Am I in breach of wedding photography contract?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/21/2011 08:24:17 PM · #1

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:18:45.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/21/2011 08:56:15 PM · #2

OK, I have a few comments here, but would help if we can see some of the images and possibly some of the `new` images.

However, I think if she is saying she dropped you from shooting their wedding because she didnt like the images, but still wants a copy of them, then surely they can`t be that bad? Also, she must of seen your work beforehand so knew exactly your style of photography (something that still annoys me with a lot of my clients) - it sounds like this new bunch of images are something you wouldn`t personally do and something that the client should never of expected from you.

Sounds a toughie!

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

08/21/2011 09:01:49 PM · #3

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:18:15.

David Ey

Nikon D80

08/21/2011 09:09:14 PM · #4

shaeffer does not work

08/21/2011 09:10:33 PM · #5

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:19:12.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/21/2011 09:11:25 PM · #6

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:18:05.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/21/2011 09:19:08 PM · #7

Facebook link doesnt work..

However, checking out your shots they are not bad my any means - if I had one complaint that would be to try and keep your processing style consistent throughout - there are numerous processing styles in there and whilst it may be good to show couple `what can be done` - its normally best to keep the photos displayed to a bare minimum (from a pre-wedding shoot) so the excitement and `freshness` is retained - I found myself getting bored going through these, and there are a few that could of done with being dropped due to the expression of one of the couples face or focus issues. Also, try only to use the `dutch angles` where the photo benefits from it - not to try and make it `quirky` - I used to overuse the effect a lot and have ruined a lot of perfectly good shots by using this technique.

Other than that, I will have a re-read of your T&Cs in the morning when my head is clearer and let you know what would be a good way to proceed.

Subnote - dutch angles for a challenge suggestion - there you go DPC, you can have that one for free.

Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4.0 ED AL AF

08/21/2011 09:26:45 PM · #8

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:17:48.

alohadave

Pentax K-5

08/21/2011 09:42:23 PM · #9

Originally posted by PhotoTess:

First, I would like to apologize for my lack of involvement. Life has gotten a little crazy at times :)

Client booked me for wedding and after engagement session writes to me about hiring another photographer because they were not pleased with my photos. They are now threatening to sue for a non-refundable $500.00 deposit because they expected a DVD of the images within seven days of completion, so I am breaching the contract. The contract does not state specifically a DVD of engagement session images is even provided. I did this as a complimentary service. I truly believe what happened is she found a cheaper photographer who gave her for the money and is grasping at straws to get out of this contract with threats. Any input is greatly appreciated!

If you want to make sure that your deposit is non-refundable, make it a retainer, not a deposit.

Originally posted by PhotoTess:

Additional information
Here is my completion schedule quoted from contract:

"Wedding proofs will be made available to CLIENT approximately 4 to 6 weeks after the wedding day in the form of an online proofing gallery. Engagement Session Proofs will be made available to CLIENT approximately 2 to 3 weeks from the date of the session in the form of an online proofing gallery. DVD-Rom data disc of high resolution â��digital negativesâ�� will be delivered to CLIENT within seven (7) days following completion of images (If included in selected package)."

What does 'completion of images mean'? Why do you have "digital negatives" in there, and quoted?

The way it reads to me is that you do the e-session, and the proofs are up in 2-3 weeks. An indeterminate time later, a DVD disc is promised within 7 days. 7 days from when? But what about the wedding pictures? You have mixed two different deliverables in one clause and nothing in it makes sense.

Originally posted by PhotoTess:

The next clause is regarding engagement sessions specifically:

1.ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS: Engagement Session, if included in the CLIENT'S selected package, includes online proofing with the ability to order additional prints and products. Online proofing with ordering abilities will typically be available within 2 to 3 weeks following the session. It is advised that these sessions are scheduled as soon as possible, as dates are limited.

Why do you have sales copy in your contract?

Originally posted by PhotoTess:

Her proofs were made available June 8th. I typically do not send a DVD of engagement session images but do include them with the wedding images. I let clients know, verbally, that if they wish to receive a DVD I would be more then happy to send it out beforehand. She did e-mail me requesting the images on July 23th and they were mailed July 28th. So, she is now left with 70 high-resolution "unsatisfactory images" on a DVD with a copyright release and still does not feel she has been compensated. I, however, had to turn away clients because her date was booked, hence the non-refundable deposit.

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!

Contact a competent lawyer, fast! From the looks of it, you either cobbled together your contract your self, or you got fucked by whomever wrote it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/21/2011 09:48:24 PM · #10

Message edited by author 2011-08-21 22:17:35.

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

08/21/2011 10:02:02 PM · #11

I can't give any legal advice, but as far as the pictures go most seem fine. I think I would have trimmed down the amount of the photos that I sent to them. It seems you may have included all of the photos instead of going through and taking out a few that are out of focus. I noticed a few where the guy was especially out of focus, those should have not been shown to the client. It looks like you shot these at their home, which is fine but there were a few backgrounds that made the photos look more like a snapshots in front of their home than professional photos. I might have taken a few of those out before sending them to the client as well.