Couple sue 20 year old photographer

[JohnN]

Hey, I wonder if the photographer can sue news international for printing the photos without consent

 

[ADIG]

Professional when mated with photographer is a useless term. Professional when mated with Engineer or Accountant is not a useless term as it decrees some level of education and experience.

It is useless to call anyone who takes money providing a service a a professional. They are simply a contractor and may be professional based on their output

 

[swanseamale47]

F eck me!!!!!!! A couple said shoot my wedding for £100? I'd say sure... And I miss their faces off every shot and kick the groom in the Luv Spuds for being a Tos-ser!!!!


Custard creme anyone?

Yes please and a mug of tea.

 

[gadgeteer]

Not yet. But theoretically (but probably not practically) she could carry on doing sub-standard work for sub-standard pay and be considered a professional.

I would guess in practice her experience would have put her off wedding photography, if not photography in general for life.

Someone (and not the B&G) has engaged in a persistent bullying campaign. It's nasty and it seems the couple don't seem to understand that they share most of the responsibility for the risk they obviously took.

The photographer obviously does share some of the blame for the quality of the work. She has made some obvious mistakes such as showing the couple all the photos. Literally many of them were took in CH mode and she supplied all of them. If you stitched them together, it could have been a video. The shot cutting the head of the B&G should have been deleted. I accidentally pressed the shutter the other week at a wedding and took a photo of the pavement. I would never ever just hand that over!

But at least the photographer was up front with her experience and 'qualifications'. That said, she didn't take all the groups agreed and for some reason didn't take any during the ceremony. That may be the two things which may scupper her in court.

 

[swanseamale47]

Professional when mated with photographer is a useless term. Professional when mated with Engineer or Accountant is not a useless term as it decrees some level of education and experience.

It is useless to call anyone who takes money providing a service a a professional. They are simply a contractor and may be professional based on their output

As I understand it in the UK anybody can call themself an accountant or engineer with no formal qualifications, it's only the word chartered that makes it an offence. (I might be wrong)

 

[supersammy]

Most of the posters on here are completely missing the point. Just because someone asks for less money than their competition does not mean that the customer should just accept a product this bloody awful!

If I go to asda and fill my car with petrol because it is cheaper than Shell, does not mean that it's my fault if the dodgy fuel causes my engine to blow up! And I would definitely go to the papers about it, I would definitely start a campaign! And I would certainly sue the garage!

The "girl" is an adult. She chose to take on this paid work and did a terrible job. The fact that this has been highlighted in a newspaper and also on facebook is a good thing, as it will hopefully mean that no one else is a victim of hers.

With regards to what compensation they may get, you can listen to the experts on here who do not list their qualifications. I have a degree in Law from Cambridge University (I do not practise), and would not like to say. She has a good chance of being found in breach of contract and being ordered to compensate them for any amount which they can prove is as a result of her negligence.

 

[supersammy]

As I understand it in the UK anybody can call themself an accountant or engineer with no formal qualifications, it's only the word chartered that makes it an offence. (I might be wrong)

You are correct to a degree. However if you fraudulently use any title to obtain services or products by deception you are committing a criminal offence.

 

[ADIG]

As I understand it in the UK anybody can call themself an accountant or engineer with no formal qualifications, it's only the word chartered that makes it an offence. (I might be wrong)

True but you cannot describe yourself as a professional engineer or accountant without those qualifications. So somebody calling themself or being described as a professional photographer because they take money is irrelevant

 

[supersammy]

True but you cannot describe yourself as a professional engineer or accountant without those qualifications. So somebody calling themself or being described as a professional photographer because they take money is irrelevant

Yes you can. However it has nothing to do with photography of this thread so I will shut up about it.

 

[ADIG]

Anyone can call themself a professional 'insert whatever'. That is not the point, it is if you are qualified to call yourself a professional and you are not qualified unless you meet the criteria for 'insert whatever'. AFAIK there is no such thing for photographer

 

[supersammy]

Anyone can call themself a professional 'insert whatever'. That is not the point, it is if you are qualified to call yourself a professional and you are not qualified unless you meet the criteria for 'insert whatever'. AFAIK there is no such thing for photographer

OK - certain jobs or titles are protected. You can't go around claiming to be a police man or a solicitor if you are not... For obvious reasons. This means that if you do that, you are liable to prosectution.

For almost everything else you can say what you like. If I have a tool kit I can claim to be a builder, if I have a camera I can claim to be a photographer.

There are qualifications you can undertake in virtually everything. As with most things though, the pieces of paper mean very little. I don't care if my mechanic has lots of city and guilds, I care if he can fix my car properly and cheaply.

Now this girl has taken payment she has formed a contract. She has lots of legal responsibilities. She is in for a world of pain, small claims courts can not deal with amounts up to 10k. Ignore what you read on here, legally she doesn't have a leg to stand on. The rehiring of the venue will end up costing her. This is why having insurance is important.

 

[Steve]

Pay £100 for a wedding and you get rubbish.

Pay 20p for a frozen burger and you get horse meat.

Not sure why people think they can get quality at crazy low prices. You get what you pay for.

 

[ADIG]

OK - certain jobs or titles are protected. You can't go around claiming to be a police man or a solicitor if you are not... For obvious reasons. This means that if you do that, you are liable to prosectution.

For almost everything else you can say what you like. If I have a tool kit I can claim to be a builder, if I have a camera I can claim to be a photographer.

There are qualifications you can undertake in virtually everything. As with most things though, the pieces of paper mean very little. I don't care if my mechanic has lots of city and guilds, I care if he can fix my car properly and cheaply.

Now this girl has taken payment she has formed a contract. She has lots of legal responsibilities. She is in for a world of pain, small claims courts can not deal with amounts up to 10k. Ignore what you read on here, legally she doesn't have a leg to stand on. The rehiring of the venue will end up costing her. This is why having insurance is important.

Which is no differnet to what I post here

 

[supersammy]

Which is no differnet to what I post here

We are going off track here. My book keeper calls himself an accountant and has no qualifications other than his experience.

My friend calls himself an engineer because he likes to design and build stuff, but he left school at 16 and joined the army!

 

[ADIG]

Yes they can but are they described as professional?

 

[gadgeteer]

I have a degree in Law from Cambridge University (I do not practise), and would not like to say. She has a good chance of being found in breach of contract and being ordered to compensate them for any amount which they can prove is as a result of her negligence.

Given I am not a law expert, I'm genuinely interested in how a court may consider the facts of the case.

So. Will there be allowances be made for what she's charging versus the quality received? I mean if I buy a pair of shoes for £4 surely I cannot reasonably expect them to last as long as a pair for £40?

I've no clue if they signed a contract or not. If not, can a court say there's been a breach if there's no contract been signed?

I'm guessing the fact she agreed to do certain group shots and didn't do so will count against her so I do think she will be on a sticky wicket in court. But I do still think that no matter what the legalities, the couple obviously thought they could save a few quid by taking the risk to hire an inexperienced photographer.

The way the following hate campaign has been conducted though via FB and the press is in my opinion morally repugnant.

 

[supersammy]

Given I am not a law expert, I'm genuinely interested in how a court may consider the facts of the case.

So. Will there be allowances be made for what she's charging versus the quality received? I mean if I buy a pair of shoes for £4 surely I cannot reasonably expect them to last as long as a pair for £40?

I've no clue if they signed a contract or not. If not, can a court say there's been a breach if there's no contract been signed?

I'm guessing the fact she agreed to do certain group shots and didn't do so will count against her so I do think she will be on a sticky wicket in court. But I do still think that no matter what the legalities, the couple obviously thought they could save a few quid by taking the risk to hire an inexperienced photographer.

The way the following hate campaign has been conducted though via FB and the press is in my opinion morally repugnant.

As I said I do not practise. And it's been a few years since I was bored to death with contract law. However it does not have to be written.

A contract is in really simple terms just an agreement between two parties. The money is just the proof that there was a contract (ie she was taking photos for them).

She has taken photos. But through her own incompetence or negligent they are so terrbile that they are useless. Her defence could be that the photos are ok...

The amount of money paid will have a bearing. However she has failed to fulfil the contract and will/should legally be responsible for that. Like I said, if I took my car to a garage doing MOT's for £20 and they dropped it of a ramp, it would not be ok because I was saving some money!!!!

I know nothing about the facebook group. If it was just factual and showed what she did then I do not see the problem with it! If she feels it overstepped the mark then there are legal avenues open to her! Both criminal and civil.

 

[artyman]

As regards compensation surely the most they could expect is the full cost of her fee. They paid for a £100 product they cannot reasonably expect to get a £2,000 reshoot cost.

 

[cambsno]

You could argue (having seen the pic in the Sun), that cutting off their heads was a good thing!!!

Seriously though, you pay £100 so what do you expect? Of course the quality of pics will not be good. Its like paying £50 for a wedding car and moaning the driver is scruffy and the car is a 10yo Mondeo!! Or you pay 10% the going rate for catering and get tesco value processed cheese sardines!!!

 

[artyman]

The problem is that so many people have seen superb wedding shots, getting them to that standard is a highly complex photo shoot, where the B&G have to behave like models, not a B&G, it seems the wedding and it's significance, is secondary to the photgraphic process. Now to me the wedding is the important bit, but I'm old fashioned, and the shots would just be those that were able to be captured as a secondary importance. Now the skill of the real pro is to get those shots whilst not intruding on the real occasion which is the wedding.

 

[ziggy©]

Nope, the photographer was honest. From what I remember reading, even the witchhunt group admitted that she'd told the B&G that she'd recently graduated from college. Showed them her college portfolio (no weddings), said she'd do it for £100 cos she's no experience and wanted to build up her portfolio.

This is exactly what i thought happened as is usually the case. The problem however is that the newspapers that prints these stories don't mention the other side of the story and people on social media and forums are usually quick to jump to conclusions.

 

[HMansfield]

Some of the comments on The Sun's page are just as ridiculous.

those saying the photographer doesnt know how to use a camera, its clear that his/her equipment is entry-level. They are shooting portraits with a wide-angle and small aperture so everything is in focus and distracting. I would say its more about the equipment in this case.

Do pro-spec cameras not have wide angel lenses or small apertures available?

What does a D5100 come with? 18-55mm? Zoom it out, f5.6, get plenty of space behind them with no bright distracting things in the frame.
Obviously it won't compete with the same shot taken with something like 70mm f2.8, but with thought put into positioning and lighting (pop up the flash if there's nothing else available!) there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get an acceptable shot.
Things like this are down to the photographer, not the equipment.

Also, she's recently graduated. What was she studying, as such basic mistakes were surely covered very early on, and then put into practice again, and again, and again if she were studying photography?

 

[supersammy]

As regards compensation surely the most they could expect is the full cost of her fee. They paid for a £100 product they cannot reasonably expect to get a £2,000 reshoot cost.

Absolutely wrong. If due to her negligence those costs are incurred then she will be responsible!

Again lets just think about this for one moment in a none photography mindset. If the garage MOT my car for £20 and they drop it off their ramps, are they only responsible for the £20 and not the damage to my car?

She has taken payment for a service. Her only hope is that the people who she provided the service to are as ignorant of the law as the members of this site. And I am not saying that to be offensive, but this really is a very simple case in law!

Her options are to claim that the photos fulfil her contract, and that they are good enough. Unless she has made it clear in either writing or orally that she does not know how to use a camera and that the photos are likely to be blurry and of terrible quality, she is shafter.

On a lighter note - a 20 year old student will probably not have the money to pay. It will only follow her around for 6 years, and if the couple have any sense they will not pour more money into court fees to chase her.

 

[supersammy]

This is exactly what i thought happened as is usually the case. The problem however is that the newspapers that prints these stories don't mention the other side of the story and people on social media and forums are usually quick to jump to conclusions.

Utter rubbish. The story outlined what has happened. She took money for a service and did not deliver. The customers are now going to be significantly out of pocket due to this.

£100 may be small fry to you. But to many none photography people that would seem fair for a mornings work.

The social media side I cannot comment on as I have not seen it. But I am assuming they merely put the photo's up, and people mocked her and stated the obvious.

 

[ziggy©]

Utter rubbish. The story outlined what has happened. She took money for a service and did not deliver. The customers are now going to be significantly out of pocket due to this.

If the photographer tells you that she is a graduate that just came out of college and has no experience in wedding photography and you still hire her for the most important day of your life then you are either too stupid or just plain mental.

£100 may be small fry to you. But to many none photography people that would seem fair for a mornings work.

This just proves my point really. I never mentioned anything about the £100 paid. Newspapers/Tabloids (and people on social media and forums) just take words and twist them to mean something else which is not necessarily what was originally said. :thumbsdown:

 

[cambsno]

Utter rubbish. The story outlined what has happened. She took money for a service and did not deliver. The customers are now going to be significantly out of pocket due to this.

£100 may be small fry to you. But to many none photography people that would seem fair for a mornings work.

The social media side I cannot comment on as I have not seen it. But I am assuming they merely put the photo's up, and people mocked her and stated the obvious.

But she did deliver, what people should expect from a £100 service for something that should cost £500-£2000 typically. There were 3 or 4 pics on the link, yes they were poor but am willing to bet the paper printed the worst ones.

Now if the tog has very good portfolio on website then the couple have a case as they would not be up to scratch, but if there are none or some of similar quality then tough.

Seeing as the tog was there for the wedding and 1st dance I would guess that she had at least 6-7 coverage, maybe more. Add the processing time, tog was making £10 an hour less the costs of transport and any other costs like website, equipment etc. plus if the tog is paying tax then any profit is less than min wage.

 

[ziggy©]

On a lighter note - a 20 year old student will probably not have the money to pay. It will only follow her around for 6 years, and if the couple have any sense they will not pour more money into court fees to chase her.

The newspaper will probably pay for the court costs even though they probably know that they might loose. They will recoup that money (and more) from the sales the story will generate.

 

[supersammy]

But she did deliver, what people should expect from a £100 service for something that should cost £500-£2000 typically. There were 3 or 4 pics on the link, yes they were poor but am willing to bet the paper printed the worst ones.

Now if the tog has very good portfolio on website then the couple have a case as they would not be up to scratch, but if there are none or some of similar quality then tough.

Seeing as the tog was there for the wedding and 1st dance I would guess that she had at least 6-7 coverage, maybe more. Add the processing time, tog was making £10 an hour less the costs of transport and any other costs like website, equipment etc. plus if the tog is paying tax then any profit is less than min wage.

I will stop saying the same stuff after this. It doesn't matter if she got paid £1 or £1 million. The fact is by accepting money she has effectively entered into a contract. That is how the law of this land works.

This is a very simple case of contract law, and negligence. I'm not commenting on her photography as she is probably better than me (although not in those photos). I am merely stating she is responsible for her negligence, and in any court in this land she should be held responsible.

 

[supersammy]

If the photographer tells you that she is a graduate that just came out of college and has no experience in wedding photography and you still hire her for the most important day of your life then you are either too stupid or just plain mental.



This just proves my point really. I never mentioned anything about the £100 paid. Newspapers/Tabloids (and people on social media and forums) just take words and twist them to mean something else which is not necessarily what was originally said. :thumbsdown:

I accept you never talked about money, and I apologise if I came across a bit strongly.

However her experience or lack of it is not in question here really is it. She took the job (and entered into a contract) and now has to live with it.

 

[cambsno]

I will stop saying the same stuff after this. It doesn't matter if she got paid £1 or £1 million. The fact is by accepting money she has effectively entered into a contract. That is how the law of this land works.

This is a very simple case of contract law, and negligence. I'm not commenting on her photography as she is probably better than me (although not in those photos). I am merely stating she is responsible for her negligence, and in any court in this land she should be held responsible.

Yes, she accepted money but in any contract you would just have that you will supply x pictures in x format. I for one don't specify that the will be in focus so doubt she did.

Of course the amount paid is relevant. If I steal £100 from my employer or £1,000,000 I will get a much harsher punishment, probably jail for the £1m despite the crime being the same. Anyone with sense knows that £100 is pathetically cheap for a full wedding.

Also, while you can be great at photography at 20, most 20yo won't have experience or the right people skills to do a great job.

If I paid £100 for a 20 on their 1st job to paint all my walls, do you think I would sue if the missed the odd bit or got paint on skirting board? Of course not.

 

[Bassit]

Said quite a lot

I don't usually write things like this, but i would just like to say you don't come across as very "super" to me, i find your posts rude and arrogant, you have some knowledge on a particular subject, same as everyone else posting here, this doesn't give you the right to be calling all of the posters (myself included) ignorant :shrug:, even if you did apologise afterwards.:thumbsdown:

EDIT: I have just seen your apology, but i still make no apology for this post!!

 

[supersammy]

I don't usually write things like this, but i would just like to say you don't come across as very "super" to me, i find your posts rude and arrogant, you have some knowledge on a particular subject, same as everyone else posting here, this doesn't give you the right to be calling all of the posters (myself included) ignorant :shrug:, even if you did apologise afterwards.:thumbsdown:

EDIT: I have just seen your apology, but i still make no apology for this post!!

I do not feel I have been arrogant. I have merely stated how I view the situation from a legal point of view. I have made it clear that I am not a practising solicitor or barrister, however did manage to obtain an upper second class honours degree from one of the worlds most prestigious Universities. So I feel I have a right to an opinion on the matter.

However it does get pretty tiresome when people give out their opinion on legal matters without comprehending and understanding the foundation on which civil law is based. I have refrained from using legal jargon and have merely said that a claim would be very credible and will add that on the small amount of information we have, if she had insurance they would not dream of challenging this in any courtroom!

And agreed, just because I have some knowledge on a subject does not give me the right to dismiss others views. However it does give me the right to try and educate them.

 

[supersammy]

Yes, she accepted money but in any contract you would just have that you will supply x pictures in x format. I for one don't specify that the will be in focus so doubt she did.

Of course the amount paid is relevant. If I steal £100 from my employer or £1,000,000 I will get a much harsher punishment, probably jail for the £1m despite the crime being the same. Anyone with sense knows that £100 is pathetically cheap for a full wedding.

Also, while you can be great at photography at 20, most 20yo won't have experience or the right people skills to do a great job.

If I paid £100 for a 20 on their 1st job to paint all my walls, do you think I would sue if the missed the odd bit or got paint on skirting board? Of course not.

The issue here is civil and not criminal.

And whilst I cannot see a case for and claim as a result of missing a spot on a wall, if the painter was to damage your property or cause you a loss due to his/her negligence then you would be entirely within your rights to make a claim!

Age here is immaterial. She is an adult, that is all that matters.

With regards to your first paragraph I have already stated that her only possible defence (that I can see at least) is that she has fulfilled the contract. However I feel that it would be implied that the photos would be of suitable quality, the definition of this is hazy and would require expert witnesses and a very good advocate to work! I certainly do not feel that the lady in question would like to fund this...

 

[boyfalldown]

The newspaper will probably pay for the court costs even though they probably know that they might loose. They will recoup that money (and more) from the sales the story will generate.

Seeing as the court fees will be £25 I doubt the paper will be worried

 

[boyfalldown]

I do not feel I have been arrogant. I have merely stated how I view the situation from a legal point of view. I have made it clear that I am not a practising solicitor or barrister, however did manage to obtain an upper second class honours degree from one of the worlds most prestigious Universities. So I feel I have a right to an opinion on the matter.

However it does get pretty tiresome when people give out their opinion on legal matters without comprehending and understanding the foundation on which civil law is based. I have refrained from using legal jargon and have merely said that a claim would be very credible and will add that on the small amount of information we have, if she had insurance they would not dream of challenging this in any courtroom!

And agreed, just because I have some knowledge on a subject does not give me the right to dismiss others views. However it does give me the right to try and educate them.

How can you say an insurer wouldn't dream of challenging in a court room based on a very one sided article in the Sun? It's far from knowing all the facts isn't it?. With your law degree you'll know the furthest this will go is the small claims track so costs will be very limited.

 

[supersammy]

How can you say an insurer wouldn't dream of challenging in a court room based on a very one sided article in the Sun? It's far from knowing all the facts isn't it?. With your law degree you'll know the furthest this will go is the small claims track so costs will be very limited.

I did say from my limited knowledge of the case. And whilst you are correct in that would be heard in a small claims court, the fees are not simply £25. It will be dependent on how large the claim is, and also if you need to have a hearing.

And I can speak as someone who worked as an intern for a large insurance company in the legal department. They do not challenge any case where there is almost any chance they will lose, when the figures are so small (in the region of a few grand). You cannot claim back the legal fees (except in very very exceptional circumstances) and it would almost certainly involve instructing a barrister, which would cost more than any trivial claim.

And as an aside, the dispute here is if the photos are enough to fulfil her side of the contract. Even the fans of the girl on here who have seen them all say they are dire. In that situation why would you even consider challenging a claim which is legally sound?

 

[boyfalldown]

I did say from my limited knowledge of the case. And whilst you are correct in that would be heard in a small claims court, the fees are not simply £25. It will be dependent on how large the claim is, and also if you need to have a hearing.

And I can speak as someone who worked as an intern for a large insurance company in the legal department. They do not challenge any case where there is almost any chance they will lose, when the figures are so small (in the region of a few grand). You cannot claim back the legal fees (except in very very exceptional circumstances) and it would almost certainly involve instructing a barrister, which would cost more than any trivial claim.

Be realistic. It's a £100 case. The current fee is £25. If it ever got to a hearing it'd be another £25. You show your complete lack of knowledge with talk of barristers etc. if the claimant was foolish enough to appoint one, they could never recover the cost of doing so.

 

[supersammy]

Be realistic. It's a £100 case. The current fee is £25. If it ever got to a hearing it'd be another £25. You show your complete lack of knowledge with talk of barristers etc. if the claimant was foolish enough to appoint one, they could never recover the cost of doing so.

:bonk:

The claim will not be for £100. It will be for the cost of the rent of the venue again and any associated costs.

And we are not talking about the claimant are we. We are talking about an insurance company... A big company. They can't just send an untrained monkey to defend a case! This is just silly now.

 

[boyfalldown]

:bonk:

The claim will not be for £100. It will be for the cost of the rent of the venue again and any associated costs.

And we are not talking about the claimant are we. We are talking about an insurance company... A big company. They can't just send an untrained monkey to defend a case! This is just silly now.

As I said your claim anyone would be foolish enough to send a barrister to the small claims court shows your complete lack of knowledge. When they stopped laughing that you suggested it to him, the court would carry on laughing at you

As for your point about untrained folks, well that is kind of the point of small claims - you don't need representation and you're discouraged from having it to keep your costs down.

But as obviously know this, with your degree and all.

I'd like to know how you know details (like amounts) for an on going case. Or are you making it up.

 

[supersammy]

As I said your claim anyone would be foolish enough to send a barrister to the small claims court shows your complete lack of knowledge. When they stopped laughing that you suggested it to him, the court would carry on laughing at you

As for your point about untrained folks, well that is kind of the point of small claims - you don't need representation and you're discouraged from having it to keep your costs down.

But as obviously know this, with your degree and all.

I'd like to know how you know details (like amounts) for an on going case. Or are you making it up.

Hugh - think about what you have written and see if it makes sense. Ask yourself some simple questions. We were not talking about a "him" we were talking about large insurance companies. Who do you think they send to defend cases? Do you not see the distinction between a private individual and a large corporation? Have you ever spend any time around a county court? Most junior council will spend the first couple of years after their pupillage in the county court.

Your last paragraph asks a question which is literally impossible to answer. It depends on so many variables that I won't go into it. There will be an average figure for an insurance company to defend a claim. However I am too tired, and not interested enough to look for it.