Outrageous Lawsuit

<p>I'm dumbfounded by this. The moral of the story - never work without a contract and never hand over all images (cull out the bad ones). </p>

<p><a href="

<p>It does appear outrageous, but we don't have access to any of the facts. </p>

<p>Much of the letter sounded like extortion and grounds for a counterclaim. </p>

I'd love to see the pic's

<p>I'm with you Bob - I'd love to see the photos. <br>

Gary gets it right though - <br>

Rule #1 - DON'T WORK WITHOUT A WRITTEN CONTRACT! <br>

Rule #2 - Even if you are doing a shoot and burn - CULL OUT THE BAD IMAGES! It happens to EVERYONE. Even the best wedding photographers don't get a 100% hit rate - get rid of the ones that the flash didn't fire, bride's eyes closed or where the expression isn't what you would want shown on a wall. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I want the transcendentalism that is Gary Fong at 3:53 on a loop. Laughed so hard I got a headache.</p>

<p>Gary, I'll never say another negative thing about that flash tupperware. Sir... You. Are. Awesome.</p>

<p>Moral of the story... don't shoot for attorneys... :-).</p>

<p>This is a sad reminder to the wannabe crowd that even if you do a great job (which I am assuming is true by what GF says), you may loose your shirt or worse.</p>

<p>Unscrupulous on the part of that client for sure, but all is fair in the court's. Right?</p>

 

<p>And lawyers wonder why they are so universally disliked? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>you may loose your shirt</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if it's hot!</p>

<p>Is there any corroborating evidence that the event occurred at all? The story is spreading like wildfire but the only source quoted is Gary Fung:<br>

[<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Wedding+Photographer+Who+Did+A+Great+Job+Threatened+with+300k+Lawsuit">Link</a>]</p>

<p>There are inconsistencies to the story: </p>

<ol>

<li>It would amaze me if a member of the Bar indeed attempted to extort money from a photographer whose ability to pay the amount demanded is practically nil.</li>

<li>$3,800 for a wedding shoot is not insignificant. Did the attorney not see the photographer's work prior to an agreement? </li>

<li>Why would an attorney enter a verbal agreement only to breach it with the alleged conduct?</li>

<li>Why harass the photographer? Why not the caterer or reception venue owners?</li>

<li>Attorneys are trained to write in legal parlance, not in the incoherent manner described by Fung.</li>

<li>No corroborating evidence is supplied by Fung. </li>

<li>Fung speaks disparagingly of the alleged attorney without fear of being sued. </li>

<li>Fung does not specify whether the document in his hand was the original letter, an email printout, or something he received from a stranger. </li>

<li>Fung does not supply the URL to the alleged photos. </li>

</ol>

<p>I hate to be a skeptic but this is all hearsay until the story can be validated. Further, Fung could be found liable if the story proves to be untrue resulting in defamation to the entire legal services community. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fung could be found liable if the story proves to be untrue resulting in defamation to the entire legal services community</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who's going to sue him? And liable for what?</p>

<p>All attorneys are members of the bar. The bar can sue him for his unsubstantiated and disparaging post on the entire legal services community. <br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_association">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_association</a></p>

<p>Which would prove beyond any doubt they are what we fear they may be.</p>

<p>No, Robin, it would mean attorneys have rights as any average citizen. Their profession is every bit as respectable as that of a photographer's and should be equally protected notwithstanding the unscrupulous conduct of the few in either profession. </p>

<p>@ Michael #5. "Attorneys are trained to write in legal parlance, not in the incoherent manner described by Fung."</p>

<p>I think this alone says a lot compared to that threatening verbage (read: garbage) that Gary Fong read.</p>

<p>"No, Robin, it would mean attorneys have rights as any average citizen."<br>

The bar association is not an individual, and legally, defamation is defined as being an action against an individual.<br>

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/defamation</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>All attorneys are members of the bar. The bar can sue him for his unsubstantiated and disparaging post on the entire legal services community.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which 'bar association' would sue him? Which attorney has he 'disparaged'? How is it that the actions of one unscrupulous attorney disparage the 'entire legal services community'?</p>

<p>It is not my intention to be the lone defender of legal services professionals. I also did not say a bar association will sue him. </p>

<p>I do not claim to be a legal expert. I do, however, find the notion that "attorneys are fair game" rather offensive. By my perception, Gary Fung's post has contributed to the unfairly diminished standings of all attorneys if you read the majority comments on the subject posted elsewhere on the web. </p>

<p>My initial point was there are currently no facts to support the accuracy of Gary Fung's video that I know of so every peripheral discussion from it is speculative. This is different from being wrong in a discussion and I would have been more careful with such postings on YouTube. </p>

<p>"I do not claim to be a legal expert."<br>

It's clear you're not.</p>

 

<p>If I were the photographer that Gary is referring to in his video - I would not be rushing to publish my case... in fact quite the opposite - we in MN refer to it as the Denny Green bunker mentality. <br>

I'd be hunkered down - with an attorney - trying to figure out - a) does the groom have a case? b) what is he really after? c) will my insurance cover it? and d) can we counter sue or get this guy committed? </p>

<p>The absolute last place I'd be is on the interweb broadcasting my plans, photos, etc... to the world - as much as the world wishes that I would show them. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>It sounds like an extortion demand to me. Lay down enough threats and eventually someone will cave. I've had someone try this on me in a non-business related situation. Threatened to send the sheriff after me, haul me to court, all kinds of things. My wife freaked out, absolutely lost it. 30 minutes of phone calling later showed this guy to be the fraud he was. Called him back, chuckled a bit and dared him to come on down. Never heard from him again and that's the way it works most of the time. This is, if real, a more or less genteel version of a shakedown. Meet him head on.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>The assumption that Gary Fong made all this up is assuming guilt which is not the basis of US Law. He would have to be charged with something and proven guilty. If the Bar Association did bring charges, and the incident proves to be true (which I think it is), then it would be super counter productive, because Fong would most likely do a video on that ... which would probably also go viral.</p>

<p>The other aspect that is an unknown fact is whether the claimant is actually a practicing Attorney that has passed the Bar. Law student? Clerk? Or just an avid fan of The Firm?</p>

<p>I'd counter with telling this person that I will be sending a cease and desist notification to his Law Firm (if he actually is a Lawyer) with the letter attached ... and be contacting local Law Enforcement to make an extortion complaint should this continue any further. </p>

<p>I've had a few scrapes with shooting weddings for Lawyers. In each case they were younger aggressive types that were full of themselves ... like you can find in any profession. In one instance, the guy completely re-wrote my contract, and I responded by politely telling him to find someone else. His Bride to be took him to task since she was the one that found me and wanted me to shoot their wedding. He was a whipped puppy when he returned to ask me if I'd please reconsider, and they signed the contract as is. The shoot went off just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Gary Fung published the demand letter. It doesn't clarify the matter any more than having to take his word for it:<br>

<a href="http://soyouwanttobearockstarphotographer.com/2012/07/26/attorney-bullying-letter/#jp-carousel-27">http://soyouwanttobearockstarphotographer.com/2012/07/26/attorney-bullying-letter/#jp-carousel-27</a></p>

<p>The site, incidentally, is advertising his new book now available on Amazon as of July 16th:<br>

<a href="http://soyouwanttobearockstarphotographer.com/">http://soyouwanttobearockstarphotographer.com/</a></p>

<p>You can buy the book at:<br>

<a href="http://buygarysbook.com">http://buygarysbook.com</a> which will redirect you to:<br>

<a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/gary-fong/so-you-want-to-be-a-rockstar-photographer/paperback/product-20285930.html">http://www.lulu.com/shop/gary-fong/so-you-want-to-be-a-rockstar-photographer/paperback/product-20285930.html</a></p>

<p>Something's not smelling right. Creating buzz is a great way to get attention to books for sale, no? Just sayin'. </p>

<p>The book itself appears to be a shot at a specific group of photographers who have attended a seminar and are now "professional photographers", although I'm sure that there are lessons in it for all of us. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Enjoyed the video and especially Gary's thoughts and visuals about people who encourage photographers without any real experience shooting weddings to just go ahead and shoot one. Seen that several times.......online.</p>

<p>The letter sounds like an email I received from South Africa indicating that I owed money and unless I paid up I was going to get arrested. Just in this letter the English is only slightly better.</p>

<p>The letter is not from an attorney. The photographer should just ignore it and go on his way.</p>