Wedding Photographer Sued

[Pipeman]

Interesting bit from The Wakefield Express:

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/video-slideshow-latest/Couple-sue-wedding-snapper.5698495.jp

[Shaun]

what an ****

[Sarah]

gives us toggers a bad name, tho it does make you wonder how carefully they chose him! the £1450 for what they were supposed to get sounds cheap to me, photographer, album, canvas, portrait? and 200 thankyou cards oh and a videographer!

you get what you pay for 9 times out of 10!

[Pipeman]

gives us toggers a bad name, tho it does make you wonder how carefully they chose him! the £1450 for what they were supposed to get sounds cheap to me, photographer, album, canvas, portrait? and 200 thankyou cards oh and a videographer!

you get what you pay for 9 times out of 10!

Gosh Sarah!!
Is that cheap these days?

[Marvin]

Don't sound like much of a result??? The guy is still winning by £200 and the couple are almost £1000 out of pocket with nothing to show for it. He should be made to pay it all back.

[Pipeman]

It's the old story - Caveat emptor, but a cautionary tale for anyone considering going out doing wedding togging without enough experience or competence.
A more sophisticated couple might have sued them properly and been awarded substantial damages, rather then putting their own case in and, as you say, still losing out.

[benjiblanco]

what strikes me as odd is that they said they went to several wedding fairs to choose. Must of been some bad pretty bad toggers at that fair for them to be chosen, lol.

Forgetting the quality of the pics and vid and being sued, cant they be prosecuted for putting a half naked picture of a minor on a website without the permission of the parents.
Surely that is a criminal offence?

[Sarah]

Gosh Sarah!!
Is that cheap these days?

looking online for a togger all day you are looking at not much cheaper than £500- I read in a magazine that pro wedding photographers often charge about £50 an hour so just for an 8 hour day thats £400 not including post processing, album design, and an album! any real pro with all the kit, the insurances (liability and indemnity), the overheads, advertising costs,sample albums etc wouldnt charge much less surely?

then factor in the videographer who wouldnt charge much less than £500 i would imagine you already a third of the way there and that isnt including album, thank you cards, portrait and canvas!

if he had indemnity insurance it probably wouldnt have gone to court anyway, which is why I am so shocked that there are so many wedding toggers without it!

[Jones]

Bizarre story in all sorts of ways, but ultimately a terrible shame.

Even the 22/400 hit rate is weird.

[Sarah]

Looks like he is crap at everything...

Problem with Photographer
Action Required:
No
Audience:
All Schools
Date Issued:
25 September 2008
Contact:
David Bowen

Forward to a colleague

We have been asked by the Castle Children's Centre to inform you of difficulties they have encountered with a photographer. His name is Gareth Bowers and the company is Fresh Images, based in Castleford.

Castle Children's Centre reports that, "Mr Bowers took the children's photographs in September 2007, and since then the parents have still not, to date, all received what they have paid for. He has sent photographs to the Centre, which have not been of the children whose names were on the packet, not supplied the things parents have ordered or just sent the wrong things. Parents have complained about the poor quality of many of the photographs and we have had terrible problems contacting him. We are also aware of others who have had the same problems and think that if any schools are contemplating using his services they should be aware of his unreliability, poor service and poor quality of work".

[munchycarrot]

This has made the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292164.stm) news Ron

[Jeni]

theres copies of some of the pictures in The Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2668137/Couple-sue-over-wedding-snaps.html

[Dennis]

theres copies of some of the pictures in The Sun

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2668137/Couple-sue-over-wedding-snaps.html

I wonder if he was sensible enough to reserve all commercial uses of the images and so make money from the syndication ?? I doubt it :)

[Sarah]

i was wondering they say ross parry synication under them?

[Dennis]

i was wondering they say ross parry synication under them?

hmmm - question is whether he's syndicating on behalf of the unhappy couple or the untalented photographer ?! :confuse:

[Sarah]

if the photographer kept copyright surely the unhappy clients couldnt get them published?

[Pipeman]

Sarah Kennedy was talking about it on Radio 2 this morning but remember

You heard it here first!!:top:

[Dennis]

if the photographer kept copyright surely the unhappy clients couldnt get them published?

Depends on the terms of any licence he gave... For wedding shots, I give a non-exclusive licence in perpetuity for non-commercial uses..

So under the terms of my licence they wouldn't be able to - but I know some togs just grant a general licence... and some just don't bother with any paperwork lol

[cindy]

I saw the pics in the Metro and my God they were aweful - no wonder they sued him. I am wondering if he really is a photographer because the shots were so obviously bad even to me!

[Pipeman]

I saw the pics in the Metro and my God they were aweful - no wonder they sued him. I am wondering if he really is a photographer because the shots were so obviously bad even to me!

Have you seen the video, Cindy?

[cindy]

No I havent seen the video any links?

[Pipeman]

No I havent seen the video any links?


http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/video-slideshow-latest/Couple-sue-wedding-snapper.5698495.jp

[Pipeman]

An update from today's Wakefield Express:

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/exclusive/Worldwide-sympathy-for-unhappy-couple.5718002.jp