Photographer is not giving me my wedding photos after agreement!!! Please help :(

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Yeah, so now it's turning into 'you're a meany!' 'No I'm not! You're a meany!' This should end well. </p>

<p>I guess you've already learned your lesson, but seriously, he's got you by the short curlies. Your next text (whatev' happened to emails?) should start with 'Youre right, sorry dude! I was kind of a whiney jerk... ' then you can go on and be like 'wife/fam's been giving me a helluva time about them pics, and I don't want you to get to stressed over it. Tell you what, don't worry about doing any more work, just burn all of them onto a USB stick, and I'll make it worth your while if I can get a copy of them as is by next week - say $150?' </p>

<p>My opinion is: Suck it up, you'll have to really nice if you EVER want to get those pics...</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>I want to keep for the lawyer next week because it will be not just the case for the pictures but some things more. Im going to get a legal advice next week, and if you could provide me with some more information based on of what I gave you already, I would very appreciate it!</em></p>

<p>Okay, I'll bite. Prepare yourself for three possibilities with the lawyer:<br>

(1) Lawyer: 'You mean to tell me you want me to represent you in a claim against some non-professional who you convinced to take pictures of your wedding for $100? Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I thought you wanted to sue some high-end professional photographer who told you your wedding would look like Ivanka Trump's and already charged you $10,000. Uh, no. Goodbye.'<br>

(2) Lawyer: 'I'd be happy to represent you. My charge will be $250 an hour for my time, plus costs that I estimate will be between $200 and $1000, and you have to pay me a $2,000 retainer up front, before I do any work.' (Actually it may well me more than this.)<br>

(3) Lawyer: 'Okay, I won't make any promises--you shouldn't expect much--but I'll try to help you because you [insert one of these alternatives] [a] are now my brother-in-law, saved my mom from drowning the the ocean, [c] have video of me horizontal-dancing with my secretary at the No-Tell Motel and have threatened to send a copy to my wife.'</p>

<p>Seriously, your chance of getting satisfactory redress in the courts seems low. It will take a lot of your time, or cost you a lot of money (<em>waaaaay</em> more than the $100 you paid), or both. Your best bet is to apologize to the photographer and try to be nice and patient from here on out. Good luck.</p>

 

[bernardwest]

<p>This thread is a major disappointment. There's clearly one party in the wrong here, and it is the person who has reneged on their agreement. That he happens to be a "wedding photographer" for a brief moment in time, seems to have the other wedding photographers here fighting over themselves. How someone can seriously say that you "forced" them to shoot your wedding, is ridiculous. And what I find really ironic here, is that wedding photographers, of all people, don't understand that this is about MORE than just $100. A wedding is a (hopefully) one time event, and the pictures can't be recreated after the event. </p>

<p>It's clear you aren't going to get any love here. I'm sorry that you've had this experience here.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>he agreed right away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This contradicts your original claim that "<em><strong>At the beginning he didnt want to do</strong></em><strong> it</strong>...and that<em> ...<strong>finally he agreed on it</strong>."</em> Whatever credibility you had as to this story has been lost. If we heard the other person's versions of events, its likely to be dramatically different than the version we have been given.</p>

<p>It also appears that you are not interested in considering the advice everyone has provided here and merely wish to obtain affirmation of your per-conceived notions about the situation. Its becoming more clear as to why the other person would react negatively to the situation.</p>

<p> </p>

[bernardwest]

Some of the advice has to be seek legal redress. The OP is following that advice. Are you perhaps upset because he isn't following <i>your</i> advice?

[MichaelChang]

<p>If the situation described is real, then I would have to agree with Bernie West's comment above. </p>

<p>To appease the photographer with more money than the original agreement is tantamount to caving in to extortion. Legalities aside, a gentleman's handshake is a gentleman's handshake even if you got the raw end of the deal.</p>

<p>I'm sure no one enter into the agreement with malice. Both parties likely grossly underestimated the amount of work involved, especially the photographer if he finds out how much wedding photographers are typically paid will likely feel cheated to further aggravate the situation.</p>

<p>All this can be resolved amiably if both parties are willing, even if it means revising the original agreement in light of what is newly learned by both parties. Lawyer are there to resolve a situation when two parties sitting across the table can not resolve differences by themselves. In this instance, I think there is a great deal of incentive for both parties to resolve this matter without further ill feelings, hostility, or escalation. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If there was no written contract, there can't be a breach of contract.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eschewing a discussion as to this particular case, the statement above is nonsense. If verbal contracts could not be breached, there would be no such thing as verbal contracts which there obviously are.</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Well said Michael Chang. Totally agree with you</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>There's clearly one party in the wrong here</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP has already changed the story. Moreover, there was no discussion about any actual contract terms about time of delivery. Merely, post parol talk about when and a description of a deteriorating relationship by someone who seems to be rather hard headed. Plus, the amount of time predicted easily could have been underestimated may someone so unseasoned. The guy may be taking his time now but there is no "clear" breach here yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That he happens to be a "wedding photographer" for a brief moment in time, seems to have the other wedding photographers here fighting</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Contributors here tend to pounce when they hear one of their own fails to abide by contractual obligations. In this instance, they appear to be considering the context of the situation and probably harbor some doubt as to the accuracy of the portrayal provided here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How someone can seriously say that you "forced" them to shoot your wedding, is ridiculous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much everyone else recognizes that the word isn't being used literally. That the OP's original story featured some pressure to do the shoot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find really ironic here, is that wedding photographers, of all people, don't understand that this is about MORE than just $100.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, contributors know this. They are providing perspective for the OP to think about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Someone on the first page even had the brainsnap to suggest "next time you do this"... Oh yes. Next time I get married, I'll definitely not make that mistake. Wait on, am I getting divorced??</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was a classic figurative type discussion. No one is actually predicting the future. You're reading in to things too literally.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is following that advice. Are you perhaps upset because he isn't following <em>your</em> advice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP is doing that regardless of the advice. So we are told anyway. It does not appear that they are seeking or considering any actual advice.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If the situation described is real</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which one? The story has already been changed as it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To appease the photographer with more money than the original agreement is tantamount to caving in to extortion... ...All this can be resolved amiably if both parties are willing, even if it means revising the original agreement in light of what is newly learned by both parties.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Extortion one minute. Mere revision the next.</p>

[bernardwest]

I don't see where the story has been changed.

 

This is simple. An agreement was made. One party has paid up-front, and the other party hasn't delivered. Not sure why the need to be so disrespectful to the OP. I'll be steering clear of this sub-forum in the future if this is the state of play here.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>MODERATOR NOTE:</strong><br>

Keep the commentary ON the TOPIC -<br>

and NOT directed AT a PERSON.<br>

Thank you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[cricketprints]

I agree with Wouter and I also believe you should offer to pay him for edited photos. You

basically paid him enough to drive there. I only read half the replies so I apologize if it's

already been said but I personally would never give my raw images to anyone. I suggest

you offer to pay for edited images. My guess is he was not happy with how they turned

out. Maybe he realized how much work goes into editing a wedding & calculated how

little he is getting paid.

 

I suggest you apologize just as Wouter suggested & offer another $100 for 25 edited

images. If you like them, make him another offer.

[savagesax]

I of course agree with William W. No need to get into the faces of people trying to offer help.

 

What Photo.net needs is an attorney thats a photographer and perhaps a contract attorney.

 

I have no idea what the laws are.

 

From past posts from past years you can google some of the wedding posts regarding getting your photos.

 

I don't think that money should be a cause of non delivery. I repeat, I am not a lawyer, however in some states, the Small Claims courts are much more forgiving about signed contracts. Often the facebook talks and cell phone texting and even a verbal agreement could be enough. Please don't jump all over me if I'm wrong.

 

As for the pictures I hate emails, texting, computers in general in this situation. You need to see the person face to face. Perhaps he messed up and deleted the CF or SD cards and your wedding is history.

 

Well it's not the end of the world. Often couples and the families can recreate alot of the photos. You don't have to use the same photographer. Rent the tuxes, often at a big discount, the flowers, whatever it takes to get some really great photo's.

 

Hopefully the photographer still has the images. I know from experience that the SD or the CF cards can be fixed. I did this for a few years, saving wedding photographers images and from these cards. I don't do this anymore. There's a place called drivesavers. You can give them my name and you will get a 10 percent discount.

 

Hope this helps you a bit.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>This is simple. An agreement was made. One party has paid up-front, and the other party hasn't delivered.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What was the delivery date contained in this simple pre-wedding agreement?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>John, the first OP said 1-2 weeks which apparently became more than 5 weeks.</p>

<p>I think we can all agree that the photographer is at least under ethical obligation to act in good faith, which he apparently hasn't having accepted payment. It would be a clear breach of contract if he outright refuses to deliver or stalls indefinitely without an acceptable reason. </p>

 

[jay_hector]

<p>" I just need this event to be photographed that my wife and I could remember it and we could send out some pictures to her family and my family whom couldn't attend the wedding because it happened in another side of the world (US, California). I said I just need to take the pictures, I dont need editing . . . "</p>

<p>" I just need someone to take the pictures and because he has some of the equipment he could just take the shots and it doesn't matter how its gonna turn out."</p>

<p>" They are so important because we also have to go through immigration process and they will be asking for the pictures as well."</p>

<p>Was this photographer shooting a wedding or providing documentation of what appears to be a wedding for immigration purposes? No one else at the wedding took a photo that could be used to document a wedding ceremony for immigration purposes?</p>

<p>If you don't care how the pictures turn out (What if no pics turned out at all?), I'm sure there are plenty of cell phone pics of the event so save yourself the aggravation. Chalk off the hundred bucks as a lesson that if something as important as a wedding and establishing immigration credibility is only worth a hundred bucks to you, you got what you paid for.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Michael,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think we can all agree that the photographer is at least under ethical obligation to act in good faith, which he apparently hasn't having accepted payment. It would be a clear breach of contract if he outright refuses to deliver or stalls indefinitely without an acceptable reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think nobody disputes that. But this OP is just as much party in this chain of events as is the photographer. So far, we only have one side of the story, and that story already changed on a rather vital point. Without hearing the side of the photographer, it's really quite hard to say how things really went down and how this deal was really forged. As the contract is a verbal one, nodoy can quote the factual contents of the contract. So, any advice to go to court because of breach of contract to me seems a slippery slope, as the contract might turn out to be vastly different than what we've heard so far.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Wouter, here's my take on the OP's situation as described, from a lay perspective with no more than common knowledge of the law:</p>

<p>There was "offer and acceptance" as alleged by the OP by way of written communication via Facebook. This forms the foundation for a provable contract. The $100 paid to the photographer constitutes "consideration" which is the second essential element of contract formation, and the third element, "performance", completes the contract.</p>

<p>So, legally, there was a binding contract formed if the first two elements (offer and acceptance, and consideration) exist. Failure to deliver the promised performance therefore constitutes breach of contract.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Wouter, here's a series of basic business law lectures that I have found extremely useful. They are quite generic and adaptable to local specifics.<br>

Here's the playlist:<br>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85480C88E7BC146B">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85480C88E7BC146B</a> </p>

<p>And this lecture is specific to contract law:<br>

<a href="

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Michael, again, I do not dispute the existance of a contract; I understand the premises of these. But being a verbal contract, and having heard only one of the two parties, I am not too certain of the <em>actual content</em> of the contract. The quotes in the second post of the OP are not literal, and leave out any part that would give us a clear understanding on the agreement on the promised performance.<br>

The case would be the inability or unwillingness to deliver according to the contractual terms. Point is, we have no real idea about the actual contractual terms without hearing the other side as well. So saying the OP is right, and the other guy wrong, is premature and biassed.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

"I made an offer for him texting him on Facebook if he would be interested to make an easy 100$ in 3 hours."

 

So how was the "easy" part of the agreement met?

[Marcus Ian]

<p>... and how was the job a mere 3 hours?<br>

That may have been the shooting time, but the 'job' requirements are obviously far far beyond that.</p>

 

[bernardwest]

Can some people not read the OP? He says:

 

"I said I just need to take the pictures, I dont need editing because I didnt want to put more work on his head because the guy is working 40 hours at the starbucks to make a living for himself. ",

 

He didn't want the guy to do any editing at all. The decision to do editing was the guy's decision and was outside of the original contract specification.

 

Sheesh.

[DickArnold]

From my law school of many years ago I learned that there are five elements to a contract; an offer, acceptance of that offer in the exact terms of the offer, a meeting of the minds, legal subject matter, and consideration. I did not finish law school so I am in no way a lawyer, but if one tried to prove that an actual contract existed given the above circumstances it would be, to my mind, very difficult. It works much more easily if there is written evidence of a contract in the eyes of most courts. I suspect there are difficulties with proving a meeting of the two minds in this case. Someone suggested a face to face meeting to resolve these difference. In my former work, I managed major contracts where there are extensive written documents. However, ultimately most significant issues of which I was aware were most efficiently resolved by verbal, face to face agreement before being codified in a contract change. The same is true here. Get together and work this out. Whether a big agreement or small issues, things are much cheaper in emotional and monetary cost when parties work together. This was true when I managed contracts in my career then and when I contracted for weddings after I retired from that career. I have also been involved when things blew all out of proportion with really bad consequences for both parties in a large contract. Everyone gets hurt.