Videographer problem :(
Dodie Comeau
of our wedding day didn't work. In the beginning you can see two of the
bridesmaids start down the aisle and then it goes black. The rest of the
movie is black, just voices, no picture. It was a very depressing thing
to hear. It was a once in a lifetime day, and now there is no tape. He
told my mom to call him when she has decided on how much to pay him for
his services. What price should we pay for his services? He came, ate,
and was in our face all day, and now there is nothing to show for him
being there, just voices (which I would still like to listen to). Good
thing our pictures were beautiful! My mom asked him why he didn't check
to see if the tape was working and he told her that he did not want to
miss anything. She was mad, instead of missing 2 min. he missed the
whole thing. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do or how much
to pay him? Personally, I don't believe he deserves anything.
Dodie (who loves her baby more than anything)
Liz & Donny
What were the terms of his contract? Even if you did not have a contract
with him, I don't think he could do much by bringing you to court for not
paying. I mean, he was hired to make a moving picture of your entire
wedding. He did not, and I don't think he should be paid, either. If I had
screwed up so badly, I would call the couple immediately to apologize and
tell them that no payment was required! I would call him as soon as
possible, and tell him that you feel it's ridiculous to pay him a dime when
he did not render the services and product he was contracted to provide.
Liz
Jerry Hammond
services which he failed to do...I don't see where there's any question
where you stand--you don't owe the vendor shineola.
Best,
Jerry
In article <37B8E362...@kootenaytrader.com>,
Do...@kootenaytrader.com says...
Ron Ng
>of our wedding day didn't work.
Why does it matter? You didn't want to get married anyway.
>Dodie (who loves her baby more than anything)
Not enough to get married before conceiving it.
Ron Ng Knows!
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
Sorry to have to say this about
another videographer, but,
sue him.,
he owes You money.,
on basis of "Errors and Omissions"
You are past the point of resolving
this on your own.,
you need to go to court and
let the judge/court decide.
Good luck,
T.R.
Christiane E. Rutyna
> Sorry to have to say this about
> another videographer, but,
> sue him.,
> he owes You money.,
> on basis of "Errors and Omissions"
Well, I don't see how he owes her money...sure, she doesn't have a tape,
but she's also not going to pay him for it. So he's already lost a day of
work and the materials (tape, batteries) that he used. And if he gives
her the tape with voices, at least she has SOMETHING. People in this
country are WAY too lawsuit-crazy. Sheesh!
Christi
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
then just the first few minutes??
In keeping with the spirit of alt.wedding,
I'd be willing to help do a wedding
video using what you have, what
your friends/family may have (video),
combined with pictures (if you have
pro shots, I would need a release/
permission to copy their pix to video).
All I ask is you cover S/H and materials.
good luck,
T.R.
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
The courts do allow a plantiff to
pursue based on "Error's and Omission's".,
The videographer had a contract
to perform and failed to do so.
I also find it hard to believe that a
"Professional" Videographer did
not check his/her tape the entire day.
I check my tape (in-camera( every several shots
as to be sure everything is okay,
tape, and battery, etc.
T.R.
Internet Real Estate
> as to be sure everything is okay,
> tape, and battery, etc.
> T.R.
Does that mean you stop and check in the middle of the ceremony (since it
is "one" continuous shot)? I've had a video head to clog in the middle of
the ceremony. No way to know until after the music stops and we check
video on the way to the reception. Luckily it was a two camera job that
day, and the primary camera worked perfectly. Refunded the fee for the
second camera of course.
.....
------------------------------------
Internet Real Estate
"Sell Your Home Yourself - And Save Thousands!"
http://www.internet-real-estate.com/
Jal929
>but she's also not going to pay him for it. So he's already lost a day of
>work and the materials (tape, batteries) that he used. And if he gives
>her the tape with voices, at least she has SOMETHING. People in this
>country are WAY too lawsuit-crazy. Sheesh!
I disagree. I think that if his negligence caused her to not have a video of
her wedding day (a once-in-a-lifetime, irreplaceable item that he contracted to
provide) then she should be able to recover damages. I'm sure it isn't just a
money factor to her...it's the knowledge that she doesn't have the video. I
bet if she sues this videographer will learn to check his equipment
periodically throughout the day, and maybe it will keep someone else from going
through this.
Dodie Comeau
that night, and didn't check the tape once. There was plenty of time in
between things to check. I just spoke to my mom and it turns out that I had
misunderstood her. It when blank before the ceremony had started, when
groomsmen arrived. We did not arrive for another 20 min. He just kept
recording everything that was happening, people arriving, etc. He could have
checked then. Anyways we are not going to sue or anything, we're just not
going to pay him.
Dodie
Dodie Comeau
> then just the first few minutes??
>
Yes, my cousin recorded the ceremony and reception. They left before the
dance started. We remember someone else was recording, but haven't
tracked down who the person was.
> In keeping with the spirit of alt.wedding,
> I'd be willing to help do a wedding
> video using what you have, what
> your friends/family may have (video),
> combined with pictures (if you have
> pro shots, I would need a release/
> permission to copy their pix to video).
> All I ask is you cover S/H and materials.
> good luck,
> T.R.
Thank you, that is a very nice offer! We did get professional photos
done. We have not yet received them, just had a glance at them. I could
talk to her about the release, find out about the other videos, and get
back to you. If any of the other tapes missed any of the speeches or
something, is it possible to put some of the talking from the
Videographers tape on there. My mom has said that she has talked to
someone about doing the same type of thing. So I'll let you know what we
decide. Thank you very much.
It is people like you, and of course many others here, that keep this
newsgroup going. It is nice to receive helpful info., and friendliness.
A lot nicer than Ron's unhelpful bantering. I remember that there was a
time that he had some helpful input into people's questions. Now that is
few and far between. He makes accusations based on useless info., calls
other people down, and is completely VULGAR.
Thank you for your help and wonderful offer,
Dodie
Dodie Comeau
I just wanted to congratulate you on your upcoming wedding. I was not
around when the unhappiness happened. I had no idea of your situation,
so I send my regards now. I hope that you and your wife to be have a
wonderful and happy wedding and life together. Congrats you deserve it!
Dodie
RICK5347
>something, is it possible to put some of the talking from the
>Videographers tape on there.
You could produce a very nice video by using still images of that sequence and
dub in the voice. I hope that the videographer is willing to cooperate by
giving you the soundtrack at no charge and the still photographer will release
her images for this. Good luck and keep smiling.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Karen Simmons
Oof. Why? Why jump straight into lawsuit mode without trying to work
something out with him first? Our society is way too litigious and this
is a good example.
I'd say first of all, that the videog is not owed any more money. If
this had happened to me (no photographs due to mechanical error) I would
not only not ask for a balance, I would offer to refund what had already
been paid. In the meanwhile, talk to him and see what he can do as far
as making up for it: can he take some photographs (with permission) and
create a "video" with the sound he has and the images? Ask him for his
suggestions as well.
Karen
--
----------------------------
Karen Simmons, Photographer
Atlanta, Georgia
----------------------------
hillary gorman
*>Well, I don't see how he owes her money...sure, she doesn't have a tape,
*>but she's also not going to pay him for it. So he's already lost a day of
*>work and the materials (tape, batteries) that he used. And if he gives
*>her the tape with voices, at least she has SOMETHING. People in this
*>country are WAY too lawsuit-crazy. Sheesh!
*
*I disagree. I think that if his negligence caused her to not have a video of
*her wedding day (a once-in-a-lifetime, irreplaceable item that he contracted to
*provide) then she should be able to recover damages. I'm sure it isn't just a
You do? You really think that? Ok, what are the damages? If she's not
paying out-of-pocket for psychotherapy to deal with the crisis, or
something along those lines, there are no damages. "Oh poor me, I have no
wedding video, my precious memento I had planned to have has failed to
materialize" is truly sad thing to hear, but it does not coincide with my
understanding of the term "damages" used in a legal sense. Any lawyers
around here to explain further?
I see no reason to sue. The man screwed up big time but did not cause a
material or physical loss to the couple. I suppose he could be sued for
failing to fulfill a contract, but I can't imagine any judge awarding
anything for that except a forgiveness of the debt to the videographer
(which the videographer has already basically granted).
BTW, I do not think Dodie was saying "poor me." I think she comes off
quite level headed and relaxed about the whole thing.
--
hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hil...@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
Karen Simmons
> sounded like they were already past the point of working
> it out between themselves., and time to take the matter
> to someone else.
It didn't sound that way to me. Dodie specifically said: "He told my
mom to call him when she has decided on how much to pay him for his
services. What price should we pay for his services?" Basically it
sounds like he's told them what happened and said "you tell me how you
want me to resolve this". Doesn't sound past the point of anything.
Just my take, of course.
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
I will give you the information and
materials I will need to take care of
this for you, and the shipping
information you will need.
Please email directly at: in...@TRLaz.com
good luck,
T.R.
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
>
>Oof. Why? Why jump straight into lawsuit mode without trying to work
>something out with him first? Our society is way too litigious and this
>is a good example.
sounded like they were already past the point of working
it out between themselves., and time to take the matter
to someone else.
T.R.
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
>Does that mean you stop and check in the middle of the ceremony (since it
>is "one" continuous shot)? I've had a video head to clog in the middle of
>the ceremony. No way to know until after the music stops and we check
>video on the way to the reception. Luckily it was a two camera job that
>day, and the primary camera worked perfectly. Refunded the fee for the
>second camera of course.
We shoot with two cameras,
Camera A, is the primary and we record the "usual important parts"
on that camera, and Do record Only the ceremony higher parts on
that camera/tape, so the camera does start, and stop recording at
times, allowing a quick tape check.,
Camera B., is the continueous back-up and/or reverse angle, and/or
cover shot, and/or the close up shot, depending on what the situation
calls for.
We then do all our editing directly Onto camera A.
T.R.
JF
(hillary gorman) wrote:
> You do? You really think that? Ok, what are the damages? If she's not
> paying out-of-pocket for psychotherapy to deal with the crisis, or
> something along those lines, there are no damages. "Oh poor me, I have no
> wedding video, my precious memento I had planned to have has failed to
> materialize" is truly sad thing to hear, but it does not coincide with my
> understanding of the term "damages" used in a legal sense. Any lawyers
> around here to explain further?
The "value" of the video (what it is worth). Emotional distress. perhaps.
Through his own negligence, the videographer (vg) failed to honor the
contract. Therefore, no money needs to be paid to the vg. In some
situations, there might be no additional damages. One could simply hire
another person to fulfill the contract. Here, it ain't that simple. The
wedding is over, never to happen again. No one else can video the
wedding.
The bride can at the very least recover the value of the video that the vg
promised and failed to make. The vg would have to compensate her, i.e.,
make her whole. He would have to give her money, not just "kindly" decline
to accept her payment.
Has he offered you any money? Told you what his insurance company will
give you?
He appears to be taking advantage of your kindness.
--
JF
Please reply by post.
I do not check this email account for messages.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Jerry Hammond
says...
> Morally, ethically, sure. Legally? What are the damages? Are you an
> attorney?
>
>
>
Though I'm not an attorney--nor do I play one on TV--I must agree with
you. In small claims court the client would have no standing as long as
all monies where refunded by the vendor.
And small claims coust is about as far as this would ever be allowed to
go by the courts.
Best,
Jerry
Jal929
>I see no reason to sue. The man screwed up big time but did not cause a
>material or physical loss to the couple. I suppose he could be sued for
>failing to fulfill a contract, but I can't imagine any judge awarding
>anything for that except a forgiveness of the debt to the videographer
>(which the videographer has already basically granted).
Sorry, but I disagree. It sounds like it was negligence that caused the
problem (failure to check on the tape). And I think that not having a video
you had imagined, had your heart set on , etc., is a big loss. I hired a
videographer that uses 2 cameras, because this is something very important to
me. If some guy screws it up because he didn't know enough to check on the
equipment periodically, then he should be responsible.
hillary gorman
*
*Sorry, but I disagree. It sounds like it was negligence that caused the
*problem (failure to check on the tape). And I think that not having a video
*you had imagined, had your heart set on , etc., is a big loss. I hired a
*videographer that uses 2 cameras, because this is something very important to
*me. If some guy screws it up because he didn't know enough to check on the
*equipment periodically, then he should be responsible.
Morally, ethically, sure. Legally? What are the damages? Are you an
attorney?
--
Jal929
>attorney?
No, I'm not. But I've heard of several lawsuits that have been won based on
emotional distress, pain and suffering (doesn't have to be physical), etc. And
in my book, this would certainly cause me some level of distress.
TRLaz...@yahoo.com
about the "errors and omission's"
that a court/judge could award
damaged Beyond the paid cost of
the video. To protect myself
against any true accident, I put in my
contract that any damages would
not exceed the actual paid cost
of the video.
I was surprised to learn of the
"error's and omission's" thingie!
T.R.
John Stallings
protected as you think you are. A relatively inexpensive chat with a
good contract lawyer would quickly tell you exactly what's so. Without
checking, I'd be concerned about the possibility of consumer
protection legislation (probably at the state level) which might
invalidate the clause on some such basis as illegally restricting
someone from full due process or such. Ya never know. The law is full
of unexpected and sometimes nasty surprises. We spent the grand total
of about $200 having a very good contract lawyer draw up our contract.
It could have been a great deal more, but I did my homework beforehand
and was able to tell her exactly what I wanted -- in English. She
translated it into Contract -- and convinced me to modify those parts
she felt were unenforcable or contrary to law. It was money well
spent, just for the peace of mind.
As for the thread's subject: Same advice! Chat with a lawyer. Last
time I did that, I think it cost me $50 to get expert legal advice.
Having them *do* something on your behalf is when it gets expensive;
opinions are (relatively) cheap.
John Stallings
Jo...@WedArt.NoSpam.com (remove the NoSpam to reply)
www.WedArt.com
JMH
> I was "shocked" when I found out
> about the "errors and omission's"
> that a court/judge could award
> damaged Beyond the paid cost of
> the video. To protect myself
> against any true accident, I put in my
> contract that any damages would
> not exceed the actual paid cost
> of the video.
> I was surprised to learn of the
> "error's and omission's" thingie!
> T.R.
From the as yet unpublished Buyer Beware Bulletins, I present Bulletin
number 11:
Buyer Beware Bulletin No. 11 - Weasel Clauses:
Check your contract ahead of time for "weasel clauses" which release the
videographer from any responsibility for equipment failure, etc. The
worst "weasel clause" I ever saw was below:
"John Video and third parties take the utmost care with respect to
following
Client(s) requests, exposure, development and delivery of video tape(s),
film, prints etc.. However in the event that John Video or third parties
fail to comply with the terms of this agreement by an act-of-God,
negligence, accident, or any other avoidable or unavoidable action in
performing the function(s) set forth in this agreement, John Video's
liability is limited to a pro-rated refund of retainer at John Video's
discretion. The Client(s) is hereby notified and agrees that videography
is
not an exact science and that on occasion video tape, audio, film or
other
materials and chemicals may prove defective. In the event that any video
tape, film, photographs etc. prove to be defective because of defects in
materials, equipment, chemicals or procedures, the undersigned Client(s)
agrees specifically to waive any claims of negligence, breach of
warranty or
contract, mental harm or distress."
Note the weaseling out of any liability for "negligence" or the
liability limited to a "pro-rated refund" of the *RETAINER* at the
videographer's *discretion*. This is an unacceptable contract clause
because it gives you almost no remedy if the videographer is negligent
and ruins the coverage of your wedding. This is a slightly different
"weasel" clause:
"Producer cannot be held responsible for lack of coverage through no
fault of their own. This includes, but is not
limited to, lack of pertinent information, loss in shipping, loss or
damage
by third party handlers, malfunction of equipment,
inadequate lighting or Act of God."
Again, this is an marginally acceptable contract clause for the reasons
that malfunction of equipment should not be an issue for the imaging
vendor who has a spare camera available in those emergencies and who
ensures his equipment is maintained and functioning properly prior to
your event. Also, with the state of the art cameras available today
that can capture images in any available lighting, "inadequate lighting"
should not be an issue.
This is the better contract clause:
"In the unlikely event that a problem arises whether due to
lateness, no show, accident, neglect, human error, loss of materials,
acts
of God, equipment or other failures and the studio is unable to provide
any
videotape, all payments paid will be refunded."
At least with this contract clause, you are guaranteed a fair remedy
although the videographer is still trying to weasel out of any
responsibility for his/her neglect and human error.
Christiane E. Rutyna
> Sorry, but I disagree. It sounds like it was negligence that caused the
> problem (failure to check on the tape). And I think that not having a video
> you had imagined, had your heart set on , etc., is a big loss. I hired a
So if I wanted a copy of a limited print movie, and I didn't get it
because the video store didn't order enough copies, I should sue them? Or
should I only sue them if I asked them to get it, something went wrong,
and they couldn't???
Christi
John Stallings
resulted in his losing all the film shot for a wedding. He was sued
for $75,000 (not in small claims court, obviously). He ended up
settling (on the advice of attorney) out of court for $5,000, which is
still several times his original fee. And his contract had a great
Weasel Clause. Worse, his Errors and Omissions insurance refused to
pay a dime based on his actions constituting negligence.
He had shot two weddings that day. He stopped by his studio afterwards
to drop off gear and film. He put the rolls of film on top of a stack
of folded paper bags -- which just happened to be sitting on top of a
garbage can. Saturday night was the night the cleaning people came in.
They threw every roll of film from two weddings out with the garbage.
The photographer spent Sunday at the city dump, but never found a
single roll. He immediately refunded all monies paid. One bride worked
with him to do recreations. The other sued for damages and won an out
of court settlement.
John
jer...@anv.net (Jerry Hammond) wrote:
>In article <slrn7rkb9s....@unix3.netaxs.com>, hil...@hillary.net
>says...
>> Morally, ethically, sure. Legally? What are the damages? Are you an
>> attorney?
>>
>>
>>
Jerry Hammond
You're gonna have to cite names before I'll buy this outragous of an
example.
Courts have been notorous for replacing the cost of the image only...not
the emotioinal or future value as you imply here. Ask any photographer
who've had a stock agency "misplace" a slide.
Also, you'll need to include the insurance company name...even in the
event of gross negligence--unless a rider stipulates otherwise--the
insuring company must cover this event.
Best,
Jerry
In article <37badba8...@news.interbahn.net>, jo...@wedart.nospam.com
says...
Karen Simmons
> although the videographer is still trying to weasel out of any
> responsibility for his/her neglect and human error.
So Jeanne -
What would you consider a FAIR contract that protected BOTH the client
and the photographer/videographer. There are unscrupulous clients out
there who will try to milk any situation for the most - or take
advantage of a lapse in contractual wording to their own advantage. So
in a perfect world, what wording would you recommend a vendor use in
their contracts to protect themselves AND their clients? What kind of
wording did your contracts have?
Karen
John Stallings
I can appreciate your skepticism -- but this did happen exactly as
described. And, no, I cannot name names. I do know the names involved,
and even know the photographer personally, but he requested that this
incident be allowed to die quietly (i.e, never mentioned in the
context of his name), and I accepted that request.
If you find this too outrageous to accept only my word for it, then
we'll just have to leave it there, with you not accepting it. That's
OK with me. It doesn't offend me not to be believed by someone who
doesn't know me, and I have no wish to provoke you by suggesting that
somehow you are at fault for not believing me. Were the tables turned,
it could as easily be me not believing.
I would like to point out that I have no axe to grind -- and no
motivation for lying.
One small point, though: The Errors and Omission insurance issued by
PPA very specifically and clearly disallows reimbursement for
negligence.
Peace,
John Stallings
Stallings & Stallings Photography
Jo...@WedArt.NoSpam.com (Remove the NoSpam to reply)
www.WedArt.com
Nathan Shafer
>
> This is the better contract clause:
>
> "In the unlikely event that a problem arises whether due to
> lateness, no show, accident, neglect, human error, loss of materials,
> acts
> of God, equipment or other failures and the studio is unable to provide
> any
> videotape, all payments paid will be refunded."
Except that this offers the videographer no protection, should
the bride say, "That's nice, and we'll take the money, but in
addition I am going to sue you for the full cost of staging
an $80,000 wedding." That's essentially saying, "I am going to
ruin you because you were human and made a mistake on my Special
Day (TM)."
Sorry, but I find that unacceptable.
> At least with this contract clause, you are guaranteed a fair remedy
> although the videographer is still trying to weasel out of any
> responsibility for his/her neglect and human error.
Weasel how? I would say that refunding the money, and eating the
materials cost incurred, is the essence of taking responsibility,
even in the event of failures that are *NOT* the videographer's
fault!
Or is it your position that there is NO mishap that can occur that
is not the fault of some vendor, somewhere?
- Nathan
Jal929
>because the video store didn't order enough copies, I should sue them? Or
>should I only sue them if I asked them to get it, something went wrong,
>and they couldn't???
>
This is completely different. One, there was a contract with the videographer,
that was not fulfilled. Attempting to buy something at a retail store isn't a
written contract. Two, it isn't something that can be obtained elsewhere -
once the day is over, it can't be redone. I'm not saying that suing is the
only option - but if you are familiar with contract law, you will know that in
many cases it is an option, depending on the wording of the contract, and the
circumstances.
Wende A. Feller
>
> John Stallings wrote:
>
> > I personally know a photographer who had a similar breakdown which
> > resulted in his losing all the film shot for a wedding. He was sued
> > for $75,000 (not in small claims court, obviously). He ended up
> > settling (on the advice of attorney) out of court for $5,000
> And why shouldn't the damaged client get a large settlement? On one
> hand, image vendors tout their services are the most important aspect of
> the wedding, that they "create the day", that the images they create
> will become treasured family heirlooms and preserve fragile memories.
Snort! She's right, you know. If the "only thing you'll have left after
the wedding day is your photos," it is indeed a tragic loss worthy of
compensation.
Having kept my groom too (and a guestbook full of kind thoughts, a cool
gold ring, a wedding gown and veil taking up tons of closet space, some
leftover cake, nifty gifts, and a bag of pastel paper plates that's been
sitting on the kitchen floor for 361 days now), I personally would have
held out for a *lot* of free formals. But we'd never have been able to
get photos with our whole wedding party, since most of them went back to
opposite coasts the day after the wedding. :(
Wende
JMH
> I personally know a photographer who had a similar breakdown which
> resulted in his losing all the film shot for a wedding. He was sued
> for $75,000 (not in small claims court, obviously). He ended up
> settling (on the advice of attorney) out of court for $5,000, which is
>
> still several times his original fee. And his contract had a great
> Weasel Clause. Worse, his Errors and Omissions insurance refused to
> pay a dime based on his actions constituting negligence.
This should not come as a surprise. A vendor can require customers of
their services to sign away the vendor's liability for the vendor's
negligence but historically such contracts do not stand up in court.
IOW, even well worded contracts will not protect a vendor from legal
action if the grounds are negligence.
And why shouldn't the damaged client get a large settlement? On one
hand, image vendors tout their services are the most important aspect of
the wedding, that they "create the day", that the images they create
will become treasured family heirlooms and preserve fragile memories.
Yet on the other hand, when they fail, due to negligence, to provide a
product to the HC, they wonder at the exorbitant legal settlements
judges/juries hand down to compensate the consumer for their loss, which
, if one were to believe some marketing hype of imaging vendors, is far
more valuable than the actual cost of the product.
Jerry Hammond
says...
> One small point, though: The Errors and Omission insurance issued by
> PPA very specifically and clearly disallows reimbursement for
> negligence.
>
>
No sweat. I'm just concerned that your friend's attorney may have allowed
him to settle on a suit in which case law clearly is in his favor.
As for PPA's Errors and Omissions negligence clause--that's worrisome.
They'd have to spell out their obligation and exceptions before I'd drop
a dime for that kind of coverage...then, for what is usually a small fee
I'd pick up an errors and ommision rider from another carrier that kicks
in when the primary fails to cover.
Best,
Jerry
Jerry Hammond
> Snort! She's right, you know. If the "only thing you'll have left after
> the wedding day is your photos," it is indeed a tragic loss worthy of
> compensation.
>
> Having kept my groom too (and a guestbook full of kind thoughts, a cool
> gold ring, a wedding gown and veil taking up tons of closet space, some
> leftover cake, nifty gifts, and a bag of pastel paper plates that's been
> sitting on the kitchen floor for 361 days now), I personally would have
> held out for a *lot* of free formals. But we'd never have been able to
> get photos with our whole wedding party, since most of them went back to
> opposite coasts the day after the wedding. :(
>
> Wende
>
>
I agree with your sentiments, completely!
But, FWIW, photographers notoriously get the short end of the stick in
court. Why? Well, it seems that some time back courts set the standard
that you can not put a monetary value on the emtional or future value of
a photograph...so, when the lab, stock agency, or even wedding couple
"misplace" the slide or negative, the most that many photographers can
hope for is the replacement cost of the material lost and not the
perceived value of the image. And, as a general rule, courts have been
following this line of thinking ever since.
Best,
Jerry
--
jer...@anv.net
WPPI(Wedding & Portrait Photographers International)
John Stallings
post intentionally omitted any and all of my opinions on the subject.
I just wanted to put a "fact" on the table given all the legal
"advice" being thrown around so freely. But being quoted slightly out
of context makes it sound sort of, kind of like I might have felt that
the poor photographer got screwed. (And I don't think anyone was
intentionally quoting me out of context to make me look bad. It just
happened, that's all.) Au contraire -- my personal *opinion* is that
the photographer screwed up big time through an act of negligence
which deprived the B&G of images which they considered to be
priceless. The photographer's attorney figured the court would see it
that way too, which is why they settled out of court.
John
"Wende A. Feller" <vybo...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>JMH wrote:
>>
>> John Stallings wrote:
>>
>> > I personally know a photographer who had a similar breakdown which
>> > resulted in his losing all the film shot for a wedding. He was sued
>> > for $75,000 (not in small claims court, obviously). He ended up
>> > settling (on the advice of attorney) out of court for $5,000
>
>> And why shouldn't the damaged client get a large settlement? On one
>> hand, image vendors tout their services are the most important aspect of
>> the wedding, that they "create the day", that the images they create
>> will become treasured family heirlooms and preserve fragile memories.
>
Katie
snip
>
>I disagree. I think that if his negligence caused her to not have a video of
>her wedding day (a once-in-a-lifetime, irreplaceable item that he contracted to
>provide) then she should be able to recover damages. I'm sure it isn't just a
>money factor to her...it's the knowledge that she doesn't have the video. I
>bet if she sues this videographer will learn to check his equipment
>periodically throughout the day, and maybe it will keep someone else from going
>through this.
I would think that just from the experience of this happening he would
periodically checks his equipment...it shouldn't take a law suit to do
this for him, just the result of losing money and a good reference
should do it!
my 2 cents
Katie
JMH
> In article <37BC4D48...@skypoint.com>, vybo...@skypoint.com
> says...
> > Snort! She's right, you know. If the "only thing you'll have left
> after
> > the wedding day is your photos," it is indeed a tragic loss worthy
> of
> > compensation.
> >
> > Having kept my groom too (and a guestbook full of kind thoughts, a
> cool
> > gold ring, a wedding gown and veil taking up tons of closet space,
> some
> > leftover cake, nifty gifts, and a bag of pastel paper plates that's
> been
> > sitting on the kitchen floor for 361 days now), I personally would
> have
> > held out for a *lot* of free formals. But we'd never have been able
> to
> > get photos with our whole wedding party, since most of them went
> back to
> > opposite coasts the day after the wedding. :(
> >
> > Wende
> >
> >
> Wende--
>
> I agree with your sentiments, completely!
>
> But, FWIW, photographers notoriously get the short end of the stick in
>
> court.
What a pantywaist bunch of whiners! So far this year we have heard from
our resident photogs : "We photographers are underappreciated, underfed,
not paid enough, not respected enough and we get the short end of the
stick in court! After all, we are the only vendors who count in your
wedding."
> Why? Well, it seems that some time back courts set the standard
> that you can not put a monetary value on the emtional or future value
> of
> a photograph...so, when the lab, stock agency, or even wedding couple
> "misplace" the slide or negative, the most that many photographers can
>
> hope for is the replacement cost of the material lost and not the
> perceived value of the image. And, as a general rule, courts have been
>
> following this line of thinking ever since.
Well, Jerry, in the context of this thread where the consumer got
deprived of wedding pictures, it would seem this legal standard benefits
the photographer and not the consumer who cannot get a large settlement
for the loss of perceived value of wedding photo "memories".
Dvparks
>of our wedding day didn't work. In the beginning you can see two of the
>bridesmaids start down the aisle and then it goes black. The rest is black,
just voices, no picture. He told my mom to call him when she has decided on
how much to pay him for his services. What price should we pay for his
services?
>
What service? And it seems to me that he didn't follow through on his
professional obligation, which includes to say the least that there is a
tape/film in the camera, that the camera is in working order, that the audio
portion is working, etc. And to suggest to your mom that doing such a test
check would mean missing the wedding is a lame excuse, because he should have
checked his equipment well before the wedding starts rather than just as the
BMs are starting to walk down the aisle. I'll probably get lots of defensive
emails from video services, but I think this guy deserves nothing. Just
showing up at your wedding was not his responsibility. Accidents and problems
do happen, I know, but he told your mom that he didn't want to bother to check
his equipment before the wedding started. That's irresponsible.
Kelli Hughes
the contract says. Did it have any provisions for this or not?
Don't be too upset. It is just a video. We did not hire a videographer,
and I'm really glad we didn't. We didn't want to pay for it, have someone
in our face and our guests' faces all day, and wear microphones. We taped
the ceremony ourselves, and my granfather had his camcorder at the
reception, but that is all. I have watched it 2 times, and that is all.
The still pictures are so much more lasting. That is why we didn't want to
pay for the video. We have had friends pay for the video, and they did not
like having the guy there at all. Do you know if anyone had a video camera
there or not? Ask around. We got really good video clips from my
grandfather's and good still pictures that other people took.
Kelli
Dodie Comeau wrote:
> We just heard from the videographer that my mom hired. The tape he made
> of our wedding day didn't work. In the beginning you can see two of the
> bridesmaids start down the aisle and then it goes black. The rest of the
> movie is black, just voices, no picture. It was a very depressing thing
> to hear. It was a once in a lifetime day, and now there is no tape. He
> told my mom to call him when she has decided on how much to pay him for
> his services. What price should we pay for his services? He came, ate,
> and was in our face all day, and now there is nothing to show for him
> being there, just voices (which I would still like to listen to). Good
> thing our pictures were beautiful! My mom asked him why he didn't check
> to see if the tape was working and he told her that he did not want to
> miss anything. She was mad, instead of missing 2 min. he missed the
> whole thing. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do or how much
> to pay him? Personally, I don't believe he deserves anything.
>
> Dodie (who loves her baby more than anything)
JMH
> JMH wrote:
> >
> > This is the better contract clause:
> >
> > "In the unlikely event that a problem arises whether due to
> > lateness, no show, accident, neglect, human error, loss of
> materials,
> > acts
> > of God, equipment or other failures and the studio is unable to
> provide
> > any
> > videotape, all payments paid will be refunded."
>
> Except that this offers the videographer no protection, should
> the bride say, "That's nice, and we'll take the money, but in
> addition I am going to sue you for the full cost of staging
> an $80,000 wedding." That's essentially saying, "I am going to
> ruin you because you were human and made a mistake on my Special
> Day (TM)."
>
> Sorry, but I find that unacceptable.
>
>
Unfortunately, the courts view negligence as a criminal offense, not a
civil one. I might be negligent while driving and kill your wife. It
was just an accident, a product of human error but you would be
justified in sueing me up one side and down the other for your loss.
Negligence in imaging work means the vendor did not have adequate back
up equipment, did not check his equipment to see if it was working the
day of the event and was careless in the handling of film. In the case
where the photographer had the film rolls from two weddings thrown away
because he placed them on the trash can, that was sloppy handling of the
film and he was negligent.
And incidently, if someone where to have an $80,000 wedding, it would
behoove them to have two different photography studios documenting it.
But given the territoriality of photographers, this probably would have
gotten ugly.
>
RICK5347
<<Unfortunately, the courts view negligence as a criminal offense, not a
civil one. I might be negligent while driving and kill your wife. >>
Oh please! The reach you make Ms Hinds to criticize wedding vendors is getting
pretty long now!
Negligence resulting in a criminal act is a criminal offense but do you REALLY
mean to imply that civil negligence, as in screwing up some wedding photographs
(or wedding cake, or flowers), is the same thing?
While I have no problem at all with the vendor, whomever he may be in whatever
specialty, being liable for some civil damages IF it can be proven that he was
negligent I doubt even Ms Hinds in her delusional world could find a judge that
would turn such a civil act over to a district attorney for criminal
prosecution.
Once again Ms Hinds. I will ask you for factual data including a case study to
back up your claims.
<< I might be negligent while driving and kill your wife. It was just an
accident, a product of human error but you would be
justified in sueing me up one side and down the other for your loss.>>
That example crosses the barrier between civil and criminal acts. A similar
example is the case of O. J. Simpson who was tried twice in criminal and civil
courts.
<<Negligence in imaging work means the vendor did not have adequate back
up equipment, did not check his equipment to see if it was working the
day of the event and was careless in the handling of film. >>
The EXACT point many of us made when you advocated hiring an amateur to shoot
weddings, and cited your own PROMISED BUT STILL UNSEEN examples of great
amateur wedding photography.
Any truely professional wedding photographer, be they a "weekend warrior" or
full time will have back up equipment for all his equipment. As a consumer you
have the right to ask about that issue, and you should.
To cut Ms Hinds off at her keyboard, I am in no way defending the specific
vendors or their acts that this thread is based on.
<<And incidently, if someone where to have an $80,000 wedding, it would
behoove them to have two different photography studios documenting it.
But given the territoriality of photographers, this probably would have
gotten ugly.>>
Ignoring your obvious reach to dig at photographers, would you please explain
how TWO studios instead of ONE studio would be beneficial? Do you mean two
photographers or two different studios?
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Jerry Hammond
rick...@aol.com says...
> Ignoring your obvious reach to dig at photographers, would you please explain
> how TWO studios instead of ONE studio would be beneficial? Do you mean two
> photographers or two different studios?
>
>
for her.
Let her rant, Rick. Only the foolish and most gullible will believe or
follow her circular arguments and zero sum summations.
Best,
Jerry
RICK5347
>follow her circular arguments and zero sum summations.
Thanks Jerry.
And her circles seem to be getting looser and looser by the day.
jaime
that's something you want anyway, and if you tell him you aren't paying
anything, you probably won't get it. I guess it depends on how much you
want it. Personally, I agree that he doesn't deserve a dime. If you
want the video, though, maybe you should pay him for the price of a
tape.
Jaime
JMH
> Jeanne Hinds writes:
>
> <<Unfortunately, the courts view negligence as a criminal offense, not
> a
> civil one. I might be negligent while driving and kill your wife. >>
>
> Oh please! The reach you make Ms Hinds to criticize wedding vendors
> is getting
> pretty long now!
>
> Negligence resulting in a criminal act is a criminal offense but do
> you REALLY
> mean to imply that civil negligence, as in screwing up some wedding
> photographs
> (or wedding cake, or flowers), is the same thing?
NO, you just have a reading comprehension problem. Negligence is
defined legally as a lack of duty of care, whether it is criminal or
civil. Pleading simple human error was responsible for negligence does
not mean one gets the sympathy of the courts and absolution of
responsibility.
>
>
> While I have no problem at all with the vendor, whomever he may be in
> whatever
> specialty, being liable for some civil damages IF it can be proven
> that he was
> negligent I doubt even Ms Hinds in her delusional world could find a
> judge that
> would turn such a civil act over to a district attorney for criminal
> prosecution.
>
Of course not but I never said that. Criminal and civil negligence are
both still based on the premise of "duty of care", however.
Photographer whining about how limits should be set on lawsuit amounts
simply because it would be penalizing simple "human error" overlooks
the fact that the photographer had a "duty to care" to the client that
he/she voluntarily entered into and by not fulfilling that duty of care,
he/she can be liable for negligence. It is the same basis for criminal
negligence, i.e. I have a duty of care to keep my car properly serviced
and if I kill someone because of my error in not doing so, it still
boils down to negligence based on a failure to extend duty of care to
those driving and walking around me.
> Once again Ms Hinds. I will ask you for factual data including a case
> study to
> back up your claims.
Go to findlaw.com and do the search yourself. Law cases involving
vendors neglecting their "duty of care" are not exceptional at all.
> <<Negligence in imaging work means the vendor did not have adequate
> back
> up equipment, did not check his equipment to see if it was working the
>
> day of the event and was careless in the handling of film. >>
>
> The EXACT point many of us made when you advocated hiring an amateur
> to shoot
> weddings, and cited your own PROMISED BUT STILL UNSEEN examples of
> great
> amateur wedding photography.
>
Negligence is not limited to amateurs, Mr. Rosen, as some of the
examples in this thread illuminate. And several photos from that
wedding have already been published on a web page and announced by me
over a month ago. It is not within my "duty of care" to hold your hand
and point these things out hence I am not negligent.
RICK5347
>NO, you just have a reading comprehension problem.
No Jeanne, I have no "reading comprehension problem". Why is it that every
time anyone counters your "factual" statements with logic and real facts you
respond by saying they have a "reading comprehension problem"? It's just that
in your efforts to twist and turn any factual information into something you
can utter against photographers you are like a snake racing zig-zaggedly
througth high grass. You suggested that the wedding vendor (videographer)
could be prosecuted for criminal negligence. I still say you're old tired
dogma of twisting facts holds true here.
>Negligence is
>defined legally as a lack of duty of care, whether it is criminal or
>civil. Pleading simple human error was responsible for negligence does
>not mean one gets the sympathy of the courts and absolution of
>responsibility.
Apples and oranges Ms Hinds, apples and oranges. Civil and criminal courts are
very different arenas. This vendor's negligence is possibly a civil matter but
in no way would it transcend into a criminal court. If the vendor got mad and
punched the client then that act, but still not the lost video, would become a
criminal matter. O.J. Simpson was tried in a criminal court for murder but not
for civil money damages, he was then tried in a civil court not for murder but
for civil damages over the loss to the families of Nicole and Ron. They were
two distinctly different cases unfortunately, IMO, with distinctly different
outcomes.
> Law cases involving
>vendors neglecting their "duty of care" are not exceptional at all.
Once again you are trying to weasel out of what you said. YOU implied, as in
plant the suggestion, that the vendor could be held up for CRIMINAL prosecution
due to his negligence in screwing up the video. THAT is what I responded to
and what you now seem to want to sidestep. Of course there are civil
judgements of simularity on record and I even stated that the videographer
could be held responsible in a civil court but show me ONE criminal judgement
Ms Hinds. Nice (but predictable) try though Ms Hinds.