Problems with our wedding phographer

LOD

Hi,
Apologises for the long post
We are having some problems with our wedding photographer. He is a friend of my husband’s family. We booked him because of this. My husband did all the dealing with our photographer before the wedding and it was all verbal. We got a good price €550. I thought that it was a mate’s rate price and because he was only starting out on his own (He had been working with his Dad before this). I now feel we got what we paid for but am still looking for some advice on what to do next.

We got married in July ’13 and received a 60 page photo-book album September ’13 that we are reasonably happy with. We received a disc with around 350 water marked photos on it. I asked could we get the disc without he water mark so we could print them ourselves, he refused saying he wouldn't trust anyone else to print his work. He gave us a price list for getting prints from him. We found it difficult to decide want ones to print and then got side track so it ended up being September ’14 before we actually went about getting photos printed.

I couldn't find the prices he gave me so I emailed him for a price list. The prices this time were way higher that the originals ones. I searched and eventually found the original prices. We got contacted him with the original prices he said they were no longer valid as they were a year old and he no longer printed the pictures himself. The new prices were from the website he had uploaded our photos to and we could order them direct from this. The first picture I wanted to get printed was a panoramic which the company didn't do so I had to go back to the photographer and get him to print it for us. Since then we have been selecting photos and saving them in our online cart to print (while saving money a 5x7 is €5). I tried to access our account two weeks ago and the link was broken. I contacted our photographer to tell him this and he said that the link had expired as it was up since Sept and we had not ordered anything. I know that is 6 months ago but he never told us that there would be a time limit on it. Just like he never told us he was going to stop printing pictures himself and would be using a website that would be more expensive. I had thought that we would be getting a disc to print photos ourselves whenever we wanted and when I realised that this wasn't going to happen I at least thought that we would still be able to print our pictures at our own leisure. He has said that when we know what pictures we want print and when we are going to print them he will reactivate the account.

So I know we can print our pictures but it has to be all at once and as we are still doing up our house I would like to have more flexibility than this. We have had other problems with our photographer along the way but I won’t go in to these now. Any advice on what I should do any would be appreciated. Thanks.

lazygal

Do you have a contract?

We left it a very, very long time before ordering our album and prints. It was over a year after our wedding when we ordered and received them. In our contract there was no time limit specified on the order and once we had paid a set amount (50% of the total I think we paid), we paid the balance on delivery of the album and prints. The link to our online gallery still works, and we're married nearly four years. But you need to check the terms and conditions.

MrWalsh

What good is a disc of watermarked images to you?

Unless a contract stipulates otherwise Id be asking him for a disc of non watermarked images.

Milly33

Sounds like maybe tis a bit of fault on both sides. Ye did take quite a while to come back to him so things do change. Sounds like maybe because he was a friend of the family and all was done verbally things did not get laid out properly..

Maybe you should just try and approach him again (with a keg of beer) and say sorry things got messy etc etc, that since now he doesn't print himself, would he mind if ye paid a flat few to get the cd of photos without the water mark and that's it ye are finished with him

Luckydog69

When we got married we also received a CD of our photos ...all watermarked as well. Perhaps every photographer does this with their wedding work. However herself was on to me about getting some prints done for hanging on walls etc.. We didn't want to remove any photos from the album permanently so here is what I done... I scanned the chosen photo from the album into the computer ( I have a fairly decent scanner) and then printed it off from the computer... Also I just copied ( photocopied ) a chosen photo and obviously used A4 Photo paper and it came out perfect. With the CD of the album I opened one of the photos in Photoshop and painstakingly removed the watermark! Alternatively you could use the following program to do it for you... theinpaint.com Sorry can't post a link to it, just google it and you will find it.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

What good is a disc of watermarked images to you?

Unless a contract stipulates otherwise Id be asking him for a disc of non watermarked images.

He owns the copyright on the images, unfortunately, so he doesn't have to produce a disk of non watermarked images.

Seems like he priced the days shoot low and is now making his profit as he has the client over a barrel. Who is he using online to print his images?

Mrs OBumble

Luckydog69 wrote: »

When we got married we also received a CD of our photos ...all watermarked as well. Perhaps every photographer does this with their wedding work. However herself was on to me about getting some prints done for hanging on walls etc.. We didn't want to remove any photos from the album permanently so here is what I done... I scanned the chosen photo from the album into the computer ( I have a fairly decent scanner) and then printed it off from the computer... Also I just copied ( photocopied ) a chosen photo and obviously used A4 Photo paper and it came out perfect. With the CD of the album I opened one of the photos in Photoshop and painstakingly removed the watermark! Alternatively you could use the following program to do it for you... theinpaint.com Sorry can't post a link to it, just google it and you will find it.

What did you did is illegal.

When you hire a photographer, unless the contract specifically says otherwise, they own the copyright of the images.

Personally I think this sucks, I would never hire a photograhper unless I owned the work that he produced. But that's not the standard agreement.

MrWalsh

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

When you hire a photographer, unless the contract specifically says otherwise, they own the copyright of the images.

But doesnt copyright only apply to commercial use of the image? Presumably the poster just printed off the image for their own enjoyment.

Milly33

Not really.. It is their work so therefore if you wanted copies you should ask. It is nothing major just technically speaking it would have been illegal, just like taking a picture of a nice picture and printing it off without asking the person who done it first

lazygal

When we were getting married I ruled out loads of photographers for certain things (extra charges for staying later than 6pm was a big one). The main one was that we would have the right to print our images ourselves. We went with one that gave us colour corrected and edited pictures on a disk and online gallery, and it stipulated in our contract that we had the right to use these images ourselves. I wanted to make up albums for our parents and print off different shots to the professionally printed ones we chose. There are photographers who hold onto the rights, and while they are entitled to do so we didn't give them our business.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

But doesnt copyright only apply to commercial use of the image?

No. The photographer automatically has copyright and controls the use of his/her images unless otherwise agreed.

Presumably the poster just printed off the image for their own enjoyment.

Think of it like someone burning a CD of a band's music without paying for it, or downloading a movie and watching it without paying for it. People do it even if they aren't supposed to.

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

No. The photographer automatically has copyright and controls the use of his/her images unless otherwise agreed.

Fair enough - bit of a silly notion though, completely unenforceable, he would never ever know if the person removed the watermark and printed the image purely for their own photo album.

Effects

I'd say your best bet is to offer him a figure to have all the edited and retouched images on a disk. Start low for when he pitches a higher price.
When you get that disk make at least two further copies and keep one at someone else's house or online.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

he would never ever know if the person removed the watermark and printed the image purely for their own photo album.

That's why the image res is usually small and it's hard enough to remove a watermark without trace. It should all be discussed before the shoot. The photographer is the one who should bring it up though seeing as he's aware of it and a wedding client usually isn't.

Luckydog69

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

lazygal

Luckydog69 wrote: »

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What did you did is illegal.

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

Did your contract state what the position on ownership of the copywrite was? Ours specifically state that it was ours and we had the right to reprint the images. Other photographers had clauses stating there was to be no reproduction without permission.

Effects

So if I buy a DVD I can make copies and give them away legally to people as long as I don't charge anyone?

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

So if I buy a DVD I can make copies and give them away legally to people as long as I don't charge anyone?

Any DVD I've ever bought has a big spiel on copyright and not allowed to reproduce or show or make copies etc...

Dunno what kind of DVD you mean though (as in, maybe you mean someone privately filming a party in your home?). I suppose if it wasn't explicitly covered in the contract or stated at the start of the DVD then the videographer wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on as you'd have paid him for the service including ownership of the DVD.

Gatica

Luckydog69 wrote: »

What I did was illegal??? How come? I paid the photographer for his work and received the merchandise, he issued me a receipt for same so I am now the rightful owner. Perhaps you would have a valid point if I was making a financial gain by posting said photos on a photo sharing websites and claiming credit for them. Copies I made were for hanging up in the study. You should have stated that the inferred illegality was your own opinion and not have stated as it were actual fact.

Unfortunately that is the case. People's work is automatically copyrighted to them without them having to state it. A photographer will always have copyright over his work, but he may give the client permission to reproduce it at will. Many photographers will have T&Cs surrounding the reproduction of it, e.g. they will only print it themselves, or at least mark (watermark) their work and one may not modify it without their permission.

I'm on a crafts forum and I can tell you that those that make knitting/crochet and such designs are very vehement about their rights/T&Cs concerning their patterns; e.g. just because something is free, doesn't mean there's no copyright involved, they may specify that you can use it for personal use but not commercial (even if you've paid for the pattern), you cannot annotate the pattern, you cannot make copies of it, etc...
The same goes for code you find on the net, it was written by someone and usually have copyright notices and licensing information, especially when it comes to open sources licensed under different GPLs or BSD. It's free to use, but may not be reproduced without abiding by their T&Cs, e.g. making derivative work available to others, etc...

This doesn't help OP anyway. LOD, I can understand why you didn't have a written contract with someone who's supposed to be a friend. It sounds like he's making a bit of a mark-up on his work now by charging high prices for copies of photos. You should chat to him informally about the fact that now that he's no longer printing pictures himself (which is the reason he gave for not giving you the digital images) can he not just give you the copies of the photos. Also say that when you were making wedding shoot arrangements he never told you (seeing as you didn't have a written contract) that he wouldn't give you the photos or that he'd be watermarking them. Since you're doing up your house now, I presume you don't have a lot of time or cash left over, so appeal to his humane side, that you cannot afford such expensive photos especially as you never thought you wouldn't be able to make albums or prints yourself.

Most photographers do stipulate how long they will keep copies of your photos, usually at least a year. So if you lost your copy for example they can give you a new set. However, considering how many weddings some photographers may shoot, it would be unreasonable to expect them to keep all photos from all weddings for evermore. I'm sure they keep their best shots for their own portfolio, but it wouldn't be the whole range of pics one gets as a client.

Effects

MrWalsh wrote: »

I suppose if it wasn't explicitly covered in the contract or stated at the start of the DVD then the videographer wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on as you'd have paid him for the service including ownership of the DVD.

That's not how the law works and ignorance is no excuse for breaking it.
If you get caught speeding at 100kph in a 60kph zone, do you think the excuse you didn't see the sign means you don't have to pay the fine/ticket?

Effects

Gatica wrote: »

However, considering how many weddings some photographers may shoot, it would be unreasonable to expect them to keep all photos from all weddings for evermore. I'm sure they keep their best shots for their own portfolio, but it wouldn't be the whole range of pics one gets as a client.

I'd imagine most decent photographers keep backups going back a long time. Storage is cheap these days.

skallywag

Lazygal wrote: »

Did your contract state...

My reading of the situation is that there was never a contract in the first place and that this was a completely verbal agreement. Which in itself is probably key to the issue it seems ...

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

That's not how the law works and ignorance is no excuse for breaking it.
If you get caught speeding at 100kph in a 60kph zone, do you think the excuse you didn't see the sign means you don't have to pay the fine/ticket?

No, but Im interested to know how (in the example you used), it would come to anyones attention that you had given copies away for free. And if someone did bring it to the videographers attention - if the person who gave the dvd away made no money off it there would be very little to sue for.

Motorists are required to pass driving tests, have a knowledge of the rules of the road and roads are monitored by cameras and the police etc... And there is no commercial aspect to speeding. Its not really a like for like analogy.

Effects

I'm sorry to have to point things out to you using analogies.
There is copyright law. You are not supposed to infringe on someones copyright.
The fact that you do this and are not detected doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright.
You seem to think you have the right infringe someones copyright and break the law just because you want to and you won't get caught doing it.
I'm sorry that you can't understand or grasp the facts of the matter.

Gatica

I agree with Effects on this... Unfortunately, just because there's no one to see you break the law, doesn't mean it wasn't broken. You can swipe something in someone's home and not get caught, it doesn't mean that stealing is not unlawful.
I'm sure there's photographers/videographers there who if they did find out you made copies of their work, may give out but not bother to sue you, or even not get bothered maybe. However, that still doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works is A-ok. Now, that's not to say that lots of people don't go online and download movies, or copy and edit photos, etc.. However, if you're going to talking about the legality of it, unfortunately copyright belongs to the original producer of the work, in this case the photographer, even if you paid him to take those photos, they still belong to him unless he expressly gives this right away to you.

MrWalsh

Effects wrote: »

I'm sorry to have to point things out to you using analogies.
There is copyright law. You are not supposed to infringe on someones copyright.
The fact that you do this and are not detected doesn't mean you are not infringing copyright.
You seem to think you have the right infringe someones copyright just because you want to and you won't get caught doing it.
I'm sorry that you can't understand or grasp the facts of the matter.

Theres no need to be so passive aggressive just because you dont like (or indeed understand) what Im saying.

Take your attitude problem elsewhere, Ive no interest in pandering to it.

MrWalsh

Gatica wrote: »

I agree with Effects on this... Unfortunately, just because there's no one to see you break the law, doesn't mean it wasn't broken. You can swipe something in someone's home and not get caught, it doesn't mean that stealing is not unlawful.
I'm sure there's photographers/videographers there who if they did find out you made copies of their work, may give out but not bother to sue you, or even not get bothered maybe. However, that still doesn't mean that copying copyrighted works is A-ok. Now, that's not to say that lots of people don't go online and download movies, or copy and edit photos, etc.. However, if you're going to talking about the legality of it, unfortunately copyright belongs to the original producer of the work, in this case the photographer, even if you paid him to take those photos, they still belong to him unless he expressly gives this right away to you.

Yeah I wasnt disputing any of that - I was simply interested in how it might come to light and if indeed it did, what might happen in court.

However it appears my curiosity is not welcome in this thread so I bid you good day.

skallywag

MrWalsh wrote: »

I was simply interested in how it might come to light and if indeed it did, what might happen in court

I think that the music CD / movie DVD analogy here is a good one. If I copy a music cd and give it to my friend for free then it is also the case that this is just as unlikely to come to light, but the fact still remains that the law has been broken.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

When we were getting married I ruled out loads of photographers for certain things (extra charges for staying later than 6pm was a big one)

Do you get paid extra for staying late at work and working overtime?

lazygal wrote: »

There are photographers who hold onto the rights, and while they are entitled to do so we didn't give them our business.

Any photographer with half a brain does not give away copyright but will give you a licence for personal use and to print the images as you wish. This is pretty much standard these days and most modern photographers will give you this licence as part of your wedding package.

People confuse copyright with licence all the time. They are not the same but a licence is all anyone ever needs.

lazygal

AndersLimpar wrote: »

Do you get paid extra for staying late at work and working overtime?

Nope, don't get paid overtime. My job is task-based, so if the number of tasks increases, I stay to cover them.

AndersLimpar

lazygal wrote: »

Nope, don't get paid overtime. My job is task-based, so if the number of tasks increases, I stay to cover them.

Self employed people generally get paid by the hour