"But what is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remis’s wedding took place in 2003 and he waited six years to sue. And not only has Mr. Remis demanded to be repaid the $4,100 cost of the photography, he also wants $48,000 to recreate the entire wedding and fly the principals to New York so the celebration can be re-shot by another photographer.
Re-enacting the wedding may pose a particular challenge, the studio pointed out, because the couple divorced and the bride is believed to have moved back to her native Latvia."
p.1 #3 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
This raises the question:
"But a 2004 magazine published by Mr. Remis’s alma mater, Bowdoin College, which is also online, displays a photograph of the bride and groom in a feature on alumni weddings. Mr. Fried said it was a photograph his firm took."
If his gave/scanned the photo to his alma mater to be printed he is then in violation of copyright. The right move for the studio, in my opinion, is to counter sue the groom, bride, and alma mater for copyright infringement.
This is a lesson, never give over copyright, potential illegal reproduction/distribution by a plaintiff may be your only leverage against a lawsuit.
In my contracts, when I have client who asks I never use the photos online or portfolio for privacy purposes I oblige in writing in the contract, however, I also specify this limitation is null and void if the client violates copyright; releases/reproduces images for commercial purposes.
For example, if I shot photos of a son or daughter at a mitzvah and a few years later they win American Idol, become a number one artist, and actor, and all the major magazines run life stories and a few people publish books about them - if my photos get used for any of those purposes, regardless if the original client received compensation - my contractual confidentiality agreement is null and void. I will not only pursue commercial options for those photos, I will also litigate against all those who violated the contract
In other words, do not put limitations on me that you are not willing to obey yourself.
p.1 #4 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
Littlebike wrote:
This is a lesson, never give over copyright, potential illegal reproduction/distribution by a plaintiff may be your only leverage against a lawsuit.
If that's the only leverage you have in a lawsuit, you are FUBAR from the start.
Besides which, you wouldn't counter sue in the same court, you must file in federal court.
p.1 #5 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
It is fairly easy to find a lawyer to take a lawsuit on a contingency basis, especially if their dad works at the firm. In that case, they get free legal services to which the photographer has to pour money into defense without potential recuperation; pure loss for the photographer.
If, however, the photographer can use copyright violation to level the financial playing field it could take the fight out of a plaintiff with unreasonable expectation.
It has nothing to do with FUBAR, it has everything to do with smart business and protecting ones assets.
If somebody sues you, do you really care where it originates - aside from small claims court?
p.1 #6 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
"It is fairly easy to find a lawyer to take a lawsuit on a contingency basis"
No, in general it is not. For reasons I would have thought obvious. It's expensive in time and money to bring a suit. No lawyer wants to spend the time and money unless she thinks she's got a solid case.
Don't take some outlier situation with some idiot and his father (which is why it makes news) and generalize from it.
p.1 #7 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
My first question was ... what were the specifications of the original contract ... shot list ... 6 hour video coverage to yield 6 hour video, or to yield 2 hour video, etc. I used to ALWAYS use a "SHOT LIST" for weddings as part of the agreement ... old school, I know.
Sounds like an incredibly gross, frivolous tort abuse ... that should boomerang back on them. Probably won't though. By the time it's all done, the studio won't have the will/money to do so ... this is one where an advocacy group really needs to step in Pro Bono to correct something that has gone very awry ... otherwise it'll set a precedent for even more frivolous torts. The studio likely won't be able to do so on their own accord.
p.1 #8 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
I'm sorry. I must be missing something here. The couple have divorced and the groom is sueing to have the wedding reshot six years later? Is there a court in the land that wouldn't laugh at him Obviously he wants a free party and does his ex wife want to join in. If the couple were still together then there 'might' be a case, but being divorced? If he wins there has got to be something very wrong with the legal system!!!
p.1 #10 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
RustyBug wrote:
My first question was ... what were the specifications of the original contract ... shot list ... 6 hour video coverage to yield 6 hour video, or to yield 2 hour video, etc. I used to ALWAYS use a "SHOT LIST" for weddings as part of the agreement ... old school, I know.
This is where it might hurt, or might not. There might be too many presumptions in the contract, or the judge may determine the presumptions are perfectly reasonable. For instance, must the contract spell out that the video product delivered from an x-hour event will be edited to something less than x-hours? Or will the judge consider it a perfectly reasonable expectation that editing happens?
Sounds like an incredibly gross, frivolous tort abuse ... that should boomerang back on them. Probably won't though. By the time it's all done, the studio won't have the will/money to do so ... this is one where an advocacy group really needs to step in Pro Bono to correct something that has gone very awry ... otherwise it'll set a precedent for even more frivolous torts. The studio likely won't be able to do so on their own accord.
The bad thing here is that the plaintiff doesn't have any money of his own. Even if the defendant wins and gets awarded legal costs, they'll get nothing from this guy.
p.1 #11 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
Gotcha ...
Maybe some jail time penalties for frivoulous torts would make people think twice about the whole ... "I ain't got nothin' to lose ... so what the heck, I'll sue. What's the worst that can happen to me?" A bit much, sure ... but with ZERO repercussion what's to stop it?
I guess, we probably need contract language to address re-shoot or review time frames. It would seem incredibly obvious to a common sense approach how this SHOULD go. HOWEVER, I'm not holding my breath that it'll go like it should.
Nov 05, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
p.1 #15 · Groom sues photographer $50K, demands new wedding
How or whether insurance coverage responds, of course, depends on the allegations and the facts specific to each case; but, it's fair to state that the purpose of E & O is to defend a photographer when the bride, groom or other individual claims that the work product falls short of reasonable professional standards.
The PPA Indemnity Trust works like insurance, but also has the benefit of providing legal advice--including letters from PPA lawyers to clients' lawyers. Frequently, a timely lawyerly letter is all that's necessary.
Obviously he wants a free party and does his ex wife want to join in. If the couple were still together then there 'might' be a case, but being divorced? If he wins there has got to be something very wrong with the legal system!!!
at him. Makes a change from a dancing girl I guess