Photographer's Right to Withhold Photos?

[john_h.1]

A follow up to yours...

 

1. It should not be difficult to understand why the photographer doesn't wish to provide you the additional images even if at no cost to her. She is accused of providing substandard product and failing to deliver all that you believe you are owed. If she gives you what you want, you might use it against her. Others have already explained why she may not want to even without your dispute.

 

2. The cost of the services is interesting to some but its not really a dispositive issue.

 

3. The contract language you supplied condradicts your previous assertion about what you paid for. Others have commented on the details.

 

4. I'm confident, considering your educational history, that you are aware of the parol evidence rule. She may have poor customer relations but, it seems unlikely that she failed to provide you with the agreed upon product with respect to quantity (except the 35 images which depends on the circumstaces).

 

5. We have not heard her side of the story.

 

6. It looked like photos were for sale on the site. Maybe copyright issues could get involved afterall. Unlikely to arise, perhaps, but something to think about.

 

7. Poor customer relations again vs. legal rights.

 

8. You may find her offer in the BBB matter laughable, but considering the misinterpretations that seem to presented here, it might not be so unreasonable.

 

I'm not trying to take sides. These are things that you should consider in your dispute. Like I said, use legal counsel for actual advice.

[kevin cook - stratford upo]

I think it's all going too far.

This is a public forum and comments regarding this photographer especially as she has been named are dangerous.

 

I tend to show clients what I believe they will want to see given the brief. I never have a list, it's basically too time consuming and restrictive.

 

Sometimes I may include a picture in a montage which won't stand enlargement, if a clients wants it , I give it to them free. I don't expect them to pay for technical problems.

 

Go back and chat, smile, work it out :-)

[craig_gillette]

Here's another object lesson: "Unlimited" in advertising and a contract doesn't mean the same thing to a customer that it does to a photographer.

[kiva]

Just a bit of information.

 

If 35 shots were missing I'd think it was obvious at the time.

 

If the 35 shots were formals it's good to know that a decent formal capture could take between 3 and 5 minutes or more to set up and capture and move to the next shot. Even if it took 2 minutes per shot you have an additional 1 hour and 10 minutes and that's if all goes well.

 

Did you have that kind of time? Did your wedding party allow the time for the contracted photographer to do the job requested? Is there shared blame for the missed shots; not pointing fingers merely bringing up a point of time avaiable and who did not plan the timeline for the wedding? The timeline is planned by the bride and groom in most instances and they have to make time to fit in the required number of photos.

 

Just a thought on your way to the lawyer's office for the real information.

[craig_gillette]

There must have been time to do "the list" or the "pro" wouldn't have signed the contract. Yeah, right.

[steve_hovland]

I think a list of 35 shots is pretty long, but she should have said so.

 

I don't think that you should complain that some pictures are "not centered." Look at the content.

 

I think she should let you see everything if you want. You should be ready to see that we always get some duds.

[steve_hovland]

I looked through her site and I think she is basically competent.

 

I see some pictures of hands where I wonder if the original also included the head.

 

I personally would want the version with the head- I think weddings are above all else people events, so I'm looking for faces and action and interaction.

[katie.krphotography]

Thank you to all the other photographers who alerted me to this website and to the fact

that this law student is using a public forum to damage my business and professional

reputation. He has already filed with the Better Business Bureau and was not pleased with

the outcome, so, instead of taking me to small claims court to legally deal with the issue

as he previously threatened to do, he is choosing to try his case in the court of public

opinion using this forum.

 

I have uploaded a select group of the 659 photos that the client now has from their

wedding onto my photo.net page because I think it is unfair for him to say that their

wedding photos are horrible. I stand by all of my work. I feel that their wedding photos

are of the same high quality as my website. I did not falsely advertise my work or my

qualifications to the client. As a note to any viewer, all the group photos of the groom

before the wedding were taken with me shooting directly into the sunlight because the

groom insisted on having the water in the background, even though I repeatedly told him

that shooting with my lens facing the sun was not the best way to do these photos. As you

can see, the bride agreed to turn the other direction and, as a result, the lighting on the

photos with her bridesmaids was much better. The couple also insisted on shooting all of

their group formals after the ceremony on the rooftop with the gazebo behind them so

there was only so much I could do about the harsh afternoon shadows. I do not work with

any extra lighting besides my on-camera flash, something that the couple knew when they

booked me. The client was unhappy with how some photos were cropped, claiming that

when they tried to frame the photos, the frame or matt cut off even more of the photo

making it unusable. My suggestion that those files be printed with a white border to avoid

anything being lost behind the frame was laughed off and not even taken seriously.

 

Below, I have pasted my response to his complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau. It

addresses everything he has said on this forum and well as other complaints. He has been

making up numbers and exaggerating statements to make his case, attacking my integrity

in the process. Please read the statement below to see that I have made my best effort to

please this client and he still continues to be unreasonable. I do not intend to post any

further comments in this forum about what is a legal and contractual matter. I have only

posted this comment to respond to malicious attacks and defamation that is damaging to

my business and professional reputation.

 

The photographer has provided everything stated in contract, and more. Please refer to

attached copy of contract to see that on the second page, parts b and c, state what the

photographer will shoot (10-15 rolls of film and unlimited digital). Client argues that this

is what they are to receive, which is not what the contract says. It is putting a numerical

value as to what will be shot, otherwise the photographer could shoot 1 roll or 50 rolls of

film. Parts d-f address what the client is to receive, a CD with all the edited digital files as

well as 6M scans of film edit. The client will also receive one set of proof prints of film edit

and one set of proof prints of the top 250 digital photos, edited by photographer. The

client received all of the items listed above, a CD with 552 images total (187 film images

and 365 digital photos), all of which were also printed. The contract only guarantees that

250 digital will be printed; the photographer printed all the digital for client (115 extra

digital photos that were not part of contract) free of charge and has never asked for extra

payment for those photos.

 

Client says that the contract provided that they would receive 300 edited photos. Nowhere

in the contract does it ever say 300, so photographer is unsure where client even got this

number. Client states that photographer has 11 rolls of film, totaling over 300 prints,

which customer has not see. The client is making up numbers and implying that they have

not seen over 300 photos, which is not true. A total of 11 rolls of film were shot, 5 rolls of

120 (12 frames/roll) and 6 rolls of 35 mm (36 frames/roll). That would make a total of

276 possible frames from the specified 11 rolls of film. Two rolls of film were rewound

with the remaining few frames un-shot at the end of the day; thus, there are a total of 271

film images from the client?s wedding. As previously stated, the client received 187 film

images on the first CD. That means there were only 84 film images that were not included

in the original edit done by the photographer, not over 300 as the client falsely stated.

Client made a request to photographer after receiving proof prints and CD to see all

images because they felt that things were missing and they were unhappy with the

cropping on selected images. Photographer agreed to meet with client and show all un-

cropped versions of photos as well as all additional photos that the client had not seen.

The previously mentioned 84 missing film images, as well as 304 additional, unseen

digital files were shown to client at the meeting. At this meeting, all additional film and

digital photos the photographer had were shown to the client. The client selected 119

additional images to be printed, agreeing to pay for the cost of color correction and

printing. The client received the prints, as well as a CD of these images over two weeks

ago and has still not paid the photographer for these expenses that they said they would

pay for. Nowhere in the contract does it state that the photographer had to even show the

client any images that were not included in the edit. Photographer was doing her best to

try to work with the client so that they would be happy.

 

The client states that the photographer delivered poor quality of final product at least in

part a result of poor editing. Of the 552 original images the client received, they only

selected 12 to be reprinted in the un-cropped format. It is hardly fair to base an entire

argument about the quality of 552 photos on only 12 images. The client now has a total of

659 photos from their wedding. The client states that at least 35 pictures from agreed-

upon list are completely missing. Once again, the client is making up numbers,

exaggerating things to make their case sound better. The photographer made every effort

possible to capture all photos on the list from the client. In regard to the 35 missing

photos, 10 of these photos are not even missing; the client has photos of these things.

Another 17 are arguable, most of which are things that happened when the photographer

was not even there or was taking other pictures on the list. So it was impossible for the

photographer to get photos of these things. Only 8 photos are truly missing. Out of the

150 things on the list, the 8 photos make up 5%. The photographer made an honest effort

to capture everything listed. The photographer offered to help the client get still frames of

the missing photos by pulling out single frames from the video footage, an offer to which

the client never responded.

 

The client claims that the photographer has made contradictory statements about what

digital photos exist. Photographer has been clear the entire time about stating that the

client, at their meeting, saw all additional photos that existed from their wedding. At this

meeting, the client had an opportunity to see all of their wedding photos, film and digital,

and to request which ones they would also like to have printed. This is what they are now

requesting again as their desired settlement. They have already had the opportunity to see

everything and obtain copies, an opportunity that is nowhere guaranteed in the contract.

The photographer has gone out of her way to please the client, providing everything

stated in the contract and more. The client is a law student that is abusing whatever

knowledge of the law he has to try to manipulate the previously signed contract to mean

what he would like it to mean. The contract clearly states that the CD and all proof prints

would be of the digital and film edit, nowhere guaranteeing the client the right to see or

have prints made of every single frame.

 

The photographer requests that the client pay the remaining invoice of $72.71 that they

previously agreed to pay to color correct and reprint the additional 119 photos.

[jim_gifford]

Katie:

 

1) Happy Thanksgiving

 

2) I'd say let the $73 go... even though it surely seems you are entitled to it.

 

3) I wonder... when a client lists 150 shots to get at a wedding, is that ALWAYS a sign of a client that will be difficult to please later, or only USUALLY a sign of a client that will be difficult to please later?

 

4) Happy Thanksgiving

 

5) May your business grow, your muse bloom, your happiness increase and your sensor be free of dust.

 

Be well,

[jim_gifford]

Mike,

 

I am sorry you and your bride are unhappy with the photography of your wedding. If you really did agree to pay for color correction and production of additional proofs, and if the amount in question really is only about $73, well, I know what would work for me.

 

Withholding the $73 would give problems sleeping at night.

 

Paying it would let me sleep at night.

 

That would be true regardless of whether I thought the photographic results were particularly satisfying.

 

Sometimes you get what you contract for, even though it is not really what you hope for or expect or want. This is especially true in the case of services whose value is distinctly subjective... and photography undoubtedly is such a service.

 

If you got what the contract specified... which seems to be a reasonable interpretation given the information in this thread... the reasonable course of action is to make the contract good and move on.

 

Happy Thanksgiving, and may you have happiness in general.

 

Be well,

[michael_notar1]

here;s an excerpt from my wedding contract:

 

Photographer will photograph wedding in his photographic style and no additional

photographs/poses that are not indicated under the ?Special Photographs Requested? of

this Agreement. In any case, all photographs/poses requested by Client or not, must be of

a wedding theme or nature. Photographer reserves to right to decline any request to

photograph people, places, or things that violates these conditions.

 

Family and friends of the Client shall be permitted to photograph the wedding as long as

they shall not interfere with the Photographer?s duties and do not photograph poses

arranged by the Photographer. If family and friends do interfere with Photographer?s

duties then Photographer cannot be held responsible for missed photographs. If any of

these conditions are violated, then this Agreement will be considered null by Photographer

who will not be obligated to photograph the wedding and or issue any refunds to Client.

 

All photographic materials, including but not limited to digital files, negatives,

transparencies, proofs, and previews, are the exclusive property of the Photographer, none

of which (including each in their original form, copies or prints) are included in

Photographer?s fees.

 

Client also realizes that a wedding ceremony, and all events before and after are live

events. Photographer is not responsible for missed photographs due to guests leaving

early, arriving late, or not cooperating or any other causes beyond control of both parties.

 

these seem to solve all problems this thead is about.

mn

[michael_notar1]

i'm in idaho...

[mike_t3]

I started this thread to find out the perspective of other photographers.

 

None of what I have said is a personal attack. None of it is defamatory, none of it is an evil plot to damage the business of this photographer.

 

The only thing I've asked for is an unedited copy of each photo taken at my wedding. This has nothing to do with who I am, or what I do.

 

I will take whatever steps I need to take to get the pictures. I have tried very hard to resolve this without resorting to the courts. Unfortunately, it looks like things are headed there.

 

Thank you to everyone who responded for the perspective and feedback.

[anndee]

I don't know of ANY professional photographer that would release unedited pictures to a client.

[patrick_viebey___orlando__]

I'd offer up the statement "I know for a fact that I paid for the right to get a copy of all the pictures." shows the mindset at work here. You are personally absolutely convinced you're right, and no one is going to change your mind.

 

If you're not satisfied with the work, please file the lawsuit. Have a good day.

 

Myself, if I were the photographer, I might offer to give you the pictures - in exchange for a permanent and irrevocable release. Just to make it go away. Forget the dang $73.

 

OTOH, if this was my shoot, I'd probably also be so PO'd at the "I'm going to get my way" attitude, I just might let it go to court - so the judge could tell you one way or the other and waste your time. Looking at this, I'd bet you'd lose (ever watch Judge Judy - they appear there regularly and lose about every time since 'quality' is an artistic not legal idea and unless the images are unviewable, you're toast).

 

I can't speak to what was said between you, but what I read here is that you're not happy, and will not likely ever be happy. Nothing new - every line of business has to deal with folks who're stuck that way.

 

I ain't a lawyer, but I can tell you I'd be spitting mad if the photog were me (which as a rule doesn't make people want to cooperate).

 

Good luck. Hope everyone finds happiness ('cause it ain't here).

 

Remember, you asked. Caveat emptor.

 

 

 

pat

[mike_t3]

Since this thread is about perspective and not personal attack, I won't go into the numerous details which clearly reveal the thoroughly unprofessional conduct the photographer has shown during and after the time she was paid for my wedding photos.

 

Trust me when I say there is far more to the story than what has been posted above.

 

If anyone would like a link to the actual better business bureau complaint and responses, aside from the heavily edited and false version posted above, please feel free to send me a private message on this board.

 

I have chosen to keep my responses on the original topic of this thread. I will not be goaded into straying from it. If any readers of this thread have something to contribute on the topic of a photographer's right to unilaterally withhold photos from a paying client, please feel free to post.

 

Add this caveat, however - ambiguity in a contract is construed against the professional offering services, always.

[jim_gifford]

<<a photographer's right to unilaterally withhold photos >>

 

You should, by now, have detected a strong consensus that professional photographers do have that very right, and that your contract is typical in *not* giving the client the right to all photographic images taken.

 

Clearly, there is ill will between you and the photographer, and I have no opinion about whose fault that is, but I agree with you that you are better off not going into detail about that aspect of your dispute on this forum.

 

Mike, I surely wish you well but I do think you have little chance of getting a legal judgment that says you have the right to see or keep prints of all the shots the photographer took. That does not seem to be a deliverable in your contract. Your contract seems to have specified a number of images to be provided to you, and that number is not "however many images were taken by the photographer," but rather it is some specified number of digital prints and an unspecific number of film prints. The number of images the photographer provided to you seems to be in excess of that contractual obligation. In other words, you got more than your contract required the photographer to give you. Then you got more images yet, but with an expectation of another $73 in payment to the photographer.

 

So... of course you can pursue legal remedies against the photographer. In this country, one can almost always at least BRING a suit. But you have not yet shown that your claim has merit. A judge may well see things your way. I do not think so... but I am not a judge.

 

Good luck and be well,

[mike_t3]

I must admit that I am both shocked and surpised that most photographers believe they have the right to withhold photos from paying customers, when there is no agreement reflecting that issue.

 

They do not.

 

When I hire a baker to make a cake for me, the baker does not have the right to decide which pieces of the cake I get to eat. The cake is mine because I paid the baker to make it for me. I get to eat the whole thing.

 

The baker may retain the rights to the cake design, or the particular way the cake is made, but I get to eat the cake because that is what I paid the baker for.

 

Similarly, when I hire a photographer to take pictures, the photographer does not have the right to decide which pictures I get to see. The pictures are mine because I paid the photographer to take them for me. I get to see them all.

 

Like the baker, the photographer may retain the rights to the particular way a picture is taken, or how the picture was taken, but I get to see all the pictures, since that is what I paid the photographer for.

 

The bottom line is, unless there is an agreement that all the pictures will NOT be shown to the client, the client has the absolute right to see them all.

[ellis_vener_photography]

To your contract back at you:<P>

<I>3. There are seven (7) items listed under "Professional Services Fee," included the

contract, relevant sections here including: Section b. states "10-15 rolls of film (color and

black and white, 35mm and 120)" Section c. states "Unlimited digital photos shot

throughout the wedding day." Section e. states "One set of 4x6 (35mm) and 5x5 (120)

proof prints of film edit." Section f. states "One set of 4x6 proof prints of the top 250

digital photos, edited by KATIE."</I><P>To my (non-lawyer) mind, that sounds like what

she is required to deliver is only: <P><B>One set of 4x6 (35mm) and 5x5 (120) proof

prints of film edit.<P>One set of 4x6 proof prints of the top 250 digital photos, edited by

KATIE.</B><P> Did she fulfill those requirements?<P>To your baker analogy. You order a

cake fro mthe baker. To bake it , The baker has to buy a dozen eggs, 10 lbs of sugar, a

pound of yeast and a 25lb sack of flour. The cake only requires 7 eggs, 1 lb of sugar, a

1/4 cup of yeast, and two pounds of flour (no I don't bake) You get a cake. You don't also

have a claim on the other 5 eggs, the other 9 lbs of sugar, the rest of the yeast, and the

remaining 23lbs of flour. <P>Now I think that your photographer doesn't have a lot of

business sense -- but that is a seperate issue, and there is no doubt in my mind that there

is a lot of stuff about this business transaction that we aren't seeing --like the entirity of

the contract. If you wanted to see everything you should have specified that in your

contract.

[al_kaplan1]

The baker also gets to lick the bowl and spatula.

[dglickstein]

Mike,

 

I have been following this. I am not a wedding photographer. I know you are angry, but being angry and chasing this photographer will only keep you in a downward spiral.

 

If there are remaining photos that you have not seen, if they were any good, the photographer would have proudly included them with the initial set.

 

I doubt you will get any missing "great" photos. It does not sound like you will get any money back and you will not get any damages if you pursue this legally.

 

Sometimes we should let things go because they consume us. Don't let your new marriage be consumed with this.

 

Everything in life is a lesson; if you learn from this that it's up to the buyer to beware, great. Next time this won't happen.

 

If you continue to be angry and go after this photographer, then in the end you (hopefully) will have learned that you should have let it go early on and that you wasted a lot of precious time being angry and chasing revenge.

 

Good luck.

 

PS: If you promised to pay for the extra prints, if it were me, I would be a mensch and send full payment to her because it's the right thing to do. Perhaps you can find solace in doing the right thing, I know I would.

[elnoralouisa]

Mike, take a photography class somewhere. Any class is going to tell you to just dump your bad pictures. They say take hundreds of pictures, and keep the good ones. Better yet, only keep the best. Someone who knows nothing about photography is arguing with a bunch of professionals. That's stupid.

 

So...if the baker makes a mess out of your cake, no sense in re-doing it, you want it no matter how bad it is..........oh well!

 

Debbie

[mike_t3]

1. The Baker analogy - It is true I wouldn't have a claim to the extra ingredients (eggs, flour, etc.), just as I don't have a claim to the unused film the photographer bought to the wedding. The cake itself, and the pictures themselves, are what I paid for.

 

2. The problem I have presented is two-fold:

 

FIRST, the edited proofs I received were edited poorly. People's heads, arms, and legs were cropped out of the pictures. I can't frame or use these pictures. The unedited versions are not like that. I would be able to use the unedited versions, and it is those versions I have requested, and the photographer has refused to provide. I didn't pay $1500 for unusuable photographs, or pictures that I would have to then take reprint with a white border at additional cost and expense.

 

SECOND, I had numerous conversations with the photographer about viewing all the photos taken at the wedding - good, bad or otherwise. She always assured us that we would be able to see and get prints of whatever we wanted. She has now gone back on her word. The contract is silent as to whether she gets to withhold pictures. I specifically discussed this with her because I saw it was missing, and based on her continued assurances, I didn't think it was a necessary part of the contract. She never, ever gave an indication that she would do what she has done before signing the contract.

 

3. The issue of the $73 is resolved, the check has been mailed, despite our feeling of being ripped off by this photographer.

[dglickstein]

Mike,

 

This is a very unfortunate situation. She can choose to NOT provide you with any re-prints since she holds the copyright; then you and your wife are out of luck. I assume your contract doesn't state that she is required to supply you with prints. It just says proofs, right? Well, if she owns the copyright... I know Walmart and my photo store won't make reprints without written permission from the photographer.

 

It is common practice, or customary, for the wedding photographer to retain the copyright. If I were her I'd register the photos with the copyright office ASAP. You don't have to like it.

 

Some how you need to find a way to work this out with her, perhaps you can discuss your concerns and issues again and come to some middle ground. You'll have to if you want to make additional prints from her photographs of your wedding. This is tough because there is a lot of anger, but not impossible.

 

You did the right thing by mailing the $73, it's a first step. Good luck and I hope it gets worked out. I'm sure she's not happy either.

[StuartMoxham]

First Mike I am sorry for you that you are not happy with your wedding photos. It is an important day and I know how much the pics mean to you. I am curious though how do you know for a fact that you paid to get all of the pictures. The contract seems pretty clear to me about what you will get. You will find few if any photographers that don't edit the pics they show to the clients some will agree to show the pics that did not make the cut if the client requests but there are others that will not. If the photographer delivered what the contract stated in terms of quantity then you can't really complain about that. You may feel that it is unfair but photographers will usually take many more shots than is stated in the contract so they can throw out the bad ones. As a wedding is a live event many of the shots will not be keepers some photographers may shoot over a thousand and yet only show a couple of hundred of the best ones to the wedding couple. Why not take a look through the pictures you have and concentrate on picking out the best ones I am sure you will find that there will be many good ones to make an album from. Sometimes it is so easy to focus on the negative things that we miss the good that is right before our eyes.