wedding shoot - legalities

[Cr8tor]

A friend of mine recently decided to get married. They can not afford anyone to take pics and asked me to do the picturues. I have already discussed with them that im an amature and will do my best but can not garantee anything. I am not charging them anything and look forward to it as good practice both in taking pics and dealing with the pressure.

My question is: Since im not charging and simply plan to burn the pics to a cd for them, do i need to worry about putting anything on paper releasing me of liablity? i figure it wouldnt hurt but i feel akward asking them to sign something when its being done for free.

[Falkon]

they are not hiring you to do anything. The photos you are taking are a favor to them so just treat it that way. Asking them to sign a paper might be a bit too much.

[Harry Settle]

Paper is good, sometimes. You do always need to be aware of the "handshake" type contract. If they ask you to take pictures and you agree, then you have the basis of a contract. It is easier for them to claim that you made promises, it is for you to claim that you didn't.

You could put together a short agreement of what they are asking for and what you are giving. You can always sneak in some small print to help handle the liabilities. At this point I always suggest "keep it simple".

[cmM]

liability? What liability? Would your friend sue you for screwing up the shots for which they didn't pay for? possible, but not likely. I'd just leave it alone.

[Harry Settle]

liability? What liability? Would your friend sue you for screwing up the shots for which they didn't pay for? possible, but not likely. I'd just leave it alone.

I have read some instances of this very thing happening on some other forums, possibly even on this one. Maybe if you just sit down with them and have a good heart to heart talk about what to expect, and conveniently have a person with you that could act as a silent witness.

[cmM]

I have read some instances of this very thing happening on some other forums, possibly even on this one. Maybe if you just sit down with them and have a good heart to heart talk about what to expect, and conveniently have a person with you that could act as a silent witness.
Yes, but they really have no grounds to sue. there's nothing written. A contract creates obligations on both sides (which is great for most), but with no contract there are no obligations.

This whole thread would be pointless if there were any morals left in this country. We're talking about a 'friend' for God's sake.

[IndyJeff]

I have to side with cmM on this one. How can they sue you, and for what? What losses or damages did they incurr? None, they didn't get their wedding pictures which they weren't paying for in the first place.
As my good friend Bloo Dog once said a judge said to someone suing him, "it's a wedding not a moon shot."

Just cross your fingers that you do the best you can do and it is good enough for them. Besides what are you worring about, your shooting digital right? You can see if it look decent or not almost instantly.

[Cr8tor]

well i spoke with them about it and explained that i would feel better if we had somehting on paper for both of us so that we know exactley whats expected. i was able to spin it as more of a "practice for future occasions" and they are ok with it. figure its better to be safe then sorry.

[Harry Settle]

Yes, but they really have no grounds to sue. there's nothing written. A contract creates obligations on both sides (which is great for most), but with no contract there are no obligations.

This whole thread would be pointless if there were any morals left in this country. We're talking about a 'friend' for God's sake.

You're wrong. You are trying to interject common courtesy and logic into todays letigious society. (I think that means that people like to sue a lot for no reason at all) What makes sense to most of us doesn't apply. "Fair doesn't count."

First of all, it doesn't take a piece of paper to make a contract. I sat on the jury for a civil case involving a guy that built a gas station without any written contracts between himself and the Bank or anyone else for that matter. This was a 1/2 million dollar investment. We were flabbergasted when the Judge explained to us what exactly constitutes a contract. We never did figure out how he got that much money from the bank without a paper trail.
In small claims court you could be 100% in the right and still lose your shirt. Judge says "did you ask him to shoot your wedding?", they say "Yes". Judge asks you "did you agree to shoot the wedding?" You say "yes." Then everything spins around and around and if you're lucky you get by without losing a substantial amount of money.

I'm not trying to scare anyone into becoming paranoid with friends, but stuff happens. BTW, I'm one of the last people to put anything in writing. It's just something to think about.

[Cr8tor]

along those lines, the proof comes in admitting to the contract. i know when to forget things. :) but like i said, we agreed to a nice plain english contract that states im doing it as a favor without pay and can not be held liable for anything including loss of pictues.

Thanks for the advice all!

[Harry Settle]

Sounds like that would work.

[queenbee288]

I think that if they are getting free photos that they couldnt afford otherwise, a little something on paper was not too much to ask for.

[jim47]

forget about the money end of this for a minute , if you have something on paper outlining just what is expected from all parties, this just might save a good friendship, I have had business dealings with friends in the past , and believe me you can get jamed up with friends just as easely as you can with a stranger. an ounce of prevension is worth a pound of cure.

jim

[RichardtheSane]

This whole thread would be pointless if there were any morals left in this country. We're talking about a 'friend' for God's sake.

Very well said.

[DocFrankenstein]

You're attending a wedding of a person who you think can sue you over a verbal agreement, and you call him your friend?

In small claims court you could be 100% in the right and still lose your shirt. Judge says "did you ask him to shoot your wedding?", they say "Yes". Judge asks you "did you agree to shoot the wedding?" You say "yes." Then everything spins around and around and if you're lucky you get by without losing a substantial amount of money.
Doesn't work that way... and even if it does, it doesn't hurt to lie once in a while.

Did you agree to shoot their wedding?
No, I just brought my camera

It's one thing to cover your ass with a model release, the other is being paranoid about everything

[F. Stop Fitzgerald]

If it comes to a legal battle (and i am assuming that you expect the worst case scenario) ,the first thing that the judge will do is establish whether you have entered into a business contract or if you entered into a friendly commitment. In the second case, the case will be dismissed.

In the first case, the judge will determine whether you wilfully scr*wed up the images. He will probably establish your relationship to the gride and broom, and then he will dismiss it unless the injured party can prove that you acted in malice. There was a similar case on TV in front of Judge Judy a few years ago.

Twenty-some years ago a pretty well-known cinematographer was hired by one of the networks to cover an NFL Superbowl and to capture "local color" with a still camera. (This was before autofocus) The guy had bad eyesight and he shot everything out-of-focus. Somebody took him to court over it and the case was thrown out because everyone knew that he wasn't an experienced still photographer. He was a cinematographer. the case was thrown out of court based upon the fact that -- technically-- he was not qualified, but hired anyway--- even though the person who hired him KNEW that he was not a qualified still photographer.

There are a lot of urban legends surrounding supposed successful lawsuits against wedding photographers. I have NEVER heard of a wedding photographer who was successfully sued for unintentional mistakes-- or for intentional mistakes for that matter.

[Mitch]

When anyone or any friend asks you to cover their wedding and you agree to do it for free, then you must put in writing that you GUARANTEE NOTHING! You don't guarantee to be on time, to show up, you don't guarantee any level of quality, nor any specific things to be shot, nor to deliver anything at all to him/her. You state in the writing that there are no obligations of any kind from you to him/her. Have them sign it. The writing should also state that the writing is not a contract and that there exists no verbal contract for any services either, and that this writing is an assertion of such. The signature should be accompanied by a blurb that their signature reflects their agreement to and understanding of all the foregoing.
In addition to the above writing, you should verbally assert the same thing and, in fact, let them know that you mean it on a personal level. You want the person to realize that if they really want results, the only way to get results with any level of certainty is to pay for services from a professional. You want them to truly realize that free services may really mean no services and THAT has to be OK with them. Get them to acknowledge that to you on a genuine and sincere personal level. If you sense any level of any disappointment in the prospect that they may get nothing, then don't do the job, even with their signature on the above-mentioned writing. If you haven't got the backbone to do the above, you are no business man and you deserve any negative thing that happens to you. 90% percent of all brides are in a make believe "princess" world to begin with, don't you make that mistake.

[S230]

I agree with Mitch, don't agree with to anything. Go as a guest and take photos as a guest. If you think of worst case scenario such as getting sued, then your friendship is not meant to last and the value of friendship is worth the cost of the wedding which is hopefully what you need to pay if there was a "screw up"

[cyber_m0nkey]

Sorry to put a dampener on this thread, but there is no contract here - agreeing to someones request to do something does not constitute a contract. For a contract to exist (written or verbal - there is no difference here actually, except ability to prove contrent), there must be 'consideration' from both parties, i.e. both must provide something to the other. In this case there is (for the sake of argument) a promise to take wedding photos (the photographers consideration). From the couple there is no consideration, UNLESS they pay for time or buy the blank CD's or offer you something in return, e.g. a discount from their business, etc.

SO, unless they offer something to you there is NO contract and no grounds for leagal action - you can promise them the world, b ut unless they give you something in return they can't hold you to it.

[DocFrankenstein]

error

[F. Stop Fitzgerald]

Sorry to put a dampener on this thread, but there is no contract here - agreeing to someones request to do something does not constitute a contract.

Not so. That one party seems not to benefit does not mean that the parties have not entered into an agreement. What would get the photographer off the hook would be the context of the agreement. That is to say that the photographer is a friend and would not be viewed by the court as having acted in malice if he did not produce images or didn't show up.

The fact that there is no written agreement does not mean that there is no contract either.

It's highly unlikely that the friends would want to take the photographer to court because there's no money exchanged, and if the judge decided to hear the case, what damages could he find?

It would cost more to pursue legal remedy if someone got po'd than anything that the plaintiff could ever get out of it as the result of an award.

Besides, where would you try such a case? In Judge Judy's court?

[DocFrankenstein]

The fact that there is no written agreement does not mean that there is no contract either.
But the point is that the unwritten contracts never hold up in court. :rolleyes:

[F. Stop Fitzgerald]

Not true. A verbal agreement may not hold water in this situation, but surprisingly, there have been many instances in which greater amounts of money have been at stake over verbal contracts and have gone to court. (Certainly, no wedding would get that far, especially the one in question).

There have been musical groups and their managers who operated on verbal contracts until one party had to take the other to court to dissolve the relationship.

But a situation like this would hardly merit a court trial. It could be taken to court, but I don't think the case would be heard. Were there serious money involved and real damages inflicted (the photographer drives his car into the reception hall) it wouldn't be heard in court.

But verbal agreements can be found to be binding in court. It depends upon what has been agreed upon and what can be proved. Implied warranties are unwritten guarantees and agreements, and these cases go to court all the time.

In this case, however, there are no implied warranties, and as the photographer has stated it, NO GUARANTEES have been made. Since the bride and groom are friends of the photographer, photographer is doing a favor. Any shortcomings in his work could never be prosecuted.

A word to the wise: never shoot friends' and families' weddings. This is when things are most likely to go wrong. I know about this sort of thing. And stay away from company functions as well. I know about this sort of thing too. I shot an awards ceremony once, only to learn that the film had not engaged the takeup spool, and, well, you can imagine the outcome. For years, I was known as the guy who screwed up the awards ceremony. Nobody seemed to remember that I developed a couple of valuable patents for the company.