lot of bullying of the photographer. Lets not join that
Click to expand...

It was in no way meant to be bullying. I think the 'photographer' has been very naive, but the customers were literally just stupid and got exactly what they have paid for.
 
danny842003 said:
It was in no way meant to be bullying. I think the 'photographer' has been very naive, but the customers were literally just stupid and got exactly what they have paid for.
Click to expand...

No I realised that's not the intent of this thread. But there has been a fairly nasty Facebook campaign against the photographer amongst other things. I'd hate TP to go the same way
 
I am with Hugh on this....there is a lot more to it that just the Sun's story.
 
boyfalldown said:
In fact, I'm going to go further- yes the photographer should of said no. But I know a little more about this, and know there has been quiet a vicous, vindictive campaign against the photographer, arranged by some one in no way connected. I realise that the point of this thread isn't to do so, but there has been a lot of bullying of the photographer. Lets not join that
Click to expand...

If it's true that they only paid £100 to a photographer who'd never shot a wedding. Then WTF do they honestly think they can sue for?

It beats the crap out of me, 14th century Manor House isn't a budget venue, that frocks not off the peg from BHS, what did they honestly expect to get?

There's never any fun in knocking the photographer on these occasions, and frankly this is one where the photographer probably deserves a break - her only mistake was agreeing to do it.

Still kudos for the Sun for slagging off the tog for 'unflattering angles' and printing their 'professional' photo of the couple. :eek:
 
danny842003 said:
but the customers were literally just stupid and got exactly what they have paid for.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what they paid. I'm sure what they got was not what they were expecting to get.

If something is offered for a price, it should be 'fit for function' regardless of the asking price.

Phil V said:
If it's true that they only paid £100 to a photographer who'd never shot a wedding. Then WTF do they honestly think they can sue for?
Click to expand...

£100.


Steve.
 
johnb said:
Got married in Coventry Registry Office & there were no problems shooting what you wanted- however that was 26 years ago so it may have changed!

EDIT

27 years ago- now I am in trouble!
Click to expand...

I know that the registrars at the registry office can be really bad towards photographers, and the area it's in is crap for photos
 
boyfalldown said:
In fact, I'm going to go further- yes the photographer should of said no. But I know a little more about this, and know there has been quiet a vicous, vindictive campaign against the photographer, arranged by some one in no way connected. I realise that the point of this thread isn't to do so, but there has been a lot of bullying of the photographer. Lets not join that
Click to expand...

Really, that is sad, cannot help but feel sorry for the girl :(
 
MWHCVT said:
I know that the registrars at the registry office can be really bad towards photographers, and the area it's in is crap for photos
Click to expand...

It varies a lot. When weddings here took place in a nice, photogenic building, photography of the actual ceremony was banned as they didn't want you to photograph pages of the register with other people's details on and they would only let you do a set up shot afterwards on a blank page.

Our Registrar's office has now moved to little more than a cupboard with a desk and four chairs and they now allow you to shoot what you like - which is now as little as possible as it looks awful!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Regardless of what they paid. I'm sure what they got was not what they were expecting to get.

If something is offered for a price, it should be 'fit for function' regardless of the asking price.



£100.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Well thats like saying if you paid £100 for a car would you expect a car that is not going to break down?
They paid £100 for photographs and they got photographs. Now fit for purpose I would say is very subjective.
 
Steve Smith said:
It varies a lot. When weddings here took place in a nice, photogenic building, photography of the actual ceremony was banned as they didn't want you to photograph pages of the register with other people's details on and they would only let you do a set up shot afterwards on a blank page.

Our Registrar's office has now moved to little more than a cupboard with a desk and four chairs and they now allow you to shoot what you like - which is now as little as possible as it looks awful!


Steve.
Click to expand...

The reason why you are not allowed to photograph the signing of the register is because it is an official document ...not because it has 'details' on it. You will need special permission to 'document' an official document even though many flaunt the rule!
 
danny842003 said:
Well thats like saying if you paid £100 for a car would you expect a car that is not going to break down?
They paid £100 for photographs and they got photographs. Now fit for purpose I would say is very subjective.
Click to expand...

If you have seen the majority of the photographs, which I have, I believe the B&G have got £100 worth of wedding photography.
 
Phil V said:
If it's true that they only paid £100 to a photographer who'd never shot a wedding. Then WTF do they honestly think they can sue for?
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
£100.
Click to expand...

Seeing as they're talking about rehiring the venue and presumably hiring a competent photographer - I can't see £100 going far.

I'd also go with the fact that they may already have £100 worth of pictures, we haven't seen the full set have we?
 
Phil V said:
Seeing as they're talking about rehiring the venue and presumably hiring a competent photographer - I can't see £100 going far.

I'd also go with the fact that they may already have £100 worth of pictures, we haven't seen the full set have we?
Click to expand...

The full set was published on FB
 
I can't see it costing much to nip back down to the register office & what looked like a pub for the reception.
 
Phil V said:
Seeing as they're talking about rehiring the venue and presumably hiring a competent photographer - I can't see £100 going far.

I'd also go with the fact that they may already have £100 worth of pictures, we haven't seen the full set have we?
Click to expand...

The full set was published on face book
 
MWHCVT said:
Really, are they still around? Have only seen the Suns piece
Click to expand...

I think they have now been pulled....it was originally published by a 'fauxtographers' underground group............
 
FB page I saw them on has been pulled
Correctly in my opinion. It was a sick witch hunt.
 
boyfalldown said:
No the whole page was removed
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
I think they have now been pulled....it was originally published by a 'fauxtographers' underground group............
Click to expand...

Fair enough, wanted to see if it was the local venue I thought it would be as cannot tell from the photos in the sun, well I wanted to see what the rest were like too :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top