Couple sue 20 year old photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
boyfalldown said:
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)
Click to expand...
Agreed and sort of my point that whilst it's rare, it does seem strange to complain about it if the registrar said "No photos"


boyfalldown said:
Groups? conversation with bride 'just shoot the ones the videographer sets up'. Pure speculation I admit but not unknown, far from it.
Click to expand...
According to the FB group the list of groups was agreed in advance of the wedding with the photographer, dunno how exactly. There was no videographer. The video was apparently the bride's sister who was just taking video in a family/guest capacity.

I guess for 3. you could argue that your style is reportage :lol: but there really is no need to give your couple all 10 shots of the same thing clearly taken in CH mode.
 
Last edited:
gadgeteer said:
I 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.
Click to expand...

I have, I've even had the same registrar reuse any photos in the reigstry office on a Friday and be lovely and very accommodating in the Hotel over the road on a Saturday. Without knowing what the contract was how ?can you say its a breech?
 
gadgeteer said:
Agreed and sort of my point that whilst it's rare, it does seem strange to complain about it if the registrar said "No photos"



According to the FB group the list of groups was agreed in advance of the wedding with the photographer, dunno how exactly. There was no videographer. The video was apparently the bride's sister who was just taking video in a family/guest capacity.
Click to expand...

The whole thing is very strange. Thats why I said they'll be another story. That FB group was just a witch hunt and contained alot of info that wasn't capable of standing basic scrutiny. I wouldn't place a lot of truth on what was said there
 
boyfalldown said:
Without knowing what the contract was how ?can you say its a breech?
Click to expand...

OK, i guess I cannot say it is a CLEAR breach but it smells like one to me. It's the one which is not subjective. If she's agreed to a list in writing and hasn't done so then she's pretty much nailed unless she can demonstrate the reason she didn't was beyond her control (like the best man had disappeared).

It's a big reason why i don't ask for a list anymore. Spent too long waiting for people or searching for them. If they are there & the B&G say shoot this group, I shoot. At the end I ask if they are happy or are there anymore groups they'd like? They say "nope". Job done. Far simpler than shouting for the best man or FOB who are in the bar getting their 6th pint. Or MIL who is too busy nattering to care.
 
gadgeteer said:
Agreed and sort of my point that whilst it's rare, it does seem strange to complain about it if the registrar said "No photos"
Click to expand...

Not rare at all, its the norm around here

Its a seconds work to find a blog post from a photographer making that exact point about the venue


Regarding the groups it was obvious from the full set that the wedding party were far more interested in performing for the family member with the video camera than they were in being photographed
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
The article says the photographer told them she "was a pro". To the average Joe, a professional photographer is a professional photographer.
Click to expand...

You mean "she said she was a pro but didn't even get any shots of Gary's elderly grandparents who came up from London

That sounds just like a human being speaking :lol: nothing at all like the words of a Sun hack, there's even missing quotation marks to keep it nice and ambiguous.

Yes I'm speaking like a pro photographer, and if this comes to court who'll be an expert witness? You've got it Sherlock!

I think you're refusing to accept that the couple understood the risk, because it doesn't suit your point. In the same way the newspapers failed to mention the fee, it destroys their story.
 
Phil V said:
You mean "she said she was a pro but didn't even get any shots of Gary's elderly grandparents who came up from London

That sounds just like a human being speaking :lol: nothing at all like the words of a Sun hack, there's even missing quotation marks to keep it nice and ambiguous.

Yes I'm speaking like a pro photographer, and if this comes to court who'll be an expert witness? You've got it Sherlock!

I think you're refusing to accept that the couple understood the risk, because it doesn't suit your point. In the same way the newspapers failed to mention the fee, it destroys their story.
Click to expand...

Well, you're wrong (and I could say the exact opposite about you and the "anything is acceptable for £100" brigade - after all, we mustn't have £100 photographers producing something decent now, can we? - but I wouldn't do that. ;) :p).

Like I said, the onus should be on the professional to refuse work they aren't capable of, like in other industries, otherwise it gives cowboys carte blanch to do as they wish.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Paul. I understand now that some registry offices don't allow it. The ones in my area are generally quite good. Only two do not allow flash. The rest leave it up to you.

What i meant was that it is a very strange complaint to say that the photographer didn't take any during the ceremony if the reason was because she was not allowed to. It would make for a very short court case.

And personally I think the reason the wedding party probably 'performed' for the video is because I suspect she was the one directing them. Judging by the photos I really don't think the photographer did anything other than snap away like a guest. Even reportage photographers would have moved to be in the central locations for the group shots & signing of the register.
 
gadgeteer said:
OK, i guess I cannot say it is a CLEAR breach but it smells like one to me. It's the one which is not subjective. If she's agreed to a list in writing and hasn't done so then she's pretty much nailed unless she can demonstrate the reason she didn't was beyond her control (like the best man had disappeared).

It's a big reason why i don't ask for a list anymore. Spent too long waiting for people or searching for them. If they are there & the B&G say shoot this group, I shoot. At the end I ask if they are happy or are there anymore groups they'd like? They say "nope". Job done. Far simpler than shouting for the best man or FOB who are in the bar getting their 6th pint. Or MIL who is too busy nattering to care.
Click to expand...

To balance your statement I & a large number of wedding photographers I know & work with work to group lists & wouldn't dream of doing otherwise :)
 
gadgeteer said:
Sorry Paul. I understand now that some registry offices don't allow it. The ones in my area are generally quite good. Only two do not allow flash. The rest leave it up to you.

What i meant was that it is a very strange complaint to say that the photographer didn't take any during the ceremony if the reason was because she was not allowed to. It would make for a very short court case.

And personally I think the reason the wedding party probably 'performed' for the video is because I suspect she was the one directing them. Judging by the photos I really don't think the photographer did anything other than snap away like a guest. Even reportage photographers would have moved to be in the central locations for the group shots & signing of the register.
Click to expand...

I'll hazard a guess that a young, new to the game photographer could easily make the mistake of being overpowered by a more vocal, stronger willed family member & then run out of time.

Some documentary photographers do stay on the sidelines & their signing shots are of the guests photographing the couple
 
Yup, i accept that. And that's fair enough.

I also have seen a lot of people be perfectly happy with the standard of photos being spoken about here. Like I said, there's a local 'tog' around here who churns out similar quality @ £20 an hour and she has plenty of happy customers.

It's all about expectations and this couple had £500 budget, chose to save £400 yet still expected the same results. Personally i find that unrealistic to expect that without acknowledging they took a gamble and the gamble did not pay off.
 
Had to pop into Swansea registry office which is in a new building. (I was sorting the legals after my father died last year).

The landscaping of the area outside the entrance seems to be made up of leafy corners without office windows. On the 2 occassions I visited it seemed there was always pics being taken. Seemed good idea...... except when it's pi****g down rain.

Reading through the pros and cons discussed in this thread and being involved in setting and adhering to contracts.

Simple contracts can be assumed as long as there are a signed set of both requirements and a price to deliver same. Implied contracts based on a set of verbal instructions are possibly the most difficult to deal with where a dispute follows. English law is the way for any contract to be determined (in England and Wales). That determination is a means to clearly show what was asked for and how/if/when the service/product was delivered or not.

My gut feeling is that in the case of disappointment in the case this thread highlights could find its way to the small claims court at best. Even there the burden is on the claimants to prove that disproportionate los had occured notwhat might occur yet. There wouls also need to be a clear schedule to show what was agreed. Without that it will not pass any test.

The bigger threat of taking the photographer to court - very risky.

Had a look through some case law but nothing really for the sums involved. Could look vexatious in nature too.

One bright point - all the noise 'might' scare off some of the £100 wedding photographers from Gumtree et al
 
A professional...someone doing something for payment and reward....

Someone doing something for payment and reward.....does not have to mean a professional.

When will people learn something as simple as you get what you pay for!
 
Guys - I think this has gotten a little heated. And I also feel that some of the comments made about me have been a little wide of the mark. I have not said any insurance company was involved, actually I have said I believe the opposite at least twice. I have also only claimed to explain my interpretation of the law as I see it. If some people find that offensive then I can only apologise. Finally, I have not run away from this conversation, I left it as I did not feel I had anything more constructive to add and also because I was up until 9am in the morning drafting a contract.

Anyway - playing devils advocate for a minute. What would you expect if the girl had charged £5k for the work? Obviously the money is a consideration, however I do not feel that a low price absolves her from her duty of care to take what I would consider reasonable photos. It's ok to say what would you expect for £100, but it's very hard to quantify what is acceptable. With regards to expert witnesses, then at a small claims hearing this would be unusual, it would be up to the district judge (a lawyer with little specialist training) to decide whether he would be happy with the photos. If the decision is made that she is negligent then she is responsible for putting this right.

Anyway - I think everyone can agree that it is never a good idea to take on paid work which you are not confident/capable of completing to an "acceptable" standard. That is the moral of this story. I honestly have nothing more to add. I accept many will not agree with me, and only hope that this works out for both the B&G and the young girl.
 
Last edited:
The "never done a wedding before" and "looking to build my portfolio" are the key points and that is where the risk lied although the price is an indicator it is not overly relevant.

Again, the couple went ahead knowing that risk so presumably accepted it or ignored it. Either way it was their risk to take and therefore their responsibility when it goes wrong.
 
ZoneV said:
Well, you're wrong (and I could say the exact opposite about you and the "anything is acceptable for £100" brigade - after all, we mustn't have £100 photographers producing something decent now, can we? - but I wouldn't do that. ;) :p).

Like I said, the onus should be on the professional to refuse work they aren't capable of, like in other industries, otherwise it gives cowboys carte blanch to do as they wish.
Click to expand...

We've clearly hit an impasse, she's not a professional, nothing about this story says professional, but you insist that she's a professional. Despite the fact that you admit that if she's a professional, that drags down the whole industry.

If you read this thread, the industry says "She's not a professional", nothing personal, I'll bet she's not calling herself a professional either.

The only people happy to call her a professional are the ones who like to slag off professionals. As I said, it suits their already low opinion. ;)

I never said 'anything is acceptable for £100, you're so keen to argue its not, that you're hoping for us all to say that it is. The only difference between most posters and you, is that you won't accept the customer has some responsibility.

What's ridiculous about that is that it assumes that no matter what kind of ridiculous deal I'm offered, I have a right to complain if I get ripped off. I'm sorry but that's just not very responsible. If someone offers me a brand new Fiesta for £1000, it's either stolen or it's a con. If I can work that out, why can't you? Would you be complaining that the professional car dealer shouldn't be offering such deals? Of course he shouldn't, but only an idiot would take him up on it.
 
ernesto said:
The "never done a wedding before" and "looking to build my portfolio" are the key points and that is where the risk lied although the price is an indicator it is not overly relevant.

Again, the couple went ahead knowing that risk so presumably accepted it or ignored it. Either way it was their risk to take and therefore their responsibility when it goes wrong.
Click to expand...
:thumbs:
Why does it look this simple, yet people seem to ignore it.
 
supersammy said:
...
Anyway - I think everyone can agree that it is never a good idea to take on paid work which you are not confident/capable of completing to an "acceptable" standard. That is the moral of this story. I honestly have nothing more to add. I accept many will not agree with me, and only hope that this works out for both the B&G and the young girl.
Click to expand...

You're right, if only the case was so cut and dried, but she wasn't advertising her services as a professional, and the couple booked her at a bargain price on the basis that she had no experience.

I'd like to be so circumspect, but to sell your story to the papers in such a dishonest way? I can't support that I'm afraid.

Personally I think both the photographer and couple got what was coming to them, but the modern world likes to have someone to blame.
 
Phil V said:
We've clearly hit an impasse, she's not a professional, nothing about this story says professional, but you insist that she's a professional. Despite the fact that you admit that if she's a professional, that drags down the whole industry.

If you read this thread, the industry says "She's not a professional", nothing personal, I'll bet she's not calling herself a professional either.

The only people happy to call her a professional are the ones who like to slag off professionals. As I said, it suits their already low opinion. ;)

I never said 'anything is acceptable for £100, you're so keen to argue its not, that you're hoping for us all to say that it is. The only difference between most posters and you, is that you won't accept the customer has some responsibility.

What's ridiculous about that is that it assumes that no matter what kind of ridiculous deal I'm offered, I have a right to complain if I get ripped off. I'm sorry but that's just not very responsible. If someone offers me a brand new Fiesta for £1000, it's either stolen or it's a con. If I can work that out, why can't you? Would you be complaining that the professional car dealer shouldn't be offering such deals? Of course he shouldn't, but only an idiot would take him up on it.
Click to expand...

"The only people who call her professional are those who like to slag off professionals... as it suits their already low opinion"?

Phil, I've nothing against professionals - what on earth gives you that idea? In the context of my post, a professional is someone who charges for a service, nothing more. You're reading far too much into this, fella.

Edit: re "anything is acceptable for £100". I asked earlier "what would be deemed unacceptable from a £100 wedding photographer?" or something like that, and the answer I got was more or less "nothing", meaning there was zero expectation. I didn't say you said it, but it was said and I disagree.

Here it is (back at the PC now, makes copying & pasting easier :) ) :

ZoneV said:
What would the £100 photographer have to do wrong to justify a claim against them?
Click to expand...

PMN said:
If you insist on ignoring my question and continuing with your own then in my eyes 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...
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
The "never done a wedding before" and "looking to build my portfolio" are the key points and that is where the risk lied although the price is an indicator it is not overly relevant.

Again, the couple went ahead knowing that risk so presumably accepted it or ignored it. Either way it was their risk to take and therefore their responsibility when it goes wrong.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

That's pretty much it in a nutshell and what I've been trying to say just not as succinctly.
 
ZoneV said:
"The only people who call her professional are those who like to slag off professionals"?

Phil, I've nothing against professionals. In the context of my post, a professional is someone who charges for a service, nothing more. You're reading far too much into it fella.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier though (it seems like an eternity ago).

If I cut my neighbours lawn for a fiver, it doesn't make me a professional landscaper. My straight answer is that 'if you're charging for your services, you're a professional'. But that has connotations of an ongoing business, this is the photographers first paid job, probably her only paid job for a long time too.

So IMHO she's not a professional, from a quick skim through this thread, plenty of other wedding photographers hold the same view, you can see why we're suspicious of those who keep insisting the opposite.

BTW There have been numerous threads regarding 'professional' and as I posted earlier, no matter what distinction you draw, the photographer here is none of them.

We're definitely going round in circles now.:help:
 
As the father of the photographer concerned i would like to add some facts to this debate.

1) My daughter has never portrayed herself as anything more than an amateur taking pictures as a hobby. The 100 charged was to cover costs (transport, memory sticks, buying photoshop, a day off work from her job as a check out assistant etc etc).

2) No one has seen all 606 images provided to the B&G except them and us.

3) To say this wedding was being done on a tight budget is an understatement. 30 spent on inflated balloons that were going down 3 hrs before the reception. My wife and i at our daughters request went and purchased more balloons and gas and spent 2 hrs putting things right with not even a thank you from the B&G.

4) My daughter did struggle to take pictures outside the registry office as the brides maids had taken her umbrella (never did return it either).

5) The pictures were to be edited but due to the bride pressuring my daughter she made the biggest mistake of just giving her all 606.

6) No list was provided but my daughter did ask that they nominate family members to "organise" family for photos.

7) We refused to talk to the reporter who came to our door at 0805 on Thursday as until the courts have decided we felt it best.

8) So glad the photographer that sat outside our house for 2 hrs didn't get a usable shot, good job he only gets paid if they use a shot our he could be taken to court.
 
As with many other things,the B&G got what they paid for. End of argument.

No need for any character assassination, nor an internet trial, nor a slagging match between pros and enthusiasts.
 
covdad said:
As the father of the photographer concerned i would like to add some facts to this debate.

1) My daughter has never portrayed herself as anything more than an amateur taking pictures as a hobby. The 100 charged was to cover costs (transport, memory sticks, buying photoshop, a day off work from her job as a check out assistant etc etc).

2) No one has seen all 606 images provided to the B&G except them and us.

3) To say this wedding was being done on a tight budget is an understatement. 30 spent on inflated balloons that were going down 3 hrs before the reception. My wife and i at our daughters request went and purchased more balloons and gas and spent 2 hrs putting things right with not even a thank you from the B&G.

4) My daughter did struggle to take pictures outside the registry office as the brides maids had taken her umbrella (never did return it either).

5) The pictures were to be edited but due to the bride pressuring my daughter she made the biggest mistake of just giving her all 606.

6) No list was provided but my daughter did ask that they nominate family members to "organise" family for photos.

7) We refused to talk to the reporter who came to our door at 0805 on Thursday as until the courts have decided we felt it best.

8) So glad the photographer that sat outside our house for 2 hrs didn't get a usable shot, good job he only gets paid if they use a shot our he could be taken to court.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to PM on here. But some of what you have said, will form a defence. If your daughter has not taken legal advice she should do. Even the CAB will give you some advice which will hope.

I'd also say that you should limit what you are saying on here. You will probably want to defend your daughter, but writing stuff on the internet won't help her long term.

Good luck with it all. Sam
 
supersammy said:
I don't know how to PM on here. But some of what you have said, will form a defence. If your daughter has not taken legal advice she should do. Even the CAB will give you some advice which will hope.

I'd also say that you should limit what you are saying on here. You will probably want to defend your daughter, but writing stuff on the internet won't help her long term.

Good luck with it all. Sam
Click to expand...

The above is as much as will be said until the courts decide.

Thanks
:)
 
supersammy said:
...
I'd also say that you should limit what you are saying on here. You will probably want to defend your daughter, but writing stuff on the internet won't help her long term.

Good luck with it all. Sam
Click to expand...

We agree on some things. :D

Good luck Covdad. You're right about the biggest mistake, have your daughter join here, there's loads of great advice (if she'd been here first....), but she should keep her head down for a bit. Good luck!
 
I oersonally feel sorry for your daughter, i am also from coventry and hace shot thr registry offive before, therefore i know its not the most forgiving if locstions, my opinion is the the B&G are on a witch hunt, not saying your daughter didnt make some big mistakes but she is inexperienced and the couple were well aware of this and therefore shoukd of known what grade of images to expect, if your daughter wants any tips or advice please feel free to drop me a message
 
Apologies for the terrible grammer not easy to tyoe on phone when in the car lol
 
Phil V said:
As I said earlier though (it seems like an eternity ago).

If I cut my neighbours lawn for a fiver, it doesn't make me a professional landscaper. My straight answer is that 'if you're charging for your services, you're a professional'. But that has connotations of an ongoing business, this is the photographers first paid job, probably her only paid job for a long time too.

So IMHO she's not a professional, from a quick skim through this thread, plenty of other wedding photographers hold the same view, you can see why we're suspicious of those who keep insisting the opposite.

BTW There have been numerous threads regarding 'professional' and as I posted earlier, no matter what distinction you draw, the photographer here is none of them.

We're definitely going round in circles now.:help:
Click to expand...

Sure, I get the "doing a neighbour a favour for a £5" argument but as far as I'm aware, in this case they weren't neighbours or friends. :shrug:

Re The definition of "Professional" - by that I mean someone who is paid to carry out work. Why are you so defensive about this? She charged the couple for a service - that's all I mean by it. Is it really that hard to grasp? :bang:
 
I thought it had been established the photographer had made it clear she was not a pro and was only charging to cover her costs, which to me seems more than fair?
 
ZoneV said:
Sure, I get the "doing a neighbour a favour for a £5" argument but as far as I'm aware, in this case they weren't neighbours or friends. :shrug:

Re The definition of "Professional" - by that I mean someone who is paid to carry out work. Why are you so defensive about this? She charged the couple for a service - that's all I mean by it. Is it really that hard to grasp? :bang:
Click to expand...

This has gone around in circles now. Everything has been said many times from both sides of the arguments.

I don't know if a thread can be closed but if it can I'd suggest that it would be the correct course of action now. Nothing more can be added from any side. This is/may be being dealt with via the civil courts and is in the media, I feel that any comments could easily be taken out of context which is in no one's interest on here.
 
ZoneV said:
Sure, I get the "doing a neighbour a favour for a £5" argument but as far as I'm aware, in this case they weren't neighbours or friends. :shrug:

Re The definition of "Professional" - by that I mean someone who is paid to carry out work. Why are you so defensive about this? She charged the couple for a service - that's all I mean by it. Is it really that hard to grasp? :bang:
Click to expand...
I'm not defensive, I'm trying to get you to understand the clear difference between a student charging 'expenses' to do a job and a professional advertising their services.

You seem to be saying 'a professional charged for a service and failed to deliver' which is very black and white and ignores several salient points.

So my assertion that
She wasn't a professional
She wasn't advertising professional services
The couple were aware that she had no relevant experience

Appears to be falling on deaf ears, because of your simplified view of the situation. You can re-read all my reasoned similes and observations again if you like, because I really don't understand how you can fail to see that it's not so black and white. And I'm out.
 
supersammy said:
This has gone around in circles now. Everything has been said many times from both sides of the arguments.
Click to expand...
Nothing new there :D
supersammy said:
I don't know if a thread can be closed but if it can I'd suggest that it would be the correct course of action now. Nothing more can be added from any side.
Click to expand...
RTM it - press the red triangle to the bottom right and explain :thumbs:
 
supersammy said:
This has gone around in circles now. Everything has been said many times from both sides of the arguments.

I don't know if a thread can be closed but if it can I'd suggest that it would be the correct course of action now. Nothing more can be added from any side. This is/may be being dealt with via the civil courts and is in the media, I feel that any comments could easily be taken out of context which is in no one's interest on here.
Click to expand...

I agree and hope it gets resolved in way that's satisfactory for all involved.
 
Phil V said:
I'm not defensive, I'm trying to get you to understand the clear difference between a student charging 'expenses' to do a job and a professional advertising their services.

You seem to be saying 'a professional charged for a service and failed to deliver' which is very black and white and ignores several salient points.

So my assertion that
She wasn't a professional
She wasn't advertising professional services
The couple were aware that she had no relevant experience

Appears to be falling on deaf ears, because of your simplified view of the situation. You can re-read all my reasoned similes and observations again if you like, because I really don't understand how you can fail to see that it's not so black and white. And I'm out.
Click to expand...

Phil, you didn't know it was for "expenses" only until just a few minutes ago. Come on man. :| :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
Phil, you didn't know it was for "expenses" only until just a few minutes ago. Come on man. :| :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

£100. It wasn't for flipping money!

A full days wedding for me is about 30 hours work, even ignoring direct costs that's half the minimum wage. Assuming we're all adults and understand the cost of living, £100 is not a 'professional fee'.
 
Come on guys, give it a rest ,agree to disagree and move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top