lindsay_dobson Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 <p>Indeed I missed that, I've just read the OP's (unwarranted) response to you. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Talk to a lawyer? What for?</p> </blockquote> <p>To hear from the horse's mouth the other part of what of what you said... "<em>Sorry to be blunt, but I don't think you have a case.</em>" A lawyer is likely to take a case to enforce the provision by way of an injunction however. But that would be based on being paid a fee rather than obtaining a cut of paltry or non-existent money damages. Unless Urno's "important personal reasons" are really really important, I suspect the level of interest will decline rapidly upon hearing that news.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bms Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 <p>I think the gist of the above is:</p> <p>- ask him (nicely) to take the pictures down. He obviously thinks they are better than you do. I'd be surprised if he did not comply.<br> - explain (nicely) that you are upset he did not honor your request and ask him for a reasonable amount back (as a goodwill gesture), maybe 10%? I would not expect any money.....</p> <p>- face the fact that a legal battle "to get him back" may cost you money and won't make the pictures any better. I am no lawyer but I doubt you'd get back more than you paid.</p> <p>Mind, there are two sides to the story, this is one. There is no rebuttal here.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtlawyer Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 <p>I sense that your biggest problem is what we call in the States "invasion of privacy", in that he posted photos that the contract stated should not be posted, and that the reason you did not want them posted was because of the private nature of the subject matter. I see two problems:<br> 1. England might not recognize invasion of privacy as a cause of action and<br> 2. If there really is an invasion of privacy, filing a suit will publicize the private information you wish to keep private.</p> <p>See youir solicitor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_iwonttell Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 <p>If I may, my 2 cents:<br> 1) about the quality of the photographs. Well, you write that you knew the photographer isn't very good. In wedding photography (or any serious photography), being 'good' also means consistency. Not very good = you can expect inconsistency. Basically, if you're not hiring the best, you can't really expect results which are consistent with the previous portfolio. So basically sorry, but you knew what you're getting into. It's like buying something second-hand. You can be lucky and have great merchandise, or you can get burned. But it's a risk you're taking by chosing second-hand in the first place.<br> Also, RAW files. I don't know any professional photographer who gives up his/hers RAW files. To me, it almost seems that giving away unprocessed RAWs means not taking pride in ones work. So while it's not really a warning sign, it's unusual.</p> <p>2) You're not saying anything about the personality of the photographer. But since apparently there were no problems with getting the lost photos from him, he's probably not an asshole. I'd base my assumptions on that. Just ask him to put the photos down - he might have just forgotten about the specifics of your contract. I'm not saying it's OK to forget something like that, but give the guy the benefit of the doubt.</p> <p>Basically, I'd just try to contact the guy with 1) request to pull down the images, 2) a QUESTION whether HE thinks he really did a good job. You may be surprised to find that he'll be compliant to the first request and he might even admit that the photos aren't good and you may get a deal.</p> <p>BTW I know it's not my business, but I wonder why it's so harmful to have ones photos, completely anonymously, on a website of some unknown photographer. I know you can have your reasons, but unless the photographer is Annie Leibowitz or so, how likely it is that someone you know will find them? And if it's really so important, that the best course of action is to act quickly, which means contacting the photographer first, not lawyers.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_photog Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <blockquote> <p>TW I know it's not my business, but I wonder why it's so harmful to have ones photos, completely anonymously, on a website of some unknown photographer.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sometimes, it's just human nature that they don't think they look good in photos so they don't want ugly photos to be shown. I have all but one couple who requested not to show their photos on my website. The others, even though they would say they don't look good in photos, have never had a problem with me posting they photos on my website.</p> <p>As long as you make them look good, they probably wouldn't care too much about their photog using their photos on the website.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_harto Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>I have to agree with <strong>Nish Sivakumar</strong>'s line of thought:</p> <blockquote> <p>"And why waste time suing him. He may have forgotten about this side-clause and accidentally uploaded your images without thinking. Maybe just asking him to take it down would work best. People make mistakes."</p> </blockquote> <p>- Try a simple and firmly worded "cease and desist" email/phone call/letter telling the photog to take down the image from his website, and cite your prior written agreement to that effect. His reaction should tell you if there was any willful intent to break the contract or if it was a correctable and unintentional error.</p> <p>- The way I see it, RAW files are far from being finished products. This may or may not be the reason why you are disappointed with the subjective quality of the photos. But really, it may not be the photographer's fault if you don't like the way the RAW files look -- they are unprocessed. Without us looking at the photos, who could say why you think the photos are substantially lesser in quality than the other works on his website. Maybe you got what you paid for.</p> <p>- IMHO, the photog did you high courtesy by sending you another set of the RAW files after you lost them. The way I see it, he delivered and fulfilled his end of the contract when you received the hard drive the first time around. The fact that it got damaged was beyond the photog's control and responsibility, so it was within his rights to refuse or ask for additional compensation for the second set. But as I understand, he provided the 2nd set freely.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>I agree. Reading the original post again, all I can see that the photographer did wrong was to use the images on his website. And he hasn't been asked to remove them yet. Most likely an honest mistake, easily rectified with a phone call, e-mail or letter.</p> <p>Also, it is stated that the wedding was last year. That is at least seven months ago. If you are unhappy with a product, why wait so long to complain about it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urno_hing Posted July 30, 2011 Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>ok i think i've already said this a good few times but i will say it again....i am not after compensation of any kind for the rubbish images. we have accepted that he was just a rubbish photographer who we wish we had never hired. his website pics did were not representative of the images we received of our image (i.e. ours were a lot worse.) being amateur togs ourselves do you think we'd hire someone who was rubbish just coz we couldnt afford the best?? of course not. we still expected great shots. As i also have said, he edited some pics for us as part of the deal. we got the raw images and we got the edited images. i know raw images are unprocessed (duh!) but as i said, the edited images were more disappointing and we wondered why on earth of all the pics he took he chose to edit those ones. As i also said (getting repetitive now), this is not the reason for wanting to sue him. This was only setting the background for why we are so upset with him. We only found the images on his website in the last few days. A long time after the wedding, but who knows how long they have been on there, we didnt check his website after the wedding. The reason why we didnt want the pics up is irrelevant - we asked him not to. We explained to him why. He understood and agreed not to post them, including it in the contract. He was fully aware of the reasons for us not wanting the pics up. Also, the fact he re-sent the pics means nothing, any tog would do the same if it was a simple case of copying files. No one expects to have albums and prints re sent free of charge (incidentally we paid for postage both ways, and for a new harddrive). Most of you have been really helpful with your responses and i just wanted to know if we had a case........................................................</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>A case for what?</p> <p>Have you asked him to take down the pictures? That is all you really seem to want.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_needham Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Stop wasting your time on photo forums. Communicating with the photographer is the only way you are going to get what you want.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green_photog Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>After reading 6 pages of this thread, no, you don't have a case. And even if you do, it is far wiser for you to talk to the photog than to an attorney.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Considering Steve's and Mr. Photog's last posts I agree with one twist which tends to result in the same futility of the lawsuit approach anyway. ...</p> <p>Suing for breach of contract is for seeking financial compensation. Bad feelings and anguish are not part of the available compensation in contracts. Rarely is extra consequential financial compensation available (see earlier discussion). Indeed it it difficult to articulate the financial loss here. Where there is no adequate with money money damages, one can seek so called equitable remedies. The applicable here is an injunction, a court order forbidding further display of the images. Unless it is done by the aggrieved person which is probably very difficult, a lawyer will be needed and that will be very costly.</p> <p>In light of all of these problems above is the repeated suggestion everyone keeps raising which is to contact the photographer in a businesslike manner to arrange for the images to be taken down. Indeed many justifiably wonder why it wasn't done in the first place.</p> <p>Bottom line: Contact the photographer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Urno, it's clear (assuming all is as you describe, and there aren't any other relevant facts we don't know about) that the photographer does not have the right to use the images on his website. There are three reasons for this:</p> <ul> <li>breach of contract - the contract says the images can't be used for any form of advertising. Advertising his services using the images would be a breach of that.</li> <li>breach of S.85 of the Copyright Act 1988 - "A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph... has... the right not to have—(a) copies of the work issued to the public,(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or © the work communicated to the public";</li> <li>most likely it will therefore also be a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Schedule 1, Article 8(1)) "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.", particularly if you have good reasons for wanting the pictures to be kept private.</li> </ul> <p>Damages for breach of the privacy legislation tend to be lower than libel damages - <a href="http://www.farrer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=299%3Abriefings&id=828%3Aprivacy-damages-and-harassment&Itemid=4">typically maybe around one to three thousand pounds</a> at the moment.</p> <p>But you should of course speak to a lawyer if you want to pursue any of that, but you certainly ought to be able to get the photographer to get the pictures down immediately. Take screen grabs of the galleries (and date them) in case you need evidence for later (eg. if he sticks them back up again).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_harto Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <blockquote> <p><strong>OP</strong>: Also, the fact he re-sent the pics means nothing, any tog would do the same if it was a simple case of copying files.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily so. It is easy to copy, but they are still the photog's intellectual property. Read your contract.</p> <blockquote> <p>CONTRACT:<br> ...<br> 4. A complete set of digital files on disk with full printing rights</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>A </strong>complete set. <strong>One</strong> complete set. Ergo, he did you a kind courtesy by sending the second copy freely. Don't forget that point before you take him to court. Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Thanks for the information Simon. I'm not sure if it will change people's impressions but it answers Urno's questions in any event.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>It's a pleasure - let's hope it helps sort it out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtlawyer Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Remember, you're in the UK. You must abide by UK law. Ignore all comments regarding US law, and limit yourself to UK law.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth_. Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>Urno:</p> <p>I can sympathise, after going through almost the exact same thing. I was mad too, after employing someone who considers himself a 'professional'. He turned out to be a stupid asshat ;)</p> <p>Simon quoted the most relevant thing here:<br> "breach of S.85 of the Copyright Act 1988 - "A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph... has... the right not to have—(a) copies of the work issued to the public,(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or © the work communicated to the public";"</p> <p>If you talk to him nicely, you'll probably get the best results, but if you really have to, then the court option is there (Like people have said though, how much of your life do you want to waste in the courts, etc?).<br> Actually, if he doesn't cooperate, maybe check out the hosting company he uses for his site. The T&Cs for a lot of hosts state that they will not allow certain content published (e.g. images of people who have not authorised such publishing).</p> <p>Don't forget (as a lot of professional photographers do), that copyright does not mean they can do anything they want with the images.</p> <p>Copyright does not necessarily mean publishing right.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth_. Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 <p>(Page 84 of this pdf) http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senor_crocodrillo Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 <p>What a waste this forum has become. I'm hoping I don't get bored enough to come back here.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 <p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Senor, I'd recommend that instead of contributing to the waste, you contribute useful information. If you don't like the direction this forum is taking, become the fix.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_davila Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 <p>to the original poster: the response seems fairly clear. man up contact the photographer and politely remind him you had wished for your photos not to be used in any advertising or public medium, and to take them down and remove them.</p> <p>overall this seems a case to me of the person who thinks they have 50 diseases and goes to 100 doctors to get a diagnoses and they all tell that person it's in their mind but they keep going from dr. to dr. hoping to get that one opinion to validate their feelings so they can carry on in their minds with their gloomy thoughts.</p> <p>I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now with my advice. But honestly. Just talk to him, no more need to ask for advice, plenty has been given. your direction and paths are clear. ask for them to be taken down. if they refuse to, make a personal choice on whether or not you want to spend the time and money to take legal action to get him to remove the photographs. And no, you don't need to come back here to ask us if it's worth your time and money. Only you can decide that once he refuses to take them down, if that's what he chooses to do.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 <p>The original poster seems to have disappeared having not received the expected level of sympathy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hu_haixiang Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 <p>That's true and there are many lawyers in the UK who offer an initial half hour consultation for no fee so in that case, it's worth getting some advice this way.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now