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

[ScotsExpat]

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]

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

[ScotsExpat]

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]

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]

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

[SoupDragon]

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

[Collaborate]

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

[ArthurShappey]

What soupdragon said!

[AThingInYourLife]

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]

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]

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]

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..!!!!

[Northernlurker]

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]

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.

[bluehorizon]

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]

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]

Blimey. She sounds a treat.

[ScotsExpat]

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]

not sure where you stand legally.my 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]

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

[onadifferentplanet]

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

[bluehorizon]

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]

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

[ScotsExpat]

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]

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]

A picture?