getting sued over wedding pictures

A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He said
they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I did
take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor and
for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding photographer
and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue me?
This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.

"Luke Webber" wrote in message
om.au...
Ron wrote:

A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said
they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
did
take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
and
for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
photographer
and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
me?
This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.

Get yourself a new SLR. As in Self-Loading Rifle. g

New friends more like and plenty claymores in the front garden :P

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

"Ron" wrote in :

A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures.
Anyhow I did take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all
with any of the images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did
this as a favor and for no charge they made the decision to skip out
on a wedding photographer and use me for free (and I emphasize as a
favor). Can they actually sue me? This is worrysome since I never had
legal issues in my life.

Did you give any assurances? Promises? Guarantees?

Did you offer to take photos in lieu of giving a present?

If they opted out of hiring a professional wedding photographer based on a
promise by you that you could do that job for them, then they could
possibly win a lawsuit against you.

On the other hand:
If you made no promises about your skill and ability and suggested that
they really should get a professional wedding photographer, but you would
give it a go to help them out (to the best of your ability, but unable to
guarantee anything), then you should be OK.

If the couple had a belief that because you had an expensive camera then
you would take professional quality photos, that wouldn’t get them far in
court. Their ignorance of the importance of skill and experience in
wedding photography is their problem, not yours.

If you had a belief that because you had an expensive camera then you would
take professional quality photos and you conveyed that belief to the
couple, then you could be in trouble. Especially if you attended the
reception and ate their food, and didn’t bring a gift (because your favour
of taking the photos was your gift perhaps). They could argue that you
promised to take pictures in consideration of them not expecting a gift and
that you let them down, costing them dearly.

The next time I am invited to a wedding I will take my 10D, but I will
insist on not being the main photographer. I will explain that I don’t
have the confidence to take on the responsibility of getting the shots they
want. It is important not to present yourself as more capable than you
are, especially if that representation leads someone else to forego hiring
a pro and relying on you instead.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

I'm thinking anyone can sue for anything.
The likelihood of their winning is another matter.
What were their "damages" (what did they suffer?).
~Kimberlee



"Ron" wrote in message ...
A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He said
they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
did
take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor and
for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding photographer
and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
me?
This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.

A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures.
Anyhow I
did
take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of
the images and are planning to sue me.

He doesn't sound like much of a friend. :-(

--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)

-Richard Cockburn

On 2004-07-23, PTRAVEL wrote:
See, this is why I posted. Nothing this poster wrote is correct.

Hehe...at least he's consistent. I've seen posts from him that suffer from
that same problem in other groups that have nothing to do with law or
photography. :-)

....
4. Though they might win (and it's impossible to tell based on the
minimal factual recital of the OP), damages are highly speculative.

Yeah. About all that I can think of offhand would be if the couple got
dressed up in their wedding clothes, maybe grabbed the main members of the
wedding party, and went out and got a pro to take photos, they might ask for
the cost of that.

Come to think of it, I think I saw that on TV once when I was home sick and
too weak to reach the remote and "People's Court" or one of that ilk of
shows came on, except the first photographer wasn't a friend but rather a
pro. The couple hated the photos, and got someone else to shoot a
reenactment of the wedding, and wanted the first photographer to cover the
costs of that. I don't recall what the outcome was.

....
I don't think you have to worry, but you can always ask a lawyer just to
be sure (for $100 or so an hour).

This is the only valid advice you've given. You don't know. A lawyer
does. Please don't offer lay analyses.

Would it even cost $100 an hour? Don't most practicing attorneys that deal
with this kind of thing give a free consultation? That should be enough to
give the lawyer enough information to tell if a lawyer needs to be retained.

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith wrote:

On 2004-07-23, Mxsmanic wrote:

they have no basis for a lawsuit. There was no contract: nothing was
written down, and there was no money involved. What do they have to sue


Since neither being written down nor the exchange of money is a requirement
for the formation of a contract, this is irrelevant.


Darn, this confuses me more and more... the more I
try to get my old brain around it the less sense it
makes...

If what our lawyer friend says is so (and I'm not
disputing it) then I can never again do a favor for
anyone.

Gee, were we neighbors you might call me of a morning
needing a boost for your car... so here I come.
Course if I/we fail, then I'm responsible?

Going on vacation? If you're next door, sure I'll
cut your grass, take in the mail, whatever. If I
fail to perform to *your* satisfaction, then you'll
sue me?

Methinks the common law is running out of common
sense. In the above silly examples, I *will* do
my best, with the tools available. That's all
that can realistically be asked, right?

Just confused...

Ken

In article .net,
says...
There are others, but I'm too lazy to go dig out my books and look them up,
especially since there is a practicing attorney in the thread who will
probably be posting them anyway. :-)

Naw, he wants a "consideration".

In article , says...
One wonders how the law can award custody of children or transfer of
property, then.

Wow! The law can award custody of children as compensation? Which country
is this in?

"YOU PAINTED MY HOUSE POORLY. NOW FORFEIT YOUR FIRSTBORN TO ME!
MUHAHAHAHA."

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Frank ess wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...


And remember a contract generally requires an exchange of value
(money) If they didn't pay you no contract no responsibility on your
part (generally) It would get laughed out of almost any court.

Considering the tripe people watch on television courtroom shows,
there's a market for this kind of thing. :-) Or, perhaps the Jerry
Springer show.

Still waiting for someone to ask:

"How bad must they be that the subjects didn't like even one?"

Hard to believe.


Frank ess

I once worked as a pro, long time ago thank God. I can believe it.

Would I be guessing correctly if I said that the Wal Mart/McDonald's
mentality has even infected the way some people hire a wedding photographer?

On the other hand, there are some real hacks in the business. My son's
school hired a one person operation for last year's school pictures. One of
the package options included having the kid's name imprinted in the picture
area. (Why? In case a parent forgets the kid's name?) My son's pictures
arrived with the name "Julie" imprinted on it. His name is nowhere near
that. The pictures themselves were hideous. They looked as if the camera
operator used a normal lens rather than a short telephoto. Everyone had big
noses. And, 95% of the background was to one side. Totally off center. We
got a refund and told them to keep the pictures. I take better ones in the
beautiful light under my sycamore tree.