getting sued over wedding pictures

Steven Wandy responds:

The question is not whether or not they "can" sue (they most certainly can).
The question is whether or not they (1) will get a good lawyer to take the
case (very unlikely) and (2) whether or not they will win (again very
unlikely). BUT the hassle of dealing with it is still there.

Correct. And the expense, unless they take it to small claims court, where no
one gets to use a lawyer. I seem to recall that in some states, small claims
now can run to $10,000.

Charlie Self
"I think the most un-American thing you can say is, 'You can't say that.'"
Garrison Keillor

"Doug Kanter" writes:

Hopefully a judge would tell the couple that the legal fees would be far
greater than simply putting on their wedding costumes again and paying a
real photographer, so they have a nice portrait.

Assuming that the pro would be able to take photos of this couple that
they would be happy with. For all we know, the original photographer
did as well as anyone would have given the subject material. Perhaps
the couple didn't like accurate photos of themselves; perhaps they
expected every image would be retouched in Photoshop to make them look
more flattering, and the photographer didn't think this was a reasonable
thing when he was working for free.

There's also the issue of attention. If a wedding couple is paying a
photographer a couple of thousand dollars for photos of the wedding, and
he says that he wants this particular set of posed photos taken over by
that fountain with the people arranged exactly this way, he'll get that.
Someone who is working for free isn't likely to command that sort of
obedience, or even to ask for it in the first place. He won't get the
same photos, even if he's just as competent a photographer.

A long time ago, I served as the main photographer at the weddings of a
couple of friends. I used just one 35 mm camera and a decent flash.
I made it clear to the couples that I was not a professional, I wouldn't
have the sort of equipment that a pro does, and I wouldn't take the same
pictures. I would also give them the negatives, so they could get
whatever prints they wanted in whatever sizes they wanted at standard
photo lab prices, not what they'd pay for photos from a pro who retains
the copyright and the negatives.

They understood this, and they *were* happy with the results. But they
were friends, *and* reasonable people. It sounds like the couple in
question here are just jerks.

Dave

If the OP never shows up again in this thread, it was just a troll. Stop
responding to this nonsense.

Gary Eickmeier

Richard Cockburn wrote:
John McWilliams wrote in
news:uYuMc.159652$JR4.27963@attbi_s54:


Ron, stand up and take a bow: this month's best Troll. Well done!


Please don't encourage him John. He might decide to stick around. You and I
both know that we already have more trolls than we need. ;-)


You've gotta real point, RC. Except based on this one post, he shows
he's capable of being a *classy* troll- whether his other persona (s)
exhibit the same, I don't know.

Still, people are carrying on in earnest over legal points, etc. I would
think that might encourage him more, but I also wonder if he or she has
the courage to come back and say, "yeah, I did this." Although what
courage there is in anonymous posting is miniscule, if it exists at all.

--
John McWilliams

Richard Cockburn wrote:
John McWilliams wrote in
news:uYuMc.159652$JR4.27963@attbi_s54:


Ron, stand up and take a bow: this month's best Troll. Well done!


Please don't encourage him John. He might decide to stick around. You and I
both know that we already have more trolls than we need. ;-)


You've gotta real point, RC. Except based on this one post, he shows
he's capable of being a *classy* troll- whether his other persona (s)
exhibit the same, I don't know.

Still, people are carrying on in earnest over legal points, etc. I would
think that might encourage him more, but I also wonder if he or she has
the courage to come back and say, "yeah, I did this." Although what
courage there is in anonymous posting is miniscule, if it exists at all.

--
John McWilliams

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:35:11 -0400, "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.


Write out a check to him for $0.00 with the explanation that you are refunding
him all of his money he paid you for the photos, plus 100 times more for
inconvenience!! Send a photo copy of it to the local court house.

If he bothers you again, run over him with your car.

MarkH writes:

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

The USA. Custody is often quite a form of currency in divorce
proceedings.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

PTRAVEL writes:

Why do you persist in this? Do you really think you know law as well
as a licensed attorney?

Are you offering legal counsel?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

PTRAVEL writes:

Why do you persist in this? Do you really think you know law as well
as a licensed attorney?

Are you offering legal counsel?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.