Best day turned into worst nightmare

[john_h.1]

<p>I'm going with implied license all the way, a life time ban on interaction with step-dad Bob to the fullest and in all respects that family reality allows and future children not to be left unsupervised with said step-dad Bob (and mom unless step-dad is independently confirmed to be at least 300 miles away or until mom's marriage is effectively dissolved). </p>

<p>I'm sort of joking about the last parts but, not really.</p>

[jennifer_fall]

William, thank you for your response. To answer a few of your

questions/assumptions/curiosities :-)...I think he is doing this because I

got into a fight with my mother and told her that not only do I find him

creepy, but so did most of the people who attended the wedding. Things

got extremely heated with me and my mom and also with him. I also

believe that he kind of planned this. Knowing the already tense

relationship I have with my mom he took advantage of it and played on

it. Like I said before, he has been causing chaos from day one. A little

insight to the tense relationship with my mom. She's an alcoholic. Has

been for 22 years now (since I was 8).

 

I had no plans on using the photos except to share them on facebook,

send out in thank you cards and make an album. I would never take

credit for them as my own. And to answer your curiosity of if the photos

are any good. Lets just say my 5 year old nephew has taken better

photos than he did. I have only been playing in photography for a little

over 2 years now and take better photos. Don't get me wrong they aren't

horrible, he got some decent shots, but not what I would expect from a

professional photographer (which is why I say a supposed former

professional).

 

Yes, he did leave the photos on my SD card so that I would have them

right away. He wasn't even planning on editing them and sending us

copies (I posed the question to my mom of since when do the bride and

groom edit their photos just to be a smarty pants). Again he stated that

he would take down the picture he had printed and hung up until we sent

them an 8x10.

 

And to answer your question on if I really think my mom would let him

sue me over using the photos....I honestly don't know. She's been

choosing men and alcohol over her children for 22 years now so it

wouldn't surprise me if she did.

 

And yes the wedding was in WA so he would have to come from ND to

litigate it. And he is currently unemployed and they do alright money

wise but are not well off by any means or at least not to my knowledge.

 

And no I am not facebook friends with either of them and have blocked

them both so they cannot even find me on facebook. The relationship

with my mom, at least for now, doesn't exist. That may change, as I tend

to be a very forgiving person.

[jennifer_fall]

You all have great responses and it's hard to respond to them all. But I

want to make sure to thank you all for your input. So thank you! It is

much appreciated. John H. Your response made me roll. If I ever have

children I would most definitely never leave them alone with him. I'm not

even sure I would leave them alone with her given her habit.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you can show that there was some sort of implied contract (good luck proving that), he owns the images and has control over where they can be published and who can publish them. --Bob Atkins</p>

<p>He uploaded the pictures to his computer after the wedding and left the images on my memory card for me to upload to my computer. --Jennifer</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Verifying the terms of the "agreement" is the legal difficulty here, as I see it. You clearly thought that he was giving you rights to the pictures. He might have had a different interpretation of what he was volunteering to do, and for what purpose. I do not think that he would sue, given the ambiguity of the situation, but that is not a certainty.</p>

<p>I would definitely consult an attorney on this one.</p>

<p>I keep thinking that you are going to tell us more about what might have been said at the time you consented to let him take the pictures, but apparently not.</p>

<p>Barring your ability to demonstrate that he acted in bad faith, with intent to defraud, I regret to say that I think that Bob is right in saying that a<em> prima facie</em> interpretation is that he does have the intellectual property rights to the pictures, as ridiculous as that sounds in this case as you have described it.<br>

<br>

This is truly one of the most bizarre scenarios that I have ever heard of. Good luck in resolving this outside of a court of law.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[johnw63]

<p>After reading the thread, I think there may not be a question that he " owns the copyright " to the images. However, to make a valid case against you, he would have to prove DAMAGES, would he not ? If you never sell them, or cost HIM business, then I don't think he can prove some damages. As a former photographer, he knew in the back of his mind, that the rights thing existed. Once there was a fight, he chose to rub this in your face to make a point. Does he have the ability to sue you ? Probably not. He doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer and what lawyer is going to see big dollar signs around this case, which is really just someone being petty ?</p>

<p>Send him a bill for equipment rental if he makes any noise ! There was no contract for that either. </p>

<p> </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>No doubt you'd be better-served by getting actual legal advice from a lawyer <em>licensed in the jurisdiction(s) involved</em> (probably where the wedding occurred and/or where you and/or he were when everyone agreed that he would photograph it).</p>

<p>But without giving you legal advice, generally speaking, he very likely owns the copyright to the pictures, but whether you have some (limited) legal right to use them probably becomes an issue of contract (or quasi-contract) law. You may have a hard time proving a contract, but IMO this case <em>screams</em> detrimental reliance / estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel), quite possibly sufficient to get you the legal right to use the pictures as you propose.</p>

<p>As a practical matter, if the wedding was where you live, he <em>may</em> have to sue you there (the likely issues including personal jurisdiction, venue, and <em>forum non conveniens</em>). That alone may mean the likelihood of adverse legal action is low. Also, suppose he sues you and wins--how much money would he be awarded? Is he really going to try to collect? Never underestimate what the crazy will try, but you can't let them dictate how you live your life, especially as here, where it certainly sounds (caution: based on only one side, yours) like ethics and equity are firmly on your side.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[jennifer_fall]

As far as what was said when we agreed to let him do the pictures, it

was a lot of hype and pleading from my mom. She said that he used to

be a photographer and he was really good and he wanted to do the

pictures for us as a gift. There was nothing said about copyright or what

I could or could not do with them.There wasn't any talk of him owning

full rights or us not being able to use them. After the wedding they kept

asking when we were going to get cards and photos out and when we

were going to post them. Like I tried saying before none of this was an

issue until our blowout. Quite frankly it never even crossed my mind

about who would have rights to the pictures as I didn't think it was ever

something that would be an issue. I've never dabbled in taking photos of

events or people. I do nature photography and of course I've

photographed my friends and family for memories. I certainly like the

idea of telling him he needs to pay me for equipment rental. But I'm not

sure I want to stoop to his level. I willingly let him use my camera. I'm

almost certain that he is not getting back into the photography

business, but I do not know him well enough to say for sure. I'm almost

fairly certain that he did not have a different interpretation of what he

was volunteering for and what the purpose was. Unless he doesn't

know what the purpose of wedding photos are for? This just seems like

complete non sense to me. He is mad and that is that. If he didn't want

me to use the photos I don't believe he would have left them on the SD

card and wouldn't be asking when I am going to send out and post

photos of the wedding. I feel we may be better off trying to recreate the

event the best that we can. But the stubborn side of me doesn't want to

let him win.

[jennifer_fall]

The other thing we were thinking is maybe he is embarrassed by the

way the photos turned out. They are, in my mind, not of professional

quality. We have a lot of over exposed pictures and a lot of sun peaking

through the trees onto peoples faces. I could post a picture that was

taken by my husbands niece to show an example (she sent us copies

and gave us full permission to use them). That's the only mildly

understandable reason for his behavior other than being upset with the blowout.

[george_ghio]

<p>Just a question about your camera.<br>

Have you set your camera to record you as the copy right owner in the EXIF data? </p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>You may need to settle things with your Mom first. Then Mom's boyfriend may fall into line. Sounds to me like your Mom's actions are what started the whole feud.</p>

[jennifer_fall]

George, I will have to check my camera. I remember looking at it, but I

don't remember if I actually set it. Will get back to you on that one.

Brian, I have tried talking to her and working it out. Unfortunately for the

moment she is siding with her man and doesn't care what I think or feel.

Things may change down the road.....how long do I just sit tight and

wait for her to come around? She tends to hold onto things for months

on end.

[savagesax]

Forget about this being your worst day and change this to your best day.

 

I've been thinking about this and reading all of these posts.

 

I'm inclined to forget about the ownership rules and do whatever you wish. Let him sue you. Then if he's a total jerk and does sue you, there's really not that much he can do. You simply take the photos off of your website. Here's my thinking behind this. You live about 1000 miles away. So is he the type to file an expensive suit against you? If he files a small claims lawsuit I don't think you need to show up because a warrant won't be issued. I've never once heard about someone going to jail for not showing up to a small claims court!

 

Has anyone on this forum heard that you can be arrested for anything related to a small claims lawsuit?

 

My gut feeling is he doesn't ever have to know. Put the pictures on another site, a new site. Use a different name such as your middle names.

 

If it were me I'd take my chances. 1000 miles away is a very long distance to mess with a silly lawsuit. He's looking at big bucks if he hires an attorney and avoids the small claims court.

 

If it were me, I would most likely tell him you are posting the images anyway! Just to let him know he can't do something like this and get away with it.

 

Keep us posted.

[Rod Sorensen]

<p>I'm assuming all of your details to be as you state them. I'm no attorney. I do think I have reasonable common sense. My advice. (1) Use the pictures (2) Don't bare any more personal details (3) Do your reasonable best with the relationship with your mother (4) Don't spend any more time overanalyzing all of this. I think everything will work out if these are done. R</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Rod S. writes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm assuming all of your details to be as you state them. I'm no attorney. I do think I have reasonable common sense. My advice. (1) Use the pictures (2) Don't bare any more personal details (3) Do your reasonable best with the relationship with your mother (4) Don't spend any more time overanalyzing all of this. I think everything will work out if these are done. R</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Big +1 to that.<br>

</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>"So here is my scenario. My mom's fiance <em><strong>offered to do our wedding photos for free. We didn't ask, he offered." . . .<br /></strong></em><br /> "She said that he used to be a photographer and he was really good <em><strong>and he wanted to do the pictures for us as a gift."</strong> </em><br /> <em><strong><br /></strong></em>Those are essential elements of <em><strong>your version</strong></em> of the relationship between fiance and the two of you. <strong><em>You quote both of them making a wedding gift.</em></strong> (Perhaps because of a financial inability to make any other gift.) That is <em><strong>your version</strong></em> of the contract.</p>

<p>They images cannot both be a gift and also be something which you have to purchase. One does not purchase a gift. <em><strong>He gave you the memory card with the image files.</strong></em>That act is not consistent with retaining and exercising copyright powers to prevent your having the images. The story of following events, however, is contrary to the idea of a gift of the images. To claim, and then exercise, copyright powers, fiance has to argue that he was not making a gift of wedding photos, rather he was doing something to profit from taking the images, profit at the expense of the bride and groom. Not a very compelling story to make to a decision maker in a courtroom. Have you memorialized any agreements? Did you send a thank you card? is it legal in your state to record telephone conversations?</p>

<p>The issue is not copyright. The issue is whether a gift of the images was offered and accepted as a wedding present. If copyright restraints are imposed, there is not much of a gift left.</p>

<p>You do need to speak to an attorney. It might be interesting to know what a counselor might say about the best way to deal with a relative who might be an alcoholic. Presumably Mom and fiance can hear about and then read this very public discussion about them on Photo.net, with opinions expressed about character, addiction, claims of broken promises, and dysfunctional relationships, all of which may not produce peace in the valley. I do hope this somehow works out for you and a future relationship with your mother.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>To claim, and then exercise, copyright powers, fiance has to argue that he was not making a gift of wedding photos, rather he was doing something to profit from taking the images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seeking or realizing profit in order for copyright ownership to exist along with the power to control usage is not required under the Copyright Act. As a result, "doing something for profit" or not is irrelevant in order to be able to "claim, and then exercise, copyright powers".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue is not copyright. The issue is whether a gift of the images was offered and accepted as a wedding present. If copyright restraints are imposed, there is not much of a gift left.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The issue is, indeed, copyright. More specifically, licensing. Either expressly by verbal agreement which has contract consideration problems or by implied licensing under the circumstances (which the factual observations in the same post tend to support). If the legal claims above were true, however, then a copyright would be lost merely because the owner gave someone permission to use them which is complete nonsense.</p>

<p> </p>

[www.philwinterphotography.]

<p>It seems to me the photos are the least of your problems. Contact an attorney about protecting any family assets and keepsakes from this creep.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Send them a couple photos, then go about your business. Enjoy the pictures you have. Don't get pulled into interpersonal dramas and manipulation. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Just post 'em and let him rot. His lawyer can waste his and everyone's time by sending you a cease and desist letter. Then you can decide what to do. I can't see this progressing anywhere as a legal case, assuming what you said is true of course.</p>

[paul_mckinley3]

<p>Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Some might call it stooping down to his level but i call it standing up to a bully. First you can start by asking for signed documents by you and your now husband of the contract for the wedding ( I know there's not one ) . When he can't provide one than ask if he has the signed release forms to photograph the wedding ( yes once again there's not one ). Do this in writing preferably e-mail or certified mail . When he can't provide any contracts you can then ask him who gave him the right to dictate what can be done with the photographs that were taken on your camera either buy him , your mother or anyone else at the wedding that might have picked up your camera and snapped a shot. Something else that can be done is sue him for the rights to your photographs that were taken with your camera. Its hard to imagine that he would travel 1000 miles to fight you in court , and more than likely you would win by default. Then you would have court papers to protect you from anything he might do in the future regarding the photographs. </p>

<p>disclaimer-- i am not a attorney of any form. This is just another way to look at how to handle the situation.</p>

<p>On a more personal note , some times you have to make hard decisions and turn people loose. Even a family member like a parent or sibling. It sounds harsh but when all they do is bring you down and make life harder then it has to be, then you have to think about your new family and the mental stresses that stuff brings with it. </p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>To John H</p>

<p>You miss the point. There is zero argument about who owns the copyright under the tortured statement of the facts. The general rules have been broadly repeated here and need little repeating. He pushed the button, and she has not articulated facts to meet one of the exceptions. That is not the point here, and it is almost never the point in an ordinary wedding transaction as the bride and groom receive images and the license to make use of them. Otherwise, there would no sense to hiring a wedding photographer.</p>

<p>The key question is what was to become of the images taken, who was to receive them and have what use of them regardless of whether photographer retains the copyright otherwise. <em><strong>Any</strong></em> wedding photographer retains copyright without other contractual agreement; that is always the case. And, every bride and groom always receive pictures and can always make ordinary use of them. They receive a license to use the copyrighted material, and the photographer retains the copyright. Here, there is an oral agreement to make a gift of wedding pictures, from a photographer to a bride and groom. The understanding of that gift will be taken in the common understanding of such a transaction since there is no other written agreement to limit the license the gift represents.</p>

<p>There is another legal principal that arises from the broken promise by the fiance. The fiance has damaged the bride and groom because of their reliance upon his false promise, the false gift. Without his failure to honor his contract by providing images with the ordinarily understood license one receives with them, the bride and groom would have been able to make other arrangements to memorialize this important and unique occasion. The fact that the promise was made by both the mother of the bride and also by her fiance, creates a special circumstance. Family members can, and expect, to rely on promises made in reliance upon a special family relationship where stranger, otherwise, would memorialize the agreement in writing. This is often called a constructive trust. Courts have the equitable power when there is reliance upon a false promise, especially where created in a special relationship, to force the photographer to make it right. There is the alternative legal claim of damages against the photographer. While damages are not measured here in precise dollars and cents, such as a ton of corn not delivered, in the hands of a good advocate, the emotional and mental anguish from a spoiled wedding have the potential to loom larger than the fiance may want to think about. I doubt that he has insurance to pay for his defense counsel, but also, unfortunately he is likely not financially responsible to make good on a judgment against him.</p>

<p>Again, the issue is not who has nominal ownership of the copyright. The issue is whether the images should have been delivered with a reasonable license for their use as any bride and groom would expect.</p>

[david_prouty]

<p>I am no lawyer, but at the moment, you are the one with a legal reason to sue them. Your rights to control the use of your visage is DEFINITELY within your rights for a suit. You and your husband can SUE your Mom for failure to do as you requested, as long as the posted images include you and/or your husband.</p>

<p>I know you don't want to do that, but if push comes to shove, you have some clear recourse. You have not broken any laws as yet, but she has.</p>

<p>Just a couple of cents worth.</p>

[todd_k.]

<p>Tell him to suck it and use the pictures anyway.</p>

[john_martin19]

<p>Tell mom to dump his butt and use the photos anyway. He won't sue. </p>