fight between videographer and photographer

[DickArnold]

There is "no accounting for judges". In another profession I spent a lot of time with civil matters and they are no absolutes that can be said about how a judge will decide one way or another on contract matters. Particularly if contracts conflict with one another. There are a lot of surprises in judgments. I am not a lawyer but I managed major contracts. I still maintain that if you really want a deliverable from the videographer get a lawyer to negotiate it for you. If not let him walk and forget it. This is already messing with your good feelings about your wedding. Get some distance from it is my humble advice.

[joe_schome]

Hi everyone, WOW, thank you for your responses!! To address some of your comments, the following are a few answers:

1) First off we live in a separate state so a face-to-face is not feasible.

2) We REALLY want the video and would be happy with the unedited video even for the original contract price of $500. I even verbally offered to sign a non-disclosure agreement saying that I would not speak negatively of his services despite what the unedited video looks like (although this is kinda irrelevant since we're not local anyway). He didn't really care about an NDA saying that it wouldn't really matter in the long run.

3) In response to William Flanagan and Paul Thomas's comments, I checked the photography contract (which was signed before the video contract) and it states "it is understood that this studio is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested on this contract." If I were to think like a lawyer, I'd say it doesn't mention anything about VIDEO services....

4) In response to Conrad Erb's comment, there is nothing in the Video contract about additional fees. The only thing close is the "Completion and Acceptance" clause that refers to our acceptance of his final edited version. The language states "Any requested stylistic changes that the client may request would be considered 'additional editing'". I doubt that applies.

5) Colin Southern made a good point that since the Videographer's contract states that the video has first choice of camera locations, then I don't have a leg to stand on. I reread the contract and it states that other photographers must not interfere with the video and that they are to be instructed by the client to not be in the way of the camera. Unfortunately I wasn't aware of this until after the event, HOWEVER as a paying customer I expect that both the videograher and photographer would act professionally to work things out. I blame both parties for their unprofessionalism and allowing the situation to escalate into a fight. During the reception when the Videographer first told me about the fight, I did my part in convincing him to stay and I CLEARLY instructed both the videographer and photographers to AVOID each other even at the expense of the perfect angle. This worked and the videographer stayed to record our first dance. After which he left.

6) I'm trying to remain impartial over who did what to whom, but I'm guessing that the photographer had a hand at antagonizing the videographer.... which I think is why the video guy is bent out of shape and will only furnish a final product if the photographer is penalized. The photographer company is a larger-scale well known business and I think the son working our wedding (family business) was probably being arrogant towards the videographer (one-man business)....but that's just conjecture and not really relevant.

7) Incidentally, the video guy has worked with this photo business before without incident, however he worked with the father not the son who worked our wedding.

8) The videographer said that he was set up on a tripod and that the photographers made every effort to ruin his shot.

9) I just noticed another clause in the videographer's contract that states the following: "The video equivalent of a photographer negatives is the Camera Original Videotape. Client may purchase the unedited, Camera Original Videotapes and the Edited Master Videotapes for $100.00 each, provided they purchase ALL Camera Original Videotapes and Edited Master Videotapes and that they purchase then within 30 days after accepting their Completed Wedding Video." Seems to me, at the very worst we could make a solid case for him to give us the unedited tape for $100 more than our original contract price. We sign a non disclosure agreement and part company. That seems to me a fair and reasonable request.

10) Mike Dixon had an excellent point about "lost footage". You're right. From my conversation with the videographer yesterday claimed that he could produce a final product if he was given $1500 more for the additional editing time required (he wants the photographer to pay). You're right, lost footage, is lost footage and it sounds like NO additional amount of editing will fix that!!! That's a REALLY interesting point!!

11) Dick Arnold had a great point about hiring a lawyer so that we don't have to be involved with any more of this "dark cloud" from an otherwise wonderful day. But I wonder if a lawyer will be any cheaper than the $1500.

 

I guess I'm leaning towards sending the videographer an email to try and document things and I'll propose to give him $100 extra for the unedited video (per the specific language of his contract). I highly doubt a request for any editing will be accepted so we'd be happy with the unedited version. I could also offer to sign a non disclosure agreement to protect his reputation.

 

I welcome any additional thoughts, but THANK YOU SO MUCH for your advice thus far!!

-Mike

[joe_schome]

One last thing that I forgot to add, we haven't yet talked to the Photographer. The neg's were just posted to their website yesterday so we haven't even begun to put together an album. I want to stipulate some sort of discount from the photographer for not maintaining their professionalism and allowing the situation to get out of hand, but I also need to tread lightly because I don't want this to affect the quality of our pictures.

 

-Mike

[surfidaho]

How about this?

 

You agreed on a price. Videographer showed up and shot video, and stayed after minor conflict (believe me, I've seen worse) was resolved to shoot first dance.

 

Now videographer doesn't want to turn over the video without squeezing the photographer for $1,500, and he's putting YOU, a valued customer, in the middle of his little feud.

 

Diagnosis: Videographer is a Doofus.

 

I think you are trying to see shades of gray, when it's really black and white. Doofus owes you a video, period.

 

You said yourself that there was no conflict during the first dance, therefore, there shouldn't be any lost footage of the first dance. TELL Doofus to give you the footage from the first dance, nicely edited, and whatever else he can salvage. And don't pay him a single dime more than you already have.

 

If the photographer did assault the videographer with a deadly beverage, it's not your problem.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[john_h.1]

"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."

 

Incorrect. It is not a first in time, first in right issue. When one enters into two contracts with non interefernce clauses and permits interference to occur, he is faced with two breached contracts, not one.

 

This is not an analysis of this case. There are some other misstatements posted here. You need consult with a lawyer to get reliable legal advice.

[surfidaho]

Ok John. But can you find any errors in my argument regarding "Videographer is a Doofus?"

 

Joe, TELL the videographer to give you the tape. You have nothing to lose.

[surfidaho]

One more thing: Don't assume that the photographer was being unprofessional until you hear his side of the story.

[picturesque]

The first clause from the contract cited by the videographer seems to have been fulfilled. He notified you of the "interference" and you did something about it by speaking to the photographer, and the photographer supposedly complied, so I see no breach there. The second clause is one of those all purpose no-liability clauses that everyone has in their contracts and I've been told may or may not stand up in court should there be a dispute. I would tend to agree with Paul. You might present your case to the videographer in firm language to see if you can get anywhere.

[nancy s.]

Take the $500 back and get a better finished album from the photographer. If you can find others whohave used this videographer I suggest your find out if similar situations have occurred with his other clients.

 

IOW's $500 is not a lot of money... and he may charge little and then ask for more routinely as a bait and switch tactic.

 

THe last time I heard of a videographer doing a job for $500 he gave the customer an unedited amateur production with NO post processing.

[craig_shearman1]

I think $500 is a key point here. If the videographer can only get $500 for his work, he's not in the same league as the $3,000 still photographer and probably not as experienced. That includes people skills for working in difficult situations. I used to work for newspapers, and would have loved to seen him in the scrum when two dozen still and video guys are competing for the same shot at a news event, shoving each other out of the way if necessary but everybody coming up with what they need and being cool enough about it to go have a beer together afterward. I think the best approach for videos is to contract with one photographer for both stills and video, and let him/her provide the crews for both. Sometimes the video crew is employed by the still shooter, other times they are somebody he/she has a good relationship with. But the key is that all shooters are working for the same boss and have an incentive to play nice togehter.

[joe_schome]

Well, I just sent him an email requesting the unedited video for $100 additional per the language in his contract. It bugs me to pay him more when we're getting less, but I think all things considered that's probably a fair proposal. The frustrating part is that before the wedding we were really waivering on whether to hire a videographer. We were conisdering asking a friend or relative to record it but we wanted everyone to enjoy themselves rather than have to be burdened with the responsibility. We don't need any fancy video with extensive editing/fade-outs/sound track, etc so to us a $3K video job wasn't worth it. But we wanted something, anything. Right now we're left with nothing but a difficult videographer with a bruised ego. I'm curious to see his response and if we get no where then I'll probably consider legal actions.

 

-Mike

[david_sparks2]

The behavior of the videographer is disgraceful. The guy is acting like a child who won't go to school because you don't buy him a Ninja Turtle lunch box or whatever.

 

His attitude/words really show incompetence. Event photography/videography requires you to constantly adjust for the given situation. That's part of the fun too! We rarely work in ideal situations but come out with nice results that often times make venues/events better than they actually were.

 

True professionals keep their cool and work around obstacles without thinking twice about them. The water throwing incident...I wonder if anyone got that on tape? It sounds like good times! ;-)

 

I'm sorry you had to go through this experience. Even if you do eventually receive a refund I would bad mouth this guy on wedding forums such as theknot and here. That is of course if you don't sign a NDA. Your only saving grace is to let others know about this guy before they end up empty-handed/disappointed as well. From the sounds of it "the Non-Disclosure Agreement won't matter" he may be bowing out of the wedding business soon. That's a shame that you had to work with him during the decline of his career.

[colinsouthern]

Good luck Joe - I sincerely hope that it works out well for you.

 

Perhaps you'd be so good as to keep us informed as to how you get on?

 

One final though - some countries have the likes of "dispute tribunals" which get the parties together (via telephone if necessary) for just a few $$$ - and their decisions are binding - perhaps you have something like that in your part of the world?

[jim_clements]

Howdy. Being my first post here, I should probably introduce myself. I'm a professional videographer by trade, though I do some photography on the side, so I think I'm qualified to post here! :-)

 

Anyway, this is an interesting situation, one I've never experienced before, but I'll throw my two cents in, and hopefully it will do some good for someone.

 

Producing a wedding video isn't an easy task, and I know many colleagues who have been very frustrated by photographers who have messed up shots. Photographers don't always realize that we can't always operate the same way they do. Because we're shooting nonstop, we have to have our cameras stable (usually on tripos), and we can't just "walk up and snap off a picture", a great advantage that photography has over video.

 

Anyway, an overzealous photographer can indeed ruin a cameras shot if he's constantly stepping into the frame, shooting a couple pictures, and then stepping out of frame, it can be a real headache in post production. To add on to the frustration, the photographer usually steps into frame to snap off a photo during the important shots, which is understandable, since those are the moments the photog is getting paid to take.

 

That being said, I have NEVER, in over 10 years behind a camera, experienced a fight between the video and photo vendor. There were a few times when a little competition took place, and a few sighs of frustration, but never a fight. That's just sad that both of your vendors would reduce themselves to such a level.

 

Now, I have enough experience to know where to set up my video cameras to minimize interference from photogs, but it took me a few years to get that good. Many videographers don't have the experience to know how to do this. Having said that, I have experienced times in the past where a situation would require that I spend more time editing than I quoted out, which just happens sometimes on Video World. For the most part, if it's not a lot of work, I just eat the time cost myself. If it's a lot of extra work, I would ALWAYS call the client and explain the need before the fact, so they can decide what to do. I would NEVER quadruple the cost of my quote though, even if the project was a total disaster!

 

Your videographer isn't treating you right, and you need to let him know. It's not your fault he got poor shots-if it were, he would hold YOU responsible for extra editing, not the photographer. Since he is adamant that the fault is the photographers, you should NOT pay a penny more than what you paid, and you should get what he agreed to deliver, and if he really feels it was the photographer's doing, he should take care of the issue, not you.

 

You should ask him either to give you the product you agreed to, or refund your money and give you the tapes to take to another vendor to do the job right. Heck, send me the tapes, and I'll make a great video for less than $2000.

 

Also, as a side note, for everyone who is claiming that just by the virtue that the videographer only charged $500, he must not be "a pro". The simple fact of the matter is that while photography has been around for ages, videography is still the new kid on the block. When I started doing this around a decade ago, I was one of the only ones out there. If you want more proof, go to your library. I can find local records of weddings with photography that go back 100 years. Camcorders have only been around about 20 years, give or take. Because this is such a new trade, videographers are often thought of as a frivolous extra, and many couples won't even consider paying a "fair price" for video. The fact that there are amateur videographers out there that charge almost as much as pros doesn't help our position either. So ultimately, even myself, with a decade of video experience under my belt, I have a $800 "ceremony only" package, because some couples are just to, excuse me, cheap and nearsighted, to thing about the actual value of video.

 

Anyway, sorry to hear about your problems Joe. This does go to show why it's important to know your videographer, and only hire a pro, even if it costs more than a deep discount vendor. You do often get what you pay for.

[dcreason]

maybe he just forgot to hit the record button and when he realized it he thought a water fight, pass the blame to the photographer and offer an unreasonably high priced solution would save him. find a way to view at least a portion of the video before any more negotiating. he should be able to send at least a few clips, make sure this is worth fighting for.

[david_mcmanus1]

Hi,

 

I've been lurking on this group for months but have never actually posted before seeing your story above. I guess something about the way this videographer has treated you irks me so much that I just had to reply.

 

I have been a video editor and producer in TV for over 10 years and am currently acting as a business manager for a photographer in new york who I occasionally work as a videographer/editor for also. You've received a ton of replies above and to cut a long story short I believe the videographer screwed up and is embarrassed by the footage he shot on the day. If the photographer kept getting in his shots he would be happy enough to show you the raw tapes and therein you would instantly see that every time he pointed the camera at you the photographer got in his way.

 

I'm guessing the photographer did indeed get in the way some of the time (when I video weddings for the photographer I work with we will foul each others shots once in a while even though we are partners!) however there is no way the photographer could have ruined the video to the degree that it's unusable unless he was literally throwing himself in front of the video camera at every opportunity.

 

His statements that a ton of extra editing will be required to fix the footage leave me baffled. What is he talking about, editing out the parts where the photographer is in the shot? That takes no time at all with current editing software. The only other thing I can think of is that he's going to actually crop the photographer out of shots that he is present in, this is indeed time consuming to do with video, but if the photographer is present for any duration of time in a shot the question could reasonably be asked why didn't he zoom/move to reframe the shot?

 

No videographer likes to show clients rough footage, it reveals all of our slip ups as well as the moments which aren't actually slip-ups - e.g. hurrying up the aisle with the camera pointed at the floor - but might actually be construed as such. However, you have a contract with this man and a right to your video. I would get mighty mean with him if he doesn't start to co-operate with you soon.

 

You said this guy is new to the business and frankly it sounds like he just screwed up the footage and is embarrassed to show it to you. Unfortunately small claims court might be the solution. All those clauses in his contract (which is both over aggresive in its tone and poorly written) are open to wild interpretation. I have seen some messy contract disputes go to court over the years, in cases like this a judge will usually expect the contractor to have made every effort to resolve the conflict with the photographer in a reasonable and professoinal way before allowing him to get off the hook in terms of delivering a final product to you.

[big kahauna]

The video guy is a joke. Anyone shooting video shoots with more than one camera and

shoots a lot of 'B Roll' to hide moments when the photographer steps into the way.

If he is a one man band, he should have a unmaned camera somewhere to cut to. Anyone

shooting something like a wedding with one camera is not a professional. IMHO. I guess you

get what you paid for. I wouldn't even get my video camera's out of the cases for $500.00.