fight between videographer and photographer

Hi everyone,

 

I'm a newbie to the forum but I'm hoping that the more experienced folks

can give me advice. For our wedding my wife hired a well recommended

photographer company and agt the last minute she hired a lesser known

videographer. We didn't want any long fancy video of getting ready, etc, just

the ceremony and the reception.

 

At the reception the videographer and the photographer got into a fight (water

was thrown on someone not sure who) and the videographer threatened to leave.

We convinced him to stay until after our first dance. The video guy said that

the photo people kept getting in his way and they did not extend any

professional courtesy.

 

Now after the wedding we're trying to figure out a way to get some sort of

video (anything would be nice). The video guy said that the situation was

created by the photographer and that he will have to do extensive editing to

prepare a polished video. He claims that since the photographer created the

situation (blocked shots, etc), that they should pay him for the additional

time that it will take for preparing the video. To give you relative scales,

the photographer contract was about $3K and the original video contract was

about $500. The videographer claims that his additional time for editing will

cost roughly $1500. The video guy is not asking us to pay, but rather the

photographer. The videographer will not release to us unedited video. I

haven't yet talked to the photographer but I know full well that they're not

going to agree to this. While I can understand that the photographer could

have created a bad situation I can't shrug the feeling that we're about to be

extorted for more money.

 

The videographer offered to give us our money back with no video. We'd be

happy with unedited video for the original price but the video guy said he

won't release unedited video.

 

Any suggestions?!?!?..... please?

Mike

If the videographer has a signed contract with you to deliver finished video for $500, I don't

see how he can now demand $2000, or deliver no video at all. It sounds to me like he should

be obligated to deliver what the contract states. Afterwards, he can take the photographer to

court. This should not be your problem!

The videographer is saying that he'll refund our money. In his email to us he cited his contract langage:

 

"PRIORITY: Producer is the exclusive professional videographer and will have the first choice of camera locations. Other photographer/ videographers may not use lights or wireless microphones without the Producer's consent. Other photographers and videographers must not interfere with Producer's crew and will be instructed by Client not to be in Producer's camera(s) view. We will not be responsible for lost footage due to others actions.

 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Producer shall not be liable for losses due to causes beyond Producer's control. No other warranty is expressed or implied. In the unlikely event Producer cannot complete the production or photographic work, liability is limited to return of payments, upon which Producer shall be under no further obligation to the Client."

my gut says that the videographer is angry and wants to get back at the photog.

 

but seriously - throwing water! ahhh. hilarious. we are all just children underneath our masks of civility.

 

for the record, photographers step in the way of videographers ALL the time. yes, photographers are often inconsiderate, but it is part of the job when you are hired to video a wedding - some things will happen.

 

for someone to charge 4x the original amount of the contract because of a little fight and a few edits...sounds very extravagant.

 

in my experience, the best wedding videos have medium to short shorts - 5 to 7 seconds - and very few long ones. I find it hard to believe that the video guy will have to work all that extra hard.

 

now, if there is something in the video contract that says that additional fees will be levied in the case of 'uncooperative vendors', that's another issue.

 

but my gut feeling is that the video is really pissed off and wants to get the photographer in trouble. that's fine, but it doesn't need to involve you.

 

I wouldn't pay this - and I would ask your videographer to call your photographer and see if you can work something out.

 

in 75 weddings, I have only had two problems with a videographer - one who was new to weddings and was openly rude to me and my assistant. the other one was complaining - like above - that me and the other photog were getting in the way of the shots. sounds like a legitimate complaint until you consider that the video people had three HD cameras on rolling dollies, all aimed at the couple during the first dance - there was nowhere to go that was NOT going to be one on of the videos...

 

mike, keep us updated.

 

CE

You should consult a lawyer, but on the surface, I agree with Pete, above. You have a contract with the photographer and a contract with the videographer. Unless there are other clauses in each contract that specifically references interference by other vendors, each is obligated by contract to produce the product agreed to. The disagreement between the photographer and videographer is between them, and should not affect you.

wow - so the videographer had that in the contract. I'm impressed.

 

to the video's credit, he is offering a full refund of what you paid, which means that he gets nothing for his time - so as much as it seems like he is asking for a lot more, he's also willing to just walk away from this one empty-handed...interesting.

Joe:

 

If it were me, I'd schedule a face-to-face meeting with the videographer. Explain that you want a video. You don't want to pay any more. Anything involving a third party has no bearing on you and the videographer. After the meeting, write up a summary of what was talked about. Send it via certified mail.

 

If you still get the runaround, find out about filing in small claims court.

 

 

Eric

Good grief. I hadn't thought about it, but now that I do, it's obvious that the videographer and the photographer are indeed going to be competing for the same vantage points quite often.

 

Is this often a problem? And if not, why not?

 

I know many people have a "no other photographers" clause in their contracts. Seems to me you might also like to have a "no stinkin' videographers, neither!" clause, as well.

Wow--didn't see the videographer's clauses while writing my post. My question would be, on that day, DID you instruct the photographer to not be in the videographer's views and DID the videographer ask you to do so? If none of this happened, the clauses do not apply. How can you control the situation if you don't know what is happening?

 

I would also ask each for a detailed description of what actually happened and compare. While you cannot really touch the photographer legally, if he fulfills his part of the contract with you, you can put some pressure on him if he is really at some fault in the matter. If you've already paid him in full, you can file a BBB complaint or similar.

 

If it were me, I would take the video refund if you can't work anything out. If the videographer feels that badly about what was shot, it probably isn't much.

Chances are the photographer has very similar language in his contract.

The basic question is " did the videographer ask you to instruct the photographer to

move". if not , he does not have a case against you. He should deliver the product. If he

did ask you to manage photographer's location, and you did not, then take your money.

 

My guess is that videographer does not have good video and it is not because of

photographer. A competent videogrphaer would have recorded enough for an acceptable

video. You probably hired an inexperienced, incompetent person. Even if you pay him, he

will not be able to deliver good video. Then you will have complaint about quality and

would have spent more money. Sorry that you got in this situation. Hope you got good

photograph. Get a good album. Sandy

I didn't see anything here about the photographer's contract. Most still wedding photographers these days have a similar clause about being the exclusive yada-yada and for $3K I'm betting that clause is in there. Imagine the food fight that could result if somebody were to sign two catering contracts for the same reception.

 

I hate to say it, but you may have been at least partly at fault for the row developing, by signing contracts promising the same exclusive access to two different parties.

I no longer do weddings but I watched one Sunday. Had a nice chat with the videographer. It was at the Castle in the Clouds in NH. A gorgeous site will full aerial view of Lake Winnepesaukie. The Videographer was a nice guy. The big problem was as the wedding was going on in the Backyard and there were a couple of hundred tourists mingling with wedding group. It came off pretty well but I told the videographer I admired his patience. In spite of the crowd he did his job and got his tapes and the photographer did his. It must have been trying for the both of them. I have never had a videographer fight me for a picture. There seems to me that there is always space for both parties. Having said that it is bad when it gets down to a contract dispute. Which are more important your wedding pictures or the videos? The videographers excuse is pretty amateurish. In all the weddings I did I never made excuses. I have redone pictures once or twice, undercharged and given out free pictures on the very few occasions when I had a less than happy customer or was less than happy with my own efforts. I always rectified the situation because my reputation as a competent and honest business man was very important to me. You don't want a nice wedding to turn into a personally ugly situation for you. That's not right. If the videos are important have a lawyer make whatever ever contract demands are legally sufficient. The photographer didn't make him do it. I used to work for a newspaper and learned to shoot around, under, or above most anything. The photographer was apparently doing the job he or she was accustomed to doing.

Wow.

 

I started out doing video, and now do photo and I'm not understanding HOW the photographer totally screwed up the video shoot? You can't blame the other guy (or anyone else) for not getting shots. You move/adjust/etc.

 

I know when I did video, photog's would walk thru my shots, or occassionally stop, but I expected that and dealt with it. If they stopped too long, I moved to adjust, then asked them later to be aware of where I was and try not to block my shots.

 

Sounds more like your video/photo guys may have had issues from prior to your wedding, don't care for each other, or their ego's got in the way.

 

I'm not sure what to tell you based on your contracts with either, but your best bet may be to sit with each and find out what happened (separately) or, to contact a lawyer.

 

Good luck.

I think what Sandy Labana said above might be right on. At every wedding there are always multiple angles, or at least a still photographer and videographer can stand side-by-side at the end of the aisle and get a shot without the other in it. It sounds like the video (or audio) didn't come out and the videographer doesn't want to admit it.

 

I would recommend that you go to the videographer and tell him to either edit your wedding as in your contract or give you the unedited tapes. Tell him that if he doesn't do one or the other you will go the catering manager of the reception venue and the equivalent person at the church to explain to them how the videographer isn't professional and doesn't play well with others and that he shouldn't be recommended to future clients. Many pros get the majority of their clients from these types of recommendations and wouldn't want their rep soiled.

I would then file a report with the Better Business Bureau. People check that before they use any kind of service.

small claims court as last resort. He said $500, even without written contract you would have a case. I would not pay more than agreed.

 

The rest of the "stuff" is drama.

Hopefully the photographer provided you and your wife with quality images for your wedding album.

 

 

 

Take your refund from the video guy. Then find out if the local town or county has a business license requirement....if one is required, find out how your can register a complaint for unprofessional work. (A roofing company has to maintain a satisfied customer base to keep in business and with a license intact, the same 'rules' should apply to a photographer or videographer.)

The videographer is full of sh-- for trying to extort more money from the photographer and is already making excuses to the client about the poor quality of work they did. He knows he has you over a barrel because you want the video. I'm not biased: I'd say the same thing about the photographer if they were behaving this way.

Joe, sorry, but from what I've seen, I'm siding clearly with the videographer on this one.

 

As I see it, you signed a contract with him that says (in as many words) that (a) He'll have first choice of camera locations, (b) other photographers may not use lights (inc flashes I'd assume) without his permission, © other photographers must not interfere etc. And should any of these things happen (a) he will not be held accountable, and (b) renumeration will be limited to refund of monies paid etc.

 

These conditions are put there for a reason - I don't think it's fair to agree to them - then employ somone else who would by nature of their requirements infringe on the "prime turf" that you'd signed over to him - and then expect him to either lower his professional standards (by releasing RAW footage), or do a lot more work for nothing.

 

In varience with others suggesting that it shouldn't involve you, this is just plain wrong - it was you who signed the contract with the videographer, not the photographer.

 

Legally, I doubt you have a leg to stand on. Professionally, it would be nice if they could all get along. But at the end of the day, there was a contract that included provisions for exactly this kind of event - he's honoured his bit, but you've failed your bit.

 

Sorry again. I'm not attacking you - just articulating the case as I see it!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

 

MWWDWMN

From the original post: "The videographer claims that his additional time for editing will cost roughly $1500."

 

From the videographer's contract: "We will not be responsible for lost footage due to others actions."

 

Based on the statement about "additional time for editing," it appears the videographer has the footage he needs--the issue is not "lost footage due to others actions."

 

Do you have the videographer's claims about needing extra money for editing in writing? If so, you have him over a barrel. Point out that he either has the needed footage, or he doesn't. If he has it, it's his job to produce the video for the agreed-upon price. If he doesn't, he doesn't, and no amount of editing will change that (he should be apologizing for his incompetence and refunding your money). The guy's a criminal. Treat him as such.

 

Send him an email pointing out the relevant clause in his contract and ask him explicitly if he has the footage required to complete the video. If he has the footage, what do you have to do to get the video completed?

 

Once you have proof that he has the footage and that he's trying to get additional money before completing the job, explain to him that he has two options: 1) he can complete the video for the contracted amount, or 2) you can pay a visit to the local district attorney to get an investigation started into his attempts at extortion.

I think the relative prices give us a good indication of what was going on there. Given that video has so much more editing time that photography anyone working for just $500 doesn't sound professional enough to work round a photographer, sounds like just a hack, bit like the idio-t doing video at the wedding I shot yesterday, didn't have a clue, didn't edit, didn't charge much. It does sound like the guy was trying to do everything in camera and is now trying to charge when he realises just how good you have to be to actually achieve that!

Not exactly to your point but the lesson learned here is to have the videographer/photographer situation clear in the contract prior to the wedding day.

 

I have in my contract that the photographer has precedence over the videographer ... I'm very hesitant to "sell myself" on my website per the images shown IF I have to end up slinking around a videographer.

The videographer probably has that clause because he's had problems with other photographers at previous weddings getting in the way. I'd guess that his $500 cost was based on no editing time, just adding a title, DVD menu, and burning to disc. If he gives you the unedited video and you show it to friends they won't hire him due to the poor overall quality (like the photographer standing in the way.) Although based on his behaviour it's pretty obvious you won't suggest him to friends anyway.

Which contract was signed first?

 

It sounds like the contract for the photographer was signed first. In that case, the photographer has precedence if he has a "non-interference" clause (and I suspect he does). This makes the videographers "non-interference" clause null and void.

 

I would tell the videographer (in no uncertain terms) to hand over the unedited video.