Advanced search

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

Just as likely she's shagging the photographer. smile

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.

solidgoldbrass Fri 05-Oct-12 10:27:36

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.

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.

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

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.

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'.

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.

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 09:42:47

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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