Wedding photographer nightmare

C

chenwherry

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Edit My Images
No
Hi

First time poster and new to the forum. I am not a photographer I just need some advice of people who are!

I recently got married, we hired a photographer we paid him a fee (no contract was signed but we did get a receipt), he took some pictures at the wedding (he used traditional film).. now our problem starts..

Basically we think he is taking the mickey with actually now getting photos out of him, I almost had to resort to physical threats to get him to leave any proof copies for ourselves and relatives to view.

My question is legally where do we stand, we have paid him a fee to take photos, we have not signed away our image rights in any photos.

Ideally we would like to obtain the negatives, we'd be happy to pay for them but he refuses to sell them... is he within his rights to refuse or can we obtain them as they contain our image?

I appreciate these may be completely stupid questions from an absolute noob.. but I'm hoping you can help me in this situation!

thanks
cw
 
chenwherry said:
Hi

First time poster and new to the forum. I am not a photographer I just need some advice of people who are!

I recently got married, we hired a photographer we paid him a fee (no contract was signed but we did get a receipt), he took some pictures at the wedding (he used traditional film).. now our problem starts..

Basically we think he is taking the mickey with actually now getting photos out of him, I almost had to resort to physical threats to get him to leave any proof copies for ourselves and relatives to view.

My question is legally where do we stand, we have paid him a fee to take photos, we have not signed away our image rights in any photos.

Ideally we would like to obtain the negatives, we'd be happy to pay for them but he refuses to sell them... is he within his rights to refuse or can we obtain them as they contain our image?

I appreciate these may be completely stupid questions from an absolute noob.. but I'm hoping you can help me in this situation!

thanks
cw
Click to expand...

He is well within his right to not sell the negatives as the owns the copyright to the photographs taken.

But hes well out of order not supplying any prints etc as like you agreed, maybe a solicitors letter reminding him to deliver your photos followed up by small claims court.

someone else on the forum maybe able to help.
 
mho said:
He is well within his right to not sell the negatives as the owns the copyright to the photographs taken.

But hes well out of order not supplying any prints etc as like you agreed, maybe a solicitors letter reminding him to deliver your photos followed up by small claims court.

someone else on the forum maybe able to help.
Click to expand...

:agree: negatives remain the photographers and you have to go to him for any additional prints, but he should be providing prints as agreed.
 
So he owns the copyright to the photos even if we were paying him to take them?

I work in software, if i pay a contractor to write code for me then as he is being paid by me I own the copyright.. Is the same not true of photography copyright?
 
I always thought that if someone was paying you day rate, then they owned the photos?
 
You're in effect paying a 'freelancer' to take photos for you, in this case a wedding. If you actually employed him as an employee and assigned him some work to do then I believe the pictures resulting from that work would be yours and not his.

Ah, you beat me to it..
 
chenwherry said:
So he owns the copyright to the photos even if we were paying him to take them?

I work in software, if i pay a contractor to write code for me then as he is being paid by me I own the copyright.. Is the same not true of photography copyright?
Click to expand...

If you have a contract with him to specify he signs all his rights for all photos taken on that shoot unconditionally to you for an agreed sum and never has a claim on them they would be yours.

As you engaged him to take photographs and provide you with prints / album etc. Copyright is the photographers
 
chenwherry said:
So what would people say would be a fair amount to pay someone to transfer the copyright for 60 photos?
Click to expand...

I would be reluctant to do it but as they are wedding photos with a limited use.
60 of them around £500 - £800. Thats what I would ask for them.
(other things would be diffrent prices)
 
Of course as we don't know what kind of verbal contract you had with this photographer we are all making wild guesses as to where you stand. :rules:

I'll add that dependent on the above, if you almost came to blows as you described, don't expect the photographer to be too amenable to selling the originals to you for anything less than shedloads of money.

Any reason why there is no written contract? :thinking:
 
Wedding photography just sounds like one big ballache to me. So do weddings full stop, actually.
 
chenwherry said:
I recently got married, we hired a photographer we paid him a fee (no contract was signed but we did get a receipt), he took some pictures at the wedding (he used traditional film).. now our problem starts..
Click to expand...
The receipt constitutes a contract - which is a legal document and is one to which he must comply. If he does not comply, you can take him to the small claims court and - as long as you have the receipt, and he has not supplied anything in return - you will win. What you will win is what is in question here.

Does the receipt state what the money was paid for? i.e. for his time, or for any images etc? If it was just for his time - then you may not be so fortunate but I doubt you would have a receipt that states that the fee paid was for time only. If the receipt states it was for providing a service which was to deliver any number of images, and he hasn't delivered these - then in law the guy has no leg to stand on.

Determine the scope of the receipt, which will determine what you should have received. Then take him to court.

chenwherry said:
Ideally we would like to obtain the negatives, we'd be happy to pay for them but he refuses to sell them... is he within his rights to refuse or can we obtain them as they contain our image
Click to expand...
He is well within his rights not to sell them to you if he doesn't want to. However, it could be argued in small claims court that his refusal to sell them was unreasonable, or not to sell/provide prints from them actually infringed on your rights - as you engaged him specifically to take the images of your wedding. Also, despite the fact that the law is absolutely clear on ownership of the negatives (the are his - irrefutably) - you may have a claim to those negatives if a reasonable purchase offer has been made and refused. You need to prove that you engaged him to provide images/negatives - and the receipt may be that proof. If that is the circumstance, then there is a high probability of your winning this case.

chenwherry said:
I appreciate these may be completely stupid questions from an absolute noob.. but I'm hoping you can help me in this situation!
Click to expand...
Not stupid questions at all, and you have come to a great place for the information you seek.

I sincerely hope you get what you paid for. Good luck.
 
mho said:
He is well within his right to not sell the negatives as the owns the copyright to the photographs taken.
Click to expand...
Similarly, if it was digital, he would be entitled to hang onto the original files, the format isn't important. Traditionally photographers have been unwilling to hand over the negs as it reduces their potential income through reprints etc. Understandable I suppose but it certainly sounds as if you've picked a bad one :(

Hope you get it resolved and afterwards it may be worth checking if he's a member of any official bodies and making a complaint as well.
 
Hang on... We're still not very clear about what is going on here.. :thinking:

All Chenwerry has said is that the tog refused to leave the proofs AND refused to sell the negatives....

The first is a little off but the second is perfectly reasonable if that wasn't agreed in the first place. Then he made some suggestion that he almost came to blows when the tog refused to leave some pictures. It is strange that he didn't supply an album of proofs to order from really. How would you know what pictures you wanted to order (if that was the agreement)?

AND we still do not know what the fee was for. Was it part payment for turning up and then prints would be charged for? Surely a fee to hold the booking wouldn't be unreasonable as the tog wouldn't be able to take any more jobs the day the wedding took place.

Of course if a weekend warrior wedding tog was booked then who knows what strange rules of engagement are been adhered to (or not). :suspect:

Not enough info here really. :shrug:
 
This could very easily become a thread about rights, courts and judgements etc. A subject when combined with marriage I really really hate.

It would probably be good idea to gt back to the topic of the pics from your big day. Has he actually handed over any proof images now?

If so, then all is not so bad and once you've chosen what you want you need to make sure he knows that messing you about with the finished prints is going to cause him endless hassle. Several calls a day to pester soon becomes very annoying and he'll want you're order done and dusted when his guts churn every time the phone rings. :lol:

If you've not seen any images yet, that's a worry. It's quite possible they're not all they should be and he's putting off the moment when he has to show you. I'm really hoping that this isn't the case. My wedding shots were really badly messed up. 10 years on the technology and my (small) ability to use it means that I could get some decent shots from the negs with lots of photoshop work though. So if you are in this boat. DONT PANICK, all is not lost.
 
Well so did I but I thought it was worth checking. :)
 
Hi All

Thanks for the feedback that you have all given.

To answer the questions that you have put:

1): Being not knowledgable about photography copyright and also never having got married before we assumed that we would pay the photographer and would own the copyright to our wedding photos. We never made any agreement verbal or otherwise as to what we would be getting, we just paid (very naive i know.. but thats as it is). We assumed we were paying for his time and that we would then own the results.

2): He came to our house with a folder of thumbnail sized images (approx 15 images on each A4 sheet) and a price list for how much each print would cost (a small number were free)and wanted us to choose photos there and then for ourselves and also those that our relatives would want, we offered to buy the negatives, he refused. He refused to leave these proofs for us to choose at our leisure. This is when I had to get quite angry at him until he agreed to leave the thumbnails with us. I was upset that he was essentially trying to pressure us there and then to make decisions.

He claimed that it was the industry norm not to leave proofs for people to select from, which I cannot believe to be true.

What really annoys me is to find that he owns copyright to images of my wedding, and that he could effectively do what he wants with them. This on a personal level feels very much like a violation.

Anyway.. its more than interesting to hear everyones views and knowledge. thanks all :)
 
OK, now we have some useful additional information.

It seems he isn't refusing to supply images after all, and that you paid for his time to take the images. OK, that's not what you apparently expected, but it seems you are able to get hold of whichever images of your wedding you desire.

So apart from not owning the negatives, what is it you have issue with here?

As Daz has alluded to - if you purchase the images you want, there are ways you can get those images digitised and re-printed etc. Not sure of the legalities of that as the copyright remains with the photographer so you may be in violation there (apologies to the staff or any pro togs here if I shouldn't me stating this).

This looks as though there could be a win-win situation resulting from this. You can get the images you want, your family and friends can do the same, and the photographer gets whatever fee he is asking for (1) his time and (2) any prints you want from your wedding.

All is good eh?
 
Well I'm glad you've got some pics now anyway. :)

You're right he does own the copyright. He cannot do what he wants with them though. It gets a bit complicated but any commercial use without a model release isn't going to happen.

Him holding the copyright just means that you have to get any prints from him and cannot make your own copies.
 
Well yes.. the biggest issue here is my naivity in the legal aspects of this and not getting in writing what i would be getting.

It is good to hear that he can't use the images for any commercial purpose without us releasing the image rights.

It has already occured to me to just buy a copy of each print and then get it professionally scanned, and i appreciate that this is probably illegal (again though in other formats music etc, you are permitted to make copies of media as a "backup" so who knows).

So essentially he "owns" the copyright, but he can't benefit from it commercially without our say so because of our image rights, so the its either a stalemate or we make an agreement.
 
chenwherry said:
...so the its either a stalemate or we make an agreement.
Click to expand...

Exactly; and as these are your wedding photographs, we all know what you should do.

Don't mean to patronise you sir, but take the hit, and try to take something positive out of the entire experience - actually, put it down to experience.

Besides, your wife will surely be delighted that she will now have some (hopefully) great shots of your special day; you will be able to show your kids the images of your wedding in the future (my kids love looking at my wedding photos); you know to get things in writing beforehand from now on :)

I hope you get some great wedding shots, all the best.
 
I'll be fairly blunt, as I'm in a bit of a rush.

You paid without having any idea what you paid for. That, as you know, was a very big error. If the photographer's standard way of doing business is to have the client chose at the time the proofs are presented, then he is not out of line to expect you to comply. You simply didn't know that policy because you didn't ask, and (I assume) he didn't mention it. I will say that in my portrait business, I NEVER leave proofs with the families because, as MusicMan so correctly observes, they can be digitized and I will lose money to copyright infringement. I have to say that if any of my clients was threatening to "come to blows" with me over my not leaving proofs with them, I would leave with proofs in hand and call the police if need be. Physical force is not part of doing business.

As for the second part, as mentioned, the photog is under no obligation of any kind to offer the negs for sale.

You HAVE to know what you're paying for, or you have no idea what you're entitled to.

- CJ
 
chenwherry said:
It has already occured to me to just buy a copy of each print and then get it professionally scanned, and i appreciate that this is probably illegal (again though in other formats music etc, you are permitted to make copies of media as a "backup" so who knows).
Click to expand...

No professional lab worth their salt would scan shots for you without express written consent by the photographer. Nor should they.
 
chenwherry said:
It has already occured to me to just buy a copy of each print and then get it professionally scanned, and i appreciate that this is probably illegal (again though in other formats music etc, you are permitted to make copies of media as a "backup" so who knows).
Click to expand...

You will find professional scanning companys and even places like boots, jessops etc. require a " statement of reproduction " or same to scan and reprint the image as they would be in breach of copyright, and wont do it unless they are covered.


chenwherry said:
So essentially he "owns" the copyright, but he can't benefit from it commercially without our say so because of our image rights, so the its either a stalemate or we make an agreement.
Click to expand...

He may not be able to use them commercially but if you do as said above and he finds out, you will be in court paying him copyright infringement damages, you cant have it both ways to suit your self.

I would arrange to get the images you paid for, and when you have those negotiate a fee for any reprints you require and pay him when you have them, you can draw up a little contract for the delivery of those. When you have those the matter is closed for both of you, and put it behind you.

You can get your extra prints put into an album or framed your self as their are lots of places doing that service.

You are always free to report/complain about him to any organisations etc he is a member of.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 
chenwherry said:
What really annoys me is to find that he owns copyright to images of my wedding, and that he could effectively do what he wants with them. This on a personal level feels very much like a violation.
Click to expand...

As has been explained, the negatives and the copyright always remains with the photographer, and it's absolutely standard procedure with I would guess 99% of all wedding togs to retain the negs.

But let's be realistic, unless you're someone famous, there's only ever going to be one customer for these images - you! If he doesn't sell them to you who do you think is going to be remotely interested in them?

You cannot get or make copies of prints you've already bought and paid for - it's a breach of copyright in the same way as copying a music CD. No reputable processor should print them.

I've been approached on many occasions to provide copies or framed enlargements of wedding shots taken by other togs and I've always declined. One unscrupulous couple brought me all the proofs from their wedding with the studio name stamped across the prints and wanted me to quote them a price to remove the name from the proofs, so there are two sides to the customer/photographer relationship.

I really hope this comes to a satisfactory conclusion for you. :)
 
cjnicolai said:
I'll be fairly blunt, as I'm in a bit of a rush.

You paid without having any idea what you paid for. That, as you know, was a very big error. If the photographer's standard way of doing business is to have the client chose at the time the proofs are presented, then he is not out of line to expect you to comply. You simply didn't know that policy because you didn't ask, and (I assume) he didn't mention it. I will say that in my portrait business, I NEVER leave proofs with the families because, as MusicMan so correctly observes, they can be digitized and I will lose money to copyright infringement. I have to say that if any of my clients was threatening to "come to blows" with me over my not leaving proofs with them, I would leave with proofs in hand and call the police if need be. Physical force is not part of doing business.

As for the second part, as mentioned, the photog is under no obligation of any kind to offer the negs for sale.

You HAVE to know what you're paying for, or you have no idea what you're entitled to.

- CJ
Click to expand...

I'm going to play devils advocate here. If the photographer has/had any professionalism about him at all he would have pointed out what the customer was getting. To not do so is shabby and inexcusable, especially in a wedding situation where it's reasonable to assume if you hire someone you'll get reasonable proofs to view, not thumbnails.
 
Dod, how do we know the photographer didn't verbally inform the client what he would be getting? It's quite possible that the client simply didn't catch it, as neither party asked nor offered (apparently) to put anything in writing.

If I am paying a substantial amount of money to someone for services I have not yet seen, it would be foolish of me to not be certain of what I was paying for.
 
I also want to point out that there are other reason for a photog to not want to sell negs or originals to a client. In my case, I will not sell a portrait client's images as fine art or anything else without their clear consent, yet I still choose to never sell my negs.

The reason is because I am extremely protective about the quality of my work and how it is represented. I cannot afford to have my clients take my negs to a local drugstore and have purple and green machine printed "B&W" prints shown to all their friends and family with my name attached. No way. By ensuring that all prints are made by signed by me, I can absolutely control how my work is represented to potential clients.
 
dod said:
I'm going to play devils advocate here. If the photographer has/had any professionalism about him at all he would have pointed out what the customer was getting. To not do so is shabby and inexcusable, especially in a wedding situation where it's reasonable to assume if you hire someone you'll get reasonable proofs to view, not thumbnails.
Click to expand...

This is one of my issues with this guy.. Weddings are his business, they are not mine, This is the only time I have ever engaged a "professional", he at no point managed our expectations over what we would receive and how or fully explain the copyright issue.

His level of service is not up to scratch, legally it seems he is within his rights, but when it comes to his level of service and professionalism he is doing your industry a dis-service
 
cjnicolai said:
If I am paying a substantial amount of money to someone for services I have not yet seen, it would be foolish of me to not be certain of what I was paying for.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is buyer beware.. and i failed no one but myself here. No argument at all.
 
chenwherry said:
I agree that this is buyer beware.. and i failed no one but myself here. No argument at all.
Click to expand...
Don't take it too harshly chen, as I said in a previous reply in here - you can still get your precious wedding images. Just put it down to experience and go grab the ones you want.

I'm sure your wife would be delighted.
 
cjnicolai said:
It's quite possible that the client simply didn't catch it, as neither party asked nor offered (apparently) to put anything in writing.
Click to expand...
Precisely, as the professional it's up to the pro to make the customer absolutely clear as to what's included and whats not. Just my view though.

cjnicolai said:
If I am paying a substantial amount of money to someone for services I have not yet seen, it would be foolish of me to not be certain of what I was paying for.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I'd be willing to put money on the conversation to be along the lines of

"I'd like you to take the photographs of my wedding, how much?"

"£X"

"That's great, you're hired"

The customer's expectation at that stage would be prints. The photographer, in this case, and purely my opinion, is extracting the urine.
 
cjnicolai said:
The reason is because I am extremely protective about the quality of my work and how it is represented.
Click to expand...

I suspect that you are very much a more professional and skilled practitioner than the person I have an issue with.

The shots we have been presented with are not of exceptional quality.. for example:

1): The group shots have part of a overhanging tree branch in the foreground just above everyones head, and it is obviously not deliberately framed to be so.

2): Positioning.. several of the shots the subjects are not centered so we have pictures of my family and then a third of the photo being the rest of the hedge they are stood by...
 
dod said:
I agree, but I'd be willing to put money on the conversation to be along the lines of

"I'd like you to take the photographs of my wedding, how much?"

"£X"

"That's great, you're hired"

The customer's expectation at that stage would be prints. The photographer, in this case, and purely my opinion, is extracting the urine.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much the conversation.. except I expected prints and negatives. I only expected this as I had no knoweldge to expect anything other than this..

I dont think the general public (i.e. me) expect to require a lawyer when having some photos taken.
 
I worked for some years in a darkroom fixing the mess that wedding snappers regularly made of their trade.

From experience I can say that most were not very good and didn't like their job or clients very much either.

Sadly people do not realise just how wide a range of quality is out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top