Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[roadraaash]

A "friend" verbally agreed to take our wedding pictures for $500.00 and give us the digital copies. Since then, she has uploaded them to her business website and asked us to choose which pictures we wanted. After contacting her, she agreed we could have 150 pictures of our choosing from this site (for the $500.00).

#1 - Is it just me or is she crazy?
#2 - Isn't she breaking some sort of law having our wedding pictures posted on her website (with no written contract) for the public to see, promoting her site and invading our privacy at the same time?

Additional Info: We paid her $500.00 cash already and have received no pictures. We can only view them on her website (with watermarks). The verbal agreement was a simple copy of all pictures on a CD, DVD or even my USB flash drive.

[Garyon]

I don't think that you have as much a "copyright" issue as a contract problem. I am not a lawyer and can offer no authoritative advice, but here's my quick impression ...

Did your verbal agreement cover ...

1) Number of photographs?
2) Price of photographs?
3) Means by which photographs will be delivered?
4) Limitation of use of these photographs by the photographer (advertisement or promotion of the photographer)?

My wife works for a wedding photographer and they have a multi-page contract that is meticulously written to cover everything from who feeds the photographer at the wedding to how the photographs can be used. I can say that typically ...

1) The photographer retains the rights to publish photographs for promotion of their service. Who would hire a wedding photographer without seeing their previous work?

2) I think that many (most?) photographers provide proofs to customers via some sort of an online service. Each wedding is usually password protected so the random public cannot browse your wedding photos, but that's not always the case. And honestly, let's face it ... 99.9% of people out there don't care about other people's wedding photos, and unless it get's inadvertently returned in a Google search (these types of photo sites are not usually indexed by search engines), nobody's looking for anyone's wedding photos.


My 2¢ is that YOU are crazy. For two reasons...

1) You should NEVER enter into a business agreement with a "friend".
2) You should ALWAYS get some sort of a contract written up so everyone is clear on what to expect.


I have been this type of "crazy" 3 times (once just recently) and gotten screwed EVERY time. Personally, I would take what photo's you can get (this IS your wedding and will hopefully happen only this once), kiss this "friend" and any thoughts of litigation good-bye, and take comfort in the idea that no one else is likely to be interested enough in your wedding photos to look hard enough to find them.

For what it's worth, if your service was held in a church (particularly Catholic), these services are typically open to the public (most people don't realize this). If this applies to you, to suggest that displaying pictures of a public service, publicly, invades your privacy would be something of a contradiction.

Either way I wish you good luck with this. I have been there and understand the exasperation and frustration you must be feeling. The only thing worse will be the absolute sense of helplessness, futility, and exploitation you will feel when you discover there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Keep in mind, LAW is NOT Justice.

Peace,
Gary

[MYK]

A "friend" verbally agreed to take our wedding pictures for $500.00 and give us the digital copies. Since then, she has uploaded them to her business website

Is her "business" wedding photography?  If so, I suggest finding out what her usual contract terms are.  She may have just been cutting you a break on the price, while otherwise treating you as a normal client.

We paid her $500.00 cash already and have received no pictures.

I'd suggest saving all of those watermarked copies immediately, just in case your relationship with her breaks down any further.

Do you have a receipt for the $500?

[Smokin]

Garyon covered it pretty good,.... what he said.

In the past wedding photographers made their money by taking great pictures and being very professional and offering you services to make copies or whatever. But there is a very fast growing trend in today's "copyright savvy" photographers who find a fair sized revenue stream in holding pictures hostage and charging for access and prints for the images. Unfortunately too many photographers today forget to mention the copyright laws to their clients and fail to inform them that they own a monopoly to every image they take, and that they can choose what to charge for copies after the fact.

Off topic, but IMO this is a type of extortion. I'm sure these photographers feel justified and are good people and they feel this is just their business practice, but when people essentially ransom important memories after not explaining how and what they do to make money on top of taking photos, I just think its wrong morally. Too many newly weds who don't know about the copyright laws get taken advantage of by photographers who do, and unfortunately this is becoming the norm these days.

[xyzzy]

I think above posters have covered this pretty well - 1) a written contract works to prevent these sorts of misunderstandings, 2) she owns the copyright in the images, 3) you have a breach of contract issue, not a copyright issue.

Before getting mad at your friend, consider that her price of $500 seems pretty low as far as wedding photographers go. Also, are you viewing "raws" on her website?  If so, it may take retouching and other work to get the photos ready for printing. (In other words, more work for her that she may not have been planning on doing for the $500.)  Or, think of it this way:  Digital photography allows photographers to take many more photos than they'll actually use.  Would you have been happier if she had only uploaded 150 photos of her choosing, or are you happy that you get to pick and choose from a variety of images?

That said, I do generally agree with Smokin and his assessment of the wedding photography industry as a whole being a bunch of two-bit extortionists.

Might I suggest another tactic?  You friend is probably expecting to make money by selling prints to the wedding attendees via her website.  If so, suggest allowing her a 4-month window to sell those pictures, and ask that she give you a copy of the raw images after her period of exclusivity has ended.  That way she can maximize her revenue and still maintain the friendship with no opportunity cost to herself.

Of course, if she declines, it sounds may be the end of your friendship anyway. In that case it may be worth offering her some extra money for a copy of all of the photos.  Fair or not fair, it's your wedding day, and you're never going to get another chance to recreate those images.

[Isaac]

Before getting mad at your friend, consider that her price of $500 seems pretty low as far as wedding photographers go. Also, are you viewing "raws" on her website?

I disagree with the consensus here.

I'm baffled that anyone would think that the customer should get anything more than 150 pictures for $500.  First of all, that's exceedingly cheap.  Second of all, the customer gets to pick his favorite 150 pictures.  I'm sure the photographer would be happy to part with more photos if the customer ponies up more dough.

Third, I'm not convinced that the photographer plans to leave up pictures that don't constitute his best work.   Perhaps all of those photos will come down once the customer picks from the proofs. 

I believe that most of the misunderstanding resulted from not having a written contract.  By law, transfer of the ownership of the copyright in the photos to the customer requires a writing anyway.  If the deal had been in writing perhaps the customer would have asked for a different deal.   But what I read from the OP's post sounds like buyer's remorse.    The deal seems more than fair.

Myk's advice seems logical but if you follow it your are infringing the photographer's copyright.

[MYK]

Myk's advice seems logical but if you follow it your are infringing the photographer's copyright.

Oops.    Damn.  I didn't even think about that.

[JSonnabend]

That said, I do generally agree with Smokin and his assessment of the wedding photography industry as a whole being a bunch of two-bit extortionists.

Wow, some pretty strong words there.  You know, many people say the same about our profession as well.

- Jeff

[MYK]

That said, I do generally agree with Smokin and his assessment of the wedding photography industry as a whole being a bunch of two-bit extortionists.

Wow, some pretty strong words there.  You know, many people say the same about our profession as well.

- Jeff

Nah.  Attorneys aren't that cheap.

[xyzzy]

many people say the same about our profession as well.

- Jeff

Yep, and I'm one of 'em.     (Sometimes.)

I didn't mean to offend.  I suppose that after seeing hundreds of bids from photographers with day rates around $2,700 I'm just jealous. Nice work if you can get it.  More power to 'em.

[roadraaash]

The problem is that her website was never mentioned - I didn't even know she had one.  The verbal contract was she would take pictures, give us copies of the pictures on a CD, DVD or my USB flash drive for $500.00 total (easy and simple).  Yes, it was a bad move on my part...  but when we talked about price, her first response was "whatever you can afford" - because she was a friend of my sister.  She then agreed to the $500.00 we suggested and that was that.

Thanks to everyone for your input here.  Even after selecting pictures we wanted, seven weeks later we have received nothing.  Yes, a professional photographer would have been worth it.

[Isaac]

Thanks to everyone for your input here.  Even after selecting pictures we wanted, seven weeks later we have received nothing.  Yes, a professional photographer would have been worth it.

You have every right to be angry about not getting your pictures.   Congratulations on your recent nuptials!