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...

Iburnthecakes. True.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.