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...

SoulTrain Thu 04-Oct-12 06:33:06

Why did your husbands ex wife post pictures of your wedding? Was she there? How did she get them?confused

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 06:35:21

Sorry, maybe wasn't clear... The photographer either emailed her copies of the pics or handed them to her....

The photographer is an ex-neighbour of my husbands, so the photographer also knows his ex..

xkcdfangirl Thu 04-Oct-12 06:54:15

Unless you paid a mahoosive addititional fee to get a clause in a contract saying that the resulting photos will be yours, which is unusual, then the photographer is correct - he can do what he likes and you have no legal leg to stand on.

Doesn't stop you from posting negative reviews about his business in as many forums as you can (once you have the photos you want) - I agree this is horrendously poor customer service

HiHowAreYou Thu 04-Oct-12 07:11:36

How weird.
Why did she want them? Why on earth would he not mention it to you?
Did she buy them?

SoupDragon Thu 04-Oct-12 07:13:11

Legally I think he is probably right, depending on the contract you signed.
Morally he s a twat.

Collaborate Thu 04-Oct-12 07:17:41

Sounds like the kind of story that the local paper would like!

ArthurShappey Thu 04-Oct-12 07:17:48

What soupdragon said!

AThingInYourLife Thu 04-Oct-12 07:20:00

Agree with xk - he is an unprofessional twat.

Photographers rely on word of mouth recommendations for a lot of their business. Most people will not hire someone to take photos of their wedding if they know this is how they operate.

Get the word out, with quotes from his e-mall that show he thinks this is a reasonable way to treat customers.

SecretCermonials Thu 04-Oct-12 07:20:40

Get your pics first then slate him every which way you can, facebook, internet, local paper! Just be factual in what is said so no claims of libel can be made. What a complete fucker!

hattifattner Thu 04-Oct-12 07:22:43

SO he has no problem with non-proofed photos appearing on social networks where anyone could just copy them and then print cheaply, thereby reducing his own profits? Id be directing all and sundry to her facebook pages and inviting them to copy the photos if they want a momento of the day - then you wont have to order any additional prints! Happy days for them, hit him in the pocket for being unprofessional.

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 07:22:43

Well, we have checked the contract and he states that he retains the right to use them for advertising purposes. He does admit to giving them to her but refuses to admit whether money changed hands, but I would have thought that he would have required a model release to use them for anything other than the advertising purposes...

I do plan on naming and shaming this guy, only once I have exhausted any possibility of getting some damages out of him..

As to why the ex wanted them, who knows what goes on in HER mind..!!!!

Well yes he has the legal right to do anything with the photos but what's really interesting is why your dh's ex wanted them? Has she captioned them? Did your relatioship start before their marriage was ended?

wonkylegs Thu 04-Oct-12 07:25:13

Legally he is actually incorrect - both the copyright act and data protection act have sections which require permission to be sought before sale/use for other purposes. The additional fee that others are talking about is for your photographer to sign over copyright to you to enable you to make copies of his photos as you like.
Check your contract though he may have already got you to sign away permission in the small print and you hadn't noticed. sad

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 07:40:41

He has copyright of the photos he took so wonky legs is wrong about that.
Everyone is jumping in here without knowing many facts.
Have you seen any of the photos? Did he release all the photos to her, or maybe pull out a couple that had her or her family in them and give her them because they are friends? I can totally see how he might have 100s to process and would want to do that and give you yours as a finished batch. Are you even in the pics he allegedly gave to her?
I think the main thing that sounds off is being defiant about it with you, but if you started off the conversation angrily perhaps things got out of hand - we don't know all the facts.

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 07:50:45

We now have the photos, to be honest we didn't want to say or do anything about his giving them to the ex before we had them in our hands...

She was NOT at the wedding, and we cannot get out of either her or the photographer why she gained access to them. The only 'family members' of hers in any of the shots would have been their children, which opens up a whole new set of privacy issues, especially when dealing with photos of children...

SoulTrain Thu 04-Oct-12 07:55:32

Blimey. She sounds a treat.

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 07:59:23

Well, I have just checked with my hubbie (still getting used to that!!) if I am allowed to name and shame him, but he has asked me not to, as he has spoken with our solicitor and doesn't want anything to jeopardise anything....

It appears that his solicitor agrees with wonkylegs....

hzgreen Thu 04-Oct-12 08:01:44

not sure where you stand husband is a photographer and he says it depends very much on what the contract says.

DH actually said: Common sense says yes you can sue but if there is a clause in the contract that says the photographer owns copyright and can do what he wants then you probably don't have a case. however - you may have some recourse under the unfair terms in contracts act especially give what the the photographer has done with them.

CachuHwch Thu 04-Oct-12 08:03:20

Have you seen the photos? Could it be she just wanted photos of children in nice posh clothes?

So has the photographer given her all the pictures of just a couple with her children in them?

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 08:07:45

Your solicitor is unlikely to have said he doesn't have copyright of his own work. Data protection is a possibility but the law isn't clear there.

So effectively he may have given her a few pics of her own children...?
Tbh doesn't sound that bad to me. Your husband seems sensible in not wanting to create bad feeling IMO

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 08:08:29

Well that's not going to do his business any good! What a dick!

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:09:44

We have been unable to get the photographer to admit to which, or how many, of the photos he has given to her. The only way we know she has a particular picture is via my husbands sis-in-law who is still connected to her on FaceBook...

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:18:14

bluehorizon, don't for a second believe that we don't want to create bad feeling. We simply don't want to start naming and shaming until we have exhausted a more diplomatic route. If that doesn't work, his business name will pop up in every wedding / photography forums there is, and the posts will highlight his, if not illegal, then unethical business practices.. There is no argument over the copyright, he took the photos. The argument is over the Supply of Goods and Services Act, the Data Protection Act and there is a serious question whether his contract allows him to do anything with them except use them as advertising material.....

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 08:21:07

A picture?

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:26:52

Sorry of that came across a little strong, I am just so furious with this guy, he is completely unapologetic. Its basically 2-fingers up to us when we try and speak to him.....

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 08:28:08

I agree it sounds silly to release any photos to anyone other than the B&G. Would just suggest you keep to the facts if you do decide to badmouth him on public forums. Also, did he give you a discounted rate for the pictures - perhaps if he was doing it as a favour he considered it a more informal arrangement. Morally you should consider if any real harm has been done to you before damaging his business which could cause him and his family real harm.

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 08:29:02

Sorry x posted. He sounds as if he is handling it unprofessionally from what you say....

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:29:03

Pictures of our wedding day.. Pictures of the most important day in my life ..... I can only hope you have never or will never be put in the same position...

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you wouldn't feel in the least aggrieved about this situation, if the shoe was on the other foot?

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 08:31:01

And I can understand the temptation to give a bad review! Don't let it spoil your wedding though.

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:35:06

Ahh, I think I'd better stop responding to bluehorizon.. I did not mention anything about the rate... And would an informal arrangement require us signing the standard contract? Ladies and Gentlemen, it would appear that the protagonist is already checking forums...

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 08:35:18

Blue isn't saying that, they are saying tread carefully because you don't want to get sued for slander etc.

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:37:59

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.

In your OP you say pictures of your wedding then later you say a picture and you still havn't said if the picture was of the children or all your wedding party?
I wonder would you have given your husbands ex pictures of her children at the wedding which as someone said earlier I'm sure she would like to see?
I do think giving/selling her a couple of pics of her own children is rather different than selling her your whole wedding album.

Frontpaw Thu 04-Oct-12 08:44:08

What did ex say on her page?

ScotsExpat Thu 04-Oct-12 08:47:27

I also say I have not been able to find out how many. And, at the end of the day, would it really make a difference? If you ask a professional photographer to take pictures for you, would you expect him to start selling / giving them away before you have even had a chance to see them? Maybe its me that's on a different planet..... sad

Beanbagz Thu 04-Oct-12 08:59:09

Legally he is right. The photographer retains copyright of the photos despite the fact that they are of you (unless you pay for the copyright which is quite unusual). Normally you might expect him to use them for marketing purposes.

Morally what he's done is wrong though but i would avoind giving him any bad reviews until you have all the photos you and your family need.

MrsjREwing Thu 04-Oct-12 09:08:02

So the ex was given pics of her kids at a wedding and posted them on fb, who told you about the fb stuff and you want to get your dh to sue the Mother of his kids and the pgotographer? Ooookkkkkaaaayyyyy.

wonkylegs Thu 04-Oct-12 09:18:38

The solicitor & I didn't say that the photographer doesn't have copyright he does BUT the copyright act if you actually read it also has a clause that says that if a photographer wants to distribute to others or use for advertising they must get permission from the client. The copyright everybody is stating is protection from others copying your work not you distributing it. Subtly different but different.

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 09:27:14

Could you provide a link to that clause Wonky?

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 09:27:46

Ok, first point:

Be VERY careful about naming and shaming. I named and shamed a wedding supplier, who then proceeded to sue me for slander: even though everything I said was true. If someone is going to respond like that, do you think they'll play fair?? Please be careful, I don't want you to get into trouble.


WTF??? what THE HELL is he playing at??? I don't care who, what when where etc, YOU paid for a service. Not just a service, a very very important one. People have to remember that to work in weddings there is an extra level of morality that must exist, otherwise, you'll never be any good. You cannot play around with the rules and do what you want.

To give/sell whatever copies of the pictures to anyone would be bad, but to his ex?? That is just disgusting. What the hell is this guy? I would be furious.

You paid for a service, and rather than this person who you paid looking to you as his employer, he plays favourites and hands over your photos [I don't care about the legality here, they are her wedding photos, hers] to some woman who I imagine you probably have little respect for.

He sounds like a total see you next tuesday.... WHy the hell is your DH friends with him? And then he's defensive and rude? Not much of a friend my love, I am afraid to say.

I am really sorry. I had wedding suppliers who acted disgustingly, and it was horrible. The fact that they are wedding suppliers means they should know how important this is, but a lot don't seem to...

I hope you can enjoy the pics.

Much love.

I don't think you're being fair to Blue here , he/she is merely trying to help by giving another POV.

I can fully understand your anger but planning a smear campaign over this will only backfire if you go ahead.

Have a vent & plan it on here by all means but just go slowly on the revenge thing. Its not worth ending up in a legal/slander/libel case.

This may have been the "most important day in my life" thus far but I can assure you there will be other far more important happy ones to come. And far more important things to get het up about.

You had a lovely day & are married to the man you love & are starting your life together, enjoy & focus on that.

Bloody annoying & unprofessional though, hope you get an apology. grin

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 09:37:34

Ha ha. Just realised that you think I'm him! I was a bit slow in the uptake this morning.
Im not, and i am not a wedding photographer. I have sympathy with both of you actually. It's important to keep to the facts though and I think your post title is misleading based on what you have said later in the thread.

bluehorizon Thu 04-Oct-12 09:38:12

On the uptake I meant to say!

AThingInYourLife Thu 04-Oct-12 09:46:45

Sympathy for a wedding photographer who gives/sells a clients photos to other people?

Yeah, poor guy. What a tough life.

HiHowAreYou Thu 04-Oct-12 09:47:30

If it's just one or two pictures of the ex's children, then I think you should just, ok, feel annoyed, but let it go to be honest.

If it was the whole album then that would be strange and something to shout about.

prh47bridge Thu 04-Oct-12 09:52:28

He owns the copyright. However, contrary to what most have posted here, that doesn't give him the freedom to do whatever he wants with the photos. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 85 states that if you commission photos for private and domestic purposes you have the right not to have copies of the photos issued to the public, exhibited to the public or communicated to the public.

If you want to take it further you need to consult a solicitor who specialises in intellectual property rights. They would be able to advise if section 85 applies in this situation and, if so, whether it is worth taking action against the photographer.

jiminyCrick Thu 04-Oct-12 09:54:19

I think one or two pics would not be so bad, BUT he shouldn't have given any to anyone before he gave them to the bride.

He should have waited til she got hers, and maybe even asked! [out of pure politeness, even for no legal reason]

No matter how many pictures it was, the Bride & Groom should have taken precendent.

wonkylegs Thu 04-Oct-12 09:55:39

Sorry I can't find a link to that clause right now will look at lunchtime... I just know it from when I had to read the act as a client asked me to forgo my right to put my name on their building (a right I didn't even know I had). Will get back at lunchtime when I'm at my PC - the act is linked on my PC somewhere I'll see if I can find it.

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.

SoupDragon Thu 04-Oct-12 17:25:21

Why have you joined MN to ask this?

fuckadoodlepoopoo Thu 04-Oct-12 17:27:22

Iburnthecakes. True.

MrsjREwing Thu 04-Oct-12 17:30:02

Ahh, the fog is clearing.

Indeed. MrsJREwing.

This is your first stage of :

The great public slander name and shame plan?

I think you are behaving like a cow.

Wont somebody think of the children?

The poor poor children?

Is it right to assume that the ONLY way the exwife, the mother of your husbands children, were to get a glimpse of what her children looked like that day, was from wedding photos she knew she would never see?

It was really silly of her to share on Facebook, when she still has one of your husbands family as a friend. I guess that friendship will go out of the window now, much to your delight? But I guess she never realized just what a vindictive and spiteful woman his ex has married?

just hypothesizing.

ScotsExpat Fri 05-Oct-12 04:06:13

I am not going to attempt to respond to every post questioning my reasons for asking the question.

What I will say is this. Every trip we have taken with the kids, we have supplied their mother with photos of the kids, and have actively got the kids to take photos themselves. The idea that she would never get to see any photos is false. We would simply have liked to be the ones to determine and, therefore, know which ones she receives. Not a lot to ask when you are commissioning someone to take the photos, I would have thought.

As to the relationship we have with their mother, it has been fraught, to say the least. The divorce was done using Collaborative Law, the kids and her still stay in the family house, which we pay half the mortgage of, over and above a generous aliment, in excess of the legal minimum, yet she has attempted, at every turn, to denigrate both my husband and myself with friends and family, used the kids as leverage and attempted to extract more money for every little additional cost and, generally, been a b**ch.

You can only put up with so much before you have had enough and this has been the final straw for my husband, and I am 100% behind him. We have been trying to move on whilst the ex constantly tries to play a form of one upmanship using every means at her disposal.

This is in no way an apology. These are the 'factors' that some have alluded to that may affect their picture of things.

As far as my first post goes, it was made approx 2 -3 years ago. I did not want anyone able to say that, due to the fact that they knew the area I lived in from previous posts , they could connect it to the photographer, so I created a new user name. Not hiding anything, just wanting to ensure a degree of anonymity until such time as we know the outcome of the legal/diplomatic route...

MrsjREwing Fri 05-Oct-12 06:48:29

Ah yes you were with to this man and suddenly an evil bitch came along took all his money, caused problems in his family.

ScotsExpat Fri 05-Oct-12 07:04:55

ermm, not exactly sure what you are saying there...

MrsjREwing Fri 05-Oct-12 07:26:25

You describe the ex wife as a money grabber and trouble maker, did it ever occur to you how you are viewed by the first wife and mother of your husbands children?

I feel sorry for you, when I married it was joyous, I was so happy that rubbish wedding photo's didn't bother me at the time because I was happy in myself and my marriage.

Xenia Fri 05-Oct-12 07:39:23

Most of us know it is usually 6 of one and half a dozen of the other when you hear divorce stories. I think if the aim can be peace and harmony and perhaps getting the husband some therapy to deal with his rage that woudl be sensible. If the ex wife earns less than he does why is that? If that is what has caused the problems (although paying to house your chidlren - he pays the mortgage is not exactly wrong after divorce even if you dont' live in that house with them) has he avoided problems a second time by marrying a much higher earner so that if he divorces a second time this newish wife will be paying out to him on divorce? Has he learned his lessons?

ScotsExpat Fri 05-Oct-12 07:47:56

MrsE, I did not come on here looking for your sympathy, however misdirected it may be. I gave the facts as they stand in a dispute I am having and asked a question within the legal section of a forum, a forum with many helpful and knowledgeable members.

I read with some surprise some of the posts being put up by people who don't know me (or my other ID), yet seem quite willing to jump to conclusions on topics that have no direct bearing on the original question. By addressing some of these, it appears that I made the mistake of adding my subjective interpretation of the relationship that my DH and his ex have, which, it appears, has given you all the proof you need to feel some form of pity for me.

You are, of course, well within your rights to have a view on anything you like, as am I. The difference between you and I is this. I choose not to show myself up by casting aspersions on a subject I do not have all the facts on.

ScotsExpat Fri 05-Oct-12 07:50:01

Good grief, you lot really like to read between every line, don't you. What does ANY of this have to do with the very objective question I asked?

Xenia Fri 05-Oct-12 07:53:04

I even quoted from the 88 act and listed the difficulties - I think my answer was probably the most helpful post as regards the technicalities.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 08:04:49

"Soi the question is who commissioned it? Presumably the husband or may be the new wife"

Why presumably the husband and just may be the new wife. Is it assumed that little helpless women will generally need to depend on a man to do something as complex as book a photographer?

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 08:30:25

I think you are in the right, I don't understand what's going on or why half the people here seem to hate you! Somebody said this "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." and I agree with that.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 08:36:04

I really don't buy the argument that it was fair enough for the photographer to share the photos with the childrens' mother on the basis that they were her children at the wedding. No doubt the childrens' mother has hundreds and hundreds of pictures of the children? Why the need for these specific pictures?

DP did not receive pictures of his children at their mother's wedding and had no need or desire to. Why would he? He can take pictures of the children any time he likes.

It sounds planned and vindictive to me.

MrsjREwing Fri 05-Oct-12 09:12:31

The photographer was a family friend, sounds like he was thoughtless and didn't put B&G first. I can see him giving puctures of the kids to his friend and just not thinking.

I said before I was happy in myself and in my marriage when we got our wedding pictures back, they were not great, as I was happy it didn't bother me very much. When I have been unhappy in myself in the past or unhappy in a situation I couldn't leave, I have been angry as it is a sympom of depression. I agree op and her husband would be better spending the money they plan on legal expences on seeing a good Dr for treatment for their anger symptoms.

Poor kids.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 09:17:57

"anger symptoms" FFS

In that case, most posters on mn should be treated for "anger symptoms" if you're diagnosing these on the basis of one thread

MrsjREwing Fri 05-Oct-12 09:25:20

It is a happy time when you marry, seriously I have never seen a happy bride want to sue a family friend over what I see as thoughtlessness, it is not like he gave away all her pictures, he gave kids pictures to his friend and op and her dh are ranting and raving at the ex and the mutual friend and wanting to sue.

A few weeks ago this mutual family friend was considered trustworthy by the B&G, now they want to sue him, I don't understand why they didn't use an independant photographer if they thought this friend was thoughtless or mallucious in nature.

Xenia Fri 05-Oct-12 09:25:30

The point is it was a whil ago and people cannot let it drop and the husband is very cross about it. I think legally if they were commissioned then that section I quoted means that the photographer was not allowed to put them into the pubilc domain. So he will have breached the law UNLESS his contract says otherwise IF but only if he put them in the public domain. I am not at all sure that he did so. The exwife may have done so which make it a legal issue about privacy rights - eg can you publish a picture of Beckam's children (yes because the parents allow that) but not say Gordon Brown's as he never let his in the public domain. I really think someone is feeding the pockets of lawyers and whilst that might well stimulate the economy and allow us to pay our chidlren's school fees so in a sense is to be encouraged (laughing)... in reality better to bow out and look at why is new husband in such a state about it all.

Mo one hates the original poster but it certainly seems like a tale with many useful lessons within it. perhaps the msot important one is necver marry sloppy seconds and avoid divorced men with children (joking... a b i t).

differentnameforthis Fri 05-Oct-12 09:31:04


We don;t who the photos are of, op doesn't know. So you saying it is of the kids, is unhelpful & possibly wrong.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 09:36:11

"We used a photographer that my husband knew for our recent wedding photographs"

Have I missed the bit where it says he was a family "friend" of the B&G? knowing someone/an ex neighbour doesn't itself constitute a "friend" in my book, rather they knew someone who they (presumably) believed as a good photographer.

If this photographer knows the ex well and indeed the whole set-up, then he will have known the B&G wouldn't have wanted the ex to have the photos first. To say this was innocent is very naive. He will have known they didn't want him to do this - and indeed if he wasn't sure, he should have asked them. Legalities or otherwise, the OP has a right to be annoyed.

fluffygal Fri 05-Oct-12 09:37:50

Geez this thread is getting ridiculous!! Why has everyone got to be so nasty? Feels like people are bringing their own issues into this, not all 'new' wives are mean and vindictive! OP you are not wrong to be annoyed and upset, you paid for the photos, it was your wedding day, you should have been the first to see them. It was very unprofessional of him.

MrsjREwing Fri 05-Oct-12 09:42:10

I think everyone thinks the photographer behaved badly not giving pictures to B&G first, it seems to me that the sueing someone as a mutual family friend for giving photo's of a child to their parent is ott. OP brought in her anger directed to her dh first wife and mother of his dc, which imho is ott too.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 09:42:47

I think the responses would be very different if the OP was about, say, the photographer giving the wedding photos to a neighbour whose children were at the wedding. It's no different.

MaryZed Fri 05-Oct-12 09:43:53

I genuinely don't understand why the op being the second wife, or any other history has anything to do with this.

The photographer has given photographs of the op to someone else, without asking her and without showing her the photographs first.

That is unprofessional at best. And I can understand the op being hurt - who wants their official wedding photographs up on Facebook before they have even seen them?

Whether the ex put them up, or the photographer, or someone else is irrelevant. The op is surely entitled to see them and approve them first.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 09:44:50

Again, what's with all this "mutual friend". Have I missed the bit where the OP says he was a friend, as opposed to someone her partner knew near where he used to live? fwiw I use a neighbour as a plumber, but I wouldn't describe him as a friend.

Frontpaw Fri 05-Oct-12 09:51:10

I would be hacked off with the photographer.

It wasn't as if he was a guest who took some snaps then posted them - he gave them to a third party (an ex wife who could reasonable or unreasonably have an axe to grind - what if she had photoshopped the new wife to add 3 stone, a pair of horns and a tail, then posted that under 'spot the bitch?').

Even is everyone was all nicey-friendly, he ought to have said that he couldn't let her have 'first dibs' on the shots before the couple/his 'employer'.

He won't admit he is in the wrong in case he gets a letter from a lawyer. He must realise that - maybe not legally - but professionally he crossed a line.

What if the dressmaker took a pic of the dress before the big day and posted it on her website as 'dress made for Mrs ScotsExpat's wedding', or a lovely hand-made ring, designed by her spouse appears on Facebook by the jeweler before she's even seen it?

I'd not be looking to sue or bad mouth him (or the ex wife for that matter - assuming she didn't photoshop the image). I'd write any review as factual - 'shots were good, however were given to a third party without our permission or knowledge before we received them'. No point in dragging it out so that the whole wedding becomes 'the one with the rogue photographer', rather than 'a wonderful day'.

Iburntthecakes Fri 05-Oct-12 09:58:21

I always think people should reverse the genders on these threads and then think what advice they'd give. There would be less about ops anger directed to 'the mother of DHs children' and how ott shes being and a great deal more about the sinister nature of the stalking and controlling evil exH. It would probably culminate in advice to see a lawyer and consider whether the op should stop contact with the kids.
Anyway, as the op has said, she's posted in legal for legal advice and I'm sure she's perfectly capable of judging what an appropriate line of action is.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 10:08:27

I agree Iburntthecakes - the ex would be described as controlling, malicious and abusive it it had been a male ex obtaining the photos and posting them on FB

OhChristFENTON Fri 05-Oct-12 10:18:09

I would be livid if my wedding photographer had given pictures of my wedding day to my husband's ex, LIVID!

Why the hell would anyone want pictures of the day their ex got remarried, why? Why would they want pictures of their children at that occasion? Fine have pictures of your children looking smart/pretty at a special occasion - but at your ex's wedding? Wrong. No matter how lovely they looked you would know what the event was every time you looked at the pictures "oh, look that's ex's wedding day - how lovely" Who the fuck would want that image looking back at them? It's twisted.

In fact I asked my (normally very sensible) SiL to take down photos of our wedding from FB because I didn't want the ex snooping them, - that day was none of her damn business.

It's an odd thing for the photographer to have done. OP, did your H leave his wife for you? If so, maybe the photographer is closer to the XW than your H and felt like giving the pair of you a little poke in the eye.

allnewtaketwo Fri 05-Oct-12 10:41:55

Oh yes, obviously the most likely reason is that the OP stole the ex's husband from her smile. So predictable. Rather scuppers the arguments above though that the photographer and ex didn't mean any malice.

OhChristFENTON Fri 05-Oct-12 10:44:03

Just as likely she's shagging the photographer. smile

Brycie Fri 05-Oct-12 10:45:01

Yy actually if the op is a bad husband stealer, and the act was done in return - bad.
If the op is not bad husbandstealer, this is thoughtless and unprofessiona - bad.

No excuse really!

HiHowAreYou Fri 05-Oct-12 13:10:22

I do think the photographer was wrong. But, if it was just pictures of the children, I think it's one of those times where it'd be healthier to let it go. I don't think it's worth all the angst.

bluehorizon Fri 05-Oct-12 14:16:27

Going back to the people that know about copyright law - if the client has signed the contract agreeing for the photographer to use the images for advertising purposes, surely they have in doing so agreed that the images can be used in a public way? Surely advertising = publicity?

Xenia Fri 05-Oct-12 15:33:29

bh, yes of course. It is possible the terms say that but they need to check and also check they were sent them.
Secondly as I said if it does not say so then even though the photographer will own the copyright there is that section about his not breaching their privacy rights by putting them in public (I doubt sending his own copyright works to the mother of children photographed amounts to putting them in public). However if the husband hates his ex wife so much he wants to give rein to his hate through paying lawyers for hopeless cases carry on - I am sure the lawyers can find ways to spend the money.

SundaeGirl Sat 06-Oct-12 00:06:13

OP, I'd be spitting if this happened to me. The situation you describe with you/DH's relationship with the ex sounds charged, and the first photos on Facebook coming from her would feel like a violation. And she'll probably know it. So you have every reason to be angry. Honestly, what was the photographer thinking just handing over shots of your wedding before you'd seen them?!

Anyway, I would pursue it legally if you are pissed off. I'm not a solicitor but think that he Might have had a duty of care towards you as the photographer of your important day. The release of the photographs breached your privacy and he was there to photograph an intimate event (assuming you weren't getting it paid for by hello! magazine). I would certainly make sure he gets a scary letter from your solicitor on whatever grounds he can think of, and demand back your fees and perhaps some damages.

Can you ask the ex what photos she has?

jiminyCrick Tue 09-Oct-12 21:10:45

I'm not sure why everyone has jumped on the OP like this. So what if she has any feelings towards the ex wife? are you saying that all of you have nothing but positive feelings for your DH ex's??

I'm a young recent bride, and whilst there was excitement to see other peoples pics of my wedding on FB, if ANYONE, and especially if one of DH exes had posted them before I had even seen them, I would be effing furious.Just put yourself in the OPs shoes.

I'm afraid you probably don't have a legal case, but if you did, i'd say go for it. F**k the pious bastards who say you're obviously not happy in your relationship and they are perfect. I'm suing a wedding it because I don't love my husband and I severely regret my wedding day? No... it's because I paid for a service which was not carried out as promised and impacted on my wedding day. My wedding DAY, not my MARRIAGE! If you buy a car and it doesn't work, and you have to complain or even sue, is that indicative of the fact that you regret learning to drive? Ridiculous comments.

I am really really sorry for you OP, a lot of people on here obviously have quite large chips on their shoulders about something, but at the end of the day, take all the personal relationships out of everything and the situation is, you paid for a service, and it wasn't up to scratch. Without a contract of exactly what you expected, it'll be hard to go anywhere, but I am still sorry for you.

ScotsExpat Wed 10-Oct-12 06:31:44

To JIC and the others who stuck to the facts of the question, I thank you for your advice. I shall let you know how things go, DH has been in touch with his solicitor and they are determining the best route to go.

The rest of what has been said is water off a duck's back. I can only speculate as to the reasons behind some of the comments that have been made and, quite frankly, some people have simply made themselves look ridiculous.

mouldyironingboard Thu 11-Oct-12 10:35:14

What a horrible thing for a photographer to do!

I doubt that you can do much legally but definitely put something along the lines of 'do not use this photographer' or 'would not recommend him' on every single wedding or photography forum that you can find (no need to say why).

Also, why is your DH paying the ex more than he needs to? It might be worth getting legal advice about reducing his maintenance payments because whatever he pays it won't change her behaviour. Get advice through the CSA. If your DH wants to pay extra get him to put it into an account in his children's name that the ex can't touch - call it a college fund.

olgaga Thu 11-Oct-12 11:16:11

I've been lurking on this thread for a while, it certainly has got interesting.

OP for what it's worth I think legal action against the photographer will be expensive and pointless. Are you absolutely certain the pictures came from the photographer, rather than your H's sister-in-law?

I also think it will be counter-productive. Your DH's ex will know she has managed to get right under your skin and "spoil your big day". Is that really what you want?

Do you want the children to know you are all squabbling about photos of them on their mum's FB page?

I would definitely dump the idea of a smear campaign unless you are prepared to spend even more money defending legal action issued by the photographer.

Surely it would be more dignified and a lot less stressful to just move on?

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