mother of bride signed contract

<p>The 'gift' idea is a little confusing....what if the mother of the bride is making payments. Do you have a line item in your contract that stipulates that the photography is a gift?<br>

<br />I don't have any problem with cross posting on Facebook. Only that we were asked to take the photos down, but then the bride posted them herself. They were not given the files yet....this was a 'sneak preview' of the wedding. It's just a little weird but nothing I'm going to lose sleep over. The bride and mother are being friendly to us....the whole thing just really revolves around the payee's rights to see the pictures.<br>

Even if it was considered a 'gift certificate', each payment would have to be considered as such. Our contract is very legal as it now stands and I hesitate to start adding something that could be disputed.<br>

karin ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 'gift' idea is a little confusing....what if the mother of the bride is making payments. Do you have a line item in your contract that stipulates that the photography is a gift?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have any line in my contacts about gifts. My contract is exceptionally simple and I believe quite tight: but less than one A4 page.</p>

<p>On the protocol about which you are confused:<br>

<em>I don’t know the ins and outs of Account Keeping in the USA: <strong>you should check the details with your Accountant or Tax Agent</strong> – but all that is required is to <strong>have a procedure of initial payment which is divorced from the wedding contract: and then the Gift Certificate is applied to the Wedding Contract.</strong></em></p>

<p><strong>MY example:</strong><br>

If, for example, the Wedding Photography costs $1000. Let’s say I expect to receive 5 x $200 payments and they will be from the Mother – I would not expect that many Photographers would have more than 5 payments?<br>

The Mother simply buys a Gift Certificate for Photography with my business. I receipt $200 to the Mother with Invoice as “Gift Certificate #123456”.<br>

I then apply Gift Certificate #123456 (as requested by the Mother) to Wedding Job #7890 (the Daughter’s Wedding and the Daughter having signed the Contract for it). I receipt the Daughter in the amount of $200 against her Wedding Contract.<br>

The whole matter could be done over the phone with Credit Card on instruction from the Mother - Or if I receive a cheque from the Mother – with instructions – the paper work is the same.</p>

<p>I cannot envisage the accounting procedure to be very dissimilar to what I have outlined.<br>

Gift Certificates are a very popular and widely used commodity where I work – Just about Everyone from Large Department stores to Restaurants to a variety of Small Traders will sell one to you if you ask – exceptionally Popular for Weddings – often a group of People will “buy” the Photography for the Bride and Groom – I surprised it is not, (if it is not), a popular idea in the USA?</p>

<p>It is good that you are not losing sleep over the face-book posting. Yes I agree the action seems a little weird. People’s actions often seem weird, especially when we are not fully across their motivations and situation – I think it’s best not to lose sleep about other’s weird actions - unless the action constitutes immediate and present danger.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>

<p>William W,<br>

Thanks for your responses. I think the gift certificate idea is a great idea and yes, they are popular in the US. Really just wasn't sure how to handle the payment idea with checks from mom, and keep it contractually simple.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Karin</p>

<p>Good, I understand. Glad it is clearer to you now. Good Luck with it.<br>

WW<br>

PS. You are welcome.</p>

<p>This does not constitute legal advice, but is just my opinion without knowing all the facts or the law in the relevant area in question. I am responding because this is a bit of a legal pickle if I remember all of my California law correctly. Here are the issues I see...<br>

1. California has some law that makes it illegal to benefit from pictures of people without their written consent where the persons likeness or image is clearly ascertainable and creating the value in the photo. Thus, the bride and groom could, if they wanted create a bit of a headache for any commercial use of their wedding photos.<br>

2. You may be doing work for hire or some other fancy term, but you are clearly contractually obligated to mom. I haven't seen the contract. I think you did a smart thing by giving mom what she paid for, access to and approval for a wedding album of the bride and groom.</p>

<p>I have no real answers for you. I would take down all photos of the bride and groom from FB and your website as you have done. No commercial use of those images without a release. I would write to the bride and ask that she remove the images from facebook if they do not contain your watermark. I would then offer to horse trade her the use sans watermark for a release so you can put the images back up on your website. Everyone is happy. As to the hubby, he may absolutely not want his photo on facebook. I know a few people like that.<br>

I am a bit confused though. Why do you care what the bride wants? She's not the client in this situation. She's only the object of the photograph. I would instead defer to Mom, which I believe that you did, since Mom appears to be your client. My conversation with Bride would be short and simple, you need to work that out with Mom since Mom is my client and I am contractually obligated to give Mom access. I'll hold off for 48-72 hours as a courtesy, then Mom gets a new password. And, if Mom decides brides access to photos could be revoked. Then I'd let them work it out. <br>

Just my two cents. In the future, I would probably change the contract to reflect the contracting party is the paying party and have the bride and groom consent to terms and conditions as to use of the photos.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>"Why do you care what the bride wants? </em></strong>She's not the client in this situation. She's only the object of the photograph. . . . My conversation with Bride would be short and simple, you need to work that out with Mom . . . "</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Simply put: Because if one is building a business (and want to stay in the business) of W<em>EDDING PHOTOGRAPHY . . . </em><br>

The<em> BRIDE </em>is an important element of each sale and an even more important advocate (or not) of future sales.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>my initial reaction would be to give everything to the mom and let the chips fall where they may..... but really this is definitely a case where you should pay an attorney to advise you on the best course of action... and then learn from it. Personally I keep a line in my contract that states regardless of who signs... the contract is between the company and the bride & groom, and no one else.</p>

<p>WW, single page contracts huh? Another something we have in common :-)</p>

<p> . . . yeah, we probably say "please", "thank you", "sir" and "'mam" and wait for everyone to arrive at the table before we begin eating . . .<br>

if I don't get another chance (at the end of the thread when no one else is reading) - Merry Christmas & the best in health for 2011. . . <br>

Maybe next year . . . I will use more flash fill. Cheers.</p>

 

<p>WW - Isn't Mom's referral just as valuable? In keeping my business alive, I tend to take care of my customer who is footing the bill over someone who is merely getting the benefit of my customer's generosity, if I have to make a choice. That was my point. Seems like the OP put a lot of energy into servicing the non-paying bride, when MOM is the customer of her business. Just my thought, but then again, I am not in the business of wedding photography.</p>

<p>The Mother's referral is valuable.<br>

Generally, the relationship between the Mother of the Bride and the Bride, before, on and after the Wedding day, is complex and multifaceted. Generally the Mother of the Bride will still protect her young.</p>

<p>It might be contractually sound to take an attitude to not care about what the Bride wants with a view that: “<em>She's not the client </em>in this situation. <strong><em>She's only the object </em></strong><em>of the photograph" </em>and to tell her in short and simple terms that, “<em>you need to work that out with Mom. . .</em>”<br>

But with that business approach, IMO it is very likely that the Mum AND the BRIDE would not be recommending the Photographer at all.</p>

<p>Basically the problem is a <strong>business and customer management issue</strong> requiring a little finesse - and not a black and white contractual answer - that was my point.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Everything WW said, times two. And:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you care what the bride wants?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously? [<em>facepalm</em>]</p>

<p>WW- And my point, I guess, was that I, as a business owner, am not gonna get caught in the middle of a family dispute. As you say, Mom will ultimately protect Bride when all is said and done. So for me, I would start with an explanation of my obligations to Mom. Short and simple doesn't mean to not use finesse, but the message would be the same. Since Mom signed the contract and paid the fee, I'm contractually obligated to Mom. I'd explain that to the bride and give her a courtesy period to try to work it out before releasing photos and information to Mom. The fact that the bride, who is not my customer, wants me to lock out Mom would never be something that I would agree too and frankly would be low on my to even consider list.</p>

<p>Ian - Yes, seriously. I know it may seem foolish, but my priority in dealing with client disputes is to protect my client's interests first. I asked the question because it struck me as strange. I wasn't being flippant or snarky. The bride has not put a single shilling in my pocket. If I can make her happy and Mom happy awesome. But in a dispute between my paying client and her daughter/bride, I'm gonna take directions only from my client. I'd rather lose some fictional referral from someone who hasn't paid me, than a paying client who may refer me to someone else throwing a wedding/gifting photos for their daughter or daughter-in-law to be. Your comment doesn't do anything to help me understand the issue.</p>

<p>I guess my point is that the Mom is the one putting current money in my pocket, and is the one I'd be looking to for referrals in this situation and not necessarily the bride. I'd consider referrals from the bride as a bonus, but not the primary goal since that would be to make my client, Mom, happy with her purchase. </p>

<p>Jemal:<br>

As you extend your commentary the closer to agreement we might become.<br>

If we re-read and analyse you last comment, IMO, it has a much different flavour to: "<strong><em>Why do you care what the Bride wants</em></strong> . . . <strong><em>she is only the object . . . and etc</em></strong><br>

I agree entirely in not being caught in a family dispute.<br>

BUT, IMO one delays the "you guys sort it out" as the closing and last play, rather than the opening gambit.<br>

Short and Simple can indeed use finesse, but, “finesse” was not what I read in your first commentary, rather, it was quite structured and methodical and singularly referring to the contractual situation - i.e. rather lacking finesse, it seemed to me.<br>

Your initial method to address the situation might be indeed similar to how I would go about dealing with the matter - and our discussion might be only a misinterpretation of the words written and the meaning meant. <br>

But, as we only have the written word to canvass these ideas, one must read the commentaries literally, and answer the questions accordingly – and you did ask, "Why should the OP care what the Bride wants"<br>

IMO, that question and the protocol you suggested lacked finesse: but moreover it also lacked an understanding of the worth of the Bride's referral - no matter who be the signatory to the contract, and my replies sought to address those points and questions you raised. </p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>

<p>WW- Thank you for your considered reply. My initial response was because I had read several pages of people giving great deference to Bride. It struck me as odd because contractually Bride is not the client. Set aside the contract talk, the bottom line is the Bride is not the person that walked into my office and hired me. The person that I have to do a great job for is Mom. While I realize that this is all in the context of wedding photography, would the situation be different if it was a huge company like Nike and the model called up and said "I don't like them or want Nike to see them." I think Nike would have the photos and we'd all be laughing over the story while drinking beers in some bar watching football. Dropping a few photos from production and not giving the paying party what they bought are two different things. And yes, I'd treat Madonna differently than some unknown model, but nothing in the original post made Bride out to be a megastar. So again, I do not see why there is so much excitement over Bride in this context, other than as a potential lost referral that one should try to keep if possible.<br>

Reading your response, it appears that the other issue is that my original response was an analysis of the contractual and other issues that are present in the situation. I was not really addressing tact or politeness. I assumed the OP or anyone else reading it would apply tact and politeness as needed.<br>

Happy black friday everyone.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter who wants to pay for a wedding photographer, it matters who the photographer is photographing for. For me (even though my opion may not hold merit with the vast majority) the client is the bride. If the client is the bride, regardless of who is paying the bill, SHE is the client. So, she is the one who signs the contract. NO EXCEPTIONS! Don't even think about considering the mom or aunt or grandma as the client! The bride signs and she is the client. PERIOD! It's her wedding, not mom's or grandmas or aunt Betty's! Having a mom or anyone else sign is ASKING for litigation. Mom or anyone else paying is not my problem. Satisfying the BRIDE is my job. Not mom. Mom is paying for the bride, not herself. No matter what she thinks. It should be the bride who decides who photographs her wedding and that choice can be PAID for by mom, but after that, the bride is BOSS!<br />That lesson has been learned by countless imagers the hard way. Satisfy the client. (There is only one client in a wedding, the bride! The groom usually {sic} doesn't care!)</p>

<p>What more is there to say?</p>

<p>In this case, the Mom has some say! She signed the contract! (Your BIG mistake!) So you are stuck as to what should be done.</p>

<p>Satisfy your client.</p>

<p>Hi I am not a photographer, but I am a sales executive for a resort property. Our corporate lawyer says we are legally obligated to whoever signs the contract. We always try to encourage the bride and groom to sign the contract themselves, but some decline the opportunity to do so because of the legal and fiscal obligations set forth in the contract. Mom trying to settle the situation with her daughter is definitely the best option. However, if mom wants to, she can pull rank and demand you fulfill the contract. I have had to tell a bride that I am sorry, but we are legally bound to the contract signee.</p>