Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Wedding Photographer releases wedding photo's to Husbands Ex before us!!!

(117 Posts)
ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 06:26:00

Really looking for some idea as to how I stand legally with this.

We used a photographer that my husband knew for our recent wedding photographs. We signed a contract, paid him his money and he did all we asked of him on the day. 3 days later, we were told by my husbands sis-in-law that his ex-wife had posted photos on FB that were obviously taken at the wedding, by the photographer This is all before we had even received them..!!

We contacted him and he basically told us they are his photos and he can sell or do anything he likes with them...

I am just so upset about the whole thing and wondered if we have some way of suing him for what has happened...

Longdistance Thu 04-Oct-12 09:59:45

I wonder if the photographer is shagging the ex wife???

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 10:02:39

Sounds as if I was wrong and you may have a case against him then. In answer to your question I personally wouldn't have any problem with my wedding photographer giving a picture to my husband's ex, but then I have a friendly relationship with all exes. I attended my own exes next wedding with our children so very different situation.

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 10:04:53

Don't worry Wonky. I think prh47 has provided the info and I have found it online. I was wrong smile

MrsjREwing Thu 04-Oct-12 10:09:14

I don't understand the issue with a Mother's friend giving her photo's they took of her kids.

I get you would be annoyed having paid that you didn't get the pictures first.

I don't get a new bride wanting their dh to sue people, doesn't sound like a happy bride.

SoupDragon Thu 04-Oct-12 10:31:51

SO, this could actually just be photos of her own children that she has been given...?

What loss have you actually suffered that make you want to sue or are you just after money?

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 10:41:15

Slander is the communication of a false statement injurious to a person's reputation. Unfortunately, this is not made up and we have the emails where the photographer admits to what he did.

That may be so but you can possibly still get into trouble, like Jiminycrick. What happened in the end Jiminy?

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 11:58:58

Well, it is still ongoing!

Basically, I said a few things on a forum, which were true, warning other people of what had happened to me. This compnay spend a lot of time looking for these complaints.

I sued them for loss of enjoyment as the problems started early, and ruined a lot of the prep for me (which I was really looking forward to).

They claimed they were counterclaiming and suing me for slander (on an internet forum its generally considered slander as it is not that permanent)

It appears that they haven't actually done so, but i'm not sure yet. they may just be trying to scare me...however...despite promises they were never friendly, helpful or provided the service they promised to. The goods they supplied were faulty, they have denied everything and blamed me... they are not nice people, and if someone is going to not do their utmost to ensure your wedding is perfect, then they're not going to care afterwards!!

Someone said there will be plenty more, biggr, exciting days to come, but right now, this was my big day, that I was looking forward to so much. It's horrible when someone stamps all over that...

I'll keep you updated!

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 12:05:47

What was it they were providing? (obviously being careful not to get yourself into more trouble!)

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 12:07:03

Without using the exact words [to stop searching!] the big white thing that you wear on the day!!!

Xenia Thu 04-Oct-12 12:14:17

On the copyright issue yes he owns them. I sometimes think all brides and grooms should spend about 5x on pre marrigae counselling and financial and legal classes than they do on silly dresses and cakes. You both chose not to pay a higher fee to own copyright in the images. However if they were privately commissioned then the person commissioning them has some rights. The thing is here though these are photos of the poor lady's children - she only posted photos of her own children.

What you really need to concentrate on is - how can I be nice, tolerant kind and loving so that over the next 30 years photographs, new husbands, ex wives and step chidlren realise how nice and tolerant I am. I am not getting much of a tolerance vibe here. May be I should add pre marriage therapy to the financial issues suggestion too.

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 12:35:59

Slightly harsh Xenia. Something's not silly if it matters to someone.

wonkylegs Thu 04-Oct-12 12:59:40

Xenia - if you read my earlier posts you would know that your interpretation of the copyright act is flawed (common misinterpretation) and that the photographer needs to seek permission before distributing images to other parties or using for advertising (clause in act). Copyright is the right afforded to the photographer that others are not able to 'copy' (use) the images without his permission as the 'artist' which is a separate matter and should not be confused.

apachepony Thu 04-Oct-12 13:07:50

It doesn't matter whether they were of ex's children or not. The photographer was engaged to take the couple's wedding photos, and certainly should not have given them to ( a potentially hostile) third party without the bridal couple's consent.

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 13:56:24

Jiminy. That's awful! I would want to know what they were like if i were buying one of those from them. I don't know all about the laws involved but i would have thought it was very common to get comments about any company, good and bad on the internet. How are we to know otherwise.

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 14:08:22

I know, that's what thought. It was on a wedding forum, it was for public interest only. If I was interested in a company that was supplying something so important, I would want to know the good and the bad. However, they are claiming I made it all up. Even stating that the dress coming apart on the day isn't actually it coming apart, and doesn't really matter !! [I have pictures btw] they have no morals.
They have also lied and said I made phonecalls to another company slagging them off. I know this other company and when I asked them they were pretty shocked and denied it [i believe them]
However it doesn't stop them trying to sue me, and they expect i'll back down cause I can't afford a slander case in high court!

What Xenia said.

Poor children, if they are aware that their new step-mum and their dad is suing their nice neighbour, who gave their mum a couple of nice photographs of them in their wedding finery, which were then proudly displayed on Facebook.

Please remember to start married life as you intend to go on......

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 14:25:17

Seeing as you have the photos to prove it hopefully they will back down.

AThingInYourLife Thu 04-Oct-12 14:32:46

I think plenty of people would be pissed off if the first person to receive and publish photos from their wedding was a 3rd party.

Feckbox Thu 04-Oct-12 14:34:17

agree with Xenia, and I really can't understand why this is bothering you to the extent you want to sue.

Are you not happy that your husband's first wife wants to show off her kids looking nice at his subsequent wedding to you?.

Or is it the fact that she saw ( and shared) the photos before you? I admit that was a bit crass of her but she probably did not think it through.

Anyway, it's never nice to be upset , especially over stuff that is meant to be happy so I hope you feel ok about it all soon . Please Don't let it spoil your memories of the day

littlecrocodile Thu 04-Oct-12 14:38:15

The legalities will very much come down to wording within the contract you signed. The copyright, consent etc rights are important but a contract could alter what you'd expect from these anyway.
Are these photos that appeared on the ex's page ones that are also in your official album/set that he supplied or could they be seen as additional snaps he took, outside of his official role so to speak?
Either way, whether he's legally or morally right or wrong, in the grand scheme of things is it worth the aggravation of persuing things? If you only found out about the FB photos in such a round about way it's unlikely if many people you know saw them and if they're just to show the kids in their wedding finery (assuming this is the case?) has any real damage been done? I understand the principle of it sticks but sometimes it's easier just to let things go and enjoy these early days of marriage as you should be.

Xenia Thu 04-Oct-12 14:47:18

Yes think of love, consideration, peace, tolerance and how you can make the ex wife feel very very good. I get a trouble and strife kind of feeling from this thread,. May be meditation and prayer might help more than legal action.

This is the section some of us and littlec must mean:
85(1)A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have—

(a) copies of the work issued to the public,

(b) the work exhibited or shown in public, or

(c) the work [F1communicated to the public];

and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.

Soi the question is who commissioned it? Presumably the husband or may be the new wife. Secondly were these the commissioned ones or extra he took. Let us assume thye were the set ones he took under the commission. Nextquestion is has he breached any of a b or c.
I azm not sure relaasing the photos to the childreni n the photos is releasing them to the public.

So the only remaining issue is whether there is some kind of action against the ex wife as that person may have put them in public - is it a private or public facebook setting?

Read the contract terms with the photographer too.

quietlysuggests Thu 04-Oct-12 14:49:18

The photog is stupid or nasty.
No other reason really.
i would be furious and would seek legal advice for sure.
Sue his ass.
Let him prove it wasn't malicious.

snigger Thu 04-Oct-12 16:01:00

I think there would be no issue here if the people who contracted the pictures, the bride and groom, who were wholly behind the pictures actual existence, had been shown the courtesy of being given the pictures first.

If I rented a room for a wedding, I would feel let down if the owners of said room let my partner's ex in for a bit of a look-see to check out the decorations an hour before.

I think this was terribly disloyal of the photographer if they were genuinely a mutual friend, but ultimately when ill-natured games are being played it's best to bow out with grace than go fetch your bat.

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 17:00:50

I think when you ask someone to play a part in your wedding day, such as a photographer you are placing a lot of trust in them and this man has broken your trust. It would make me feel a bit ill to think that when he was taking the photos he was already planning on giving copies and first look to the grooms ex! (assuming it was actually planned in advance) Very strange and disloyal to the person why is paying his fee! His loyalty should have been to you and your husband. Makes you wonder what the relationship is between the photographer and the ex. Friends i assume?

Its also occurred to me that relations couldn't have been good between you and your husband op, and his ex. If they were good she would have just asked if she could have pictures from the day of her children, or one of you would have offered. So it wouldn't have been necessary for her to be so sneaky.

Also, your reaction to one of the posters on here was unnecessarily spikey and harsh when they were just offering an opinion in a non aggressive way, which makes me wonder if you are the difficult one here and if in fact i was right above about you being difficult with the ex, which could have caused this whole problem the first place (still unprofessional of the photographer though).

Iburntthecakes Thu 04-Oct-12 17:11:53

I think it's very odd of the ex-wife actually. Surely she has hundreds on photos of her children in all manner of clothes and situations. To get photos from a time special to her ex husband and new wife strikes me as very odd. As someone else said, if they were all on friendly terms then she could have asked for a photo from the B&G. If I were the first wife I wouldn't want to cause any upset by posting photos that I hadn't been given even if they were of my own children. Personally, if I'm given a photo of my children I always ask the person who took the photos/who they belong to if they mind if I want to put them on facebook.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now