Have you ever sued a client?

(in small claims court - multiple invoices)

The client is not a "one time" photoshoot type of customer, but rather a magazine publisher. So any action will certainly put the Kibosh on the relationship. On the other hand, one could argue that if they're not paying their invoices, what is lost?

Problem is, unless things have changed since my last experience, in small claims court you cannot sue for lost time - just material losses which in this case is gas (travel) hotel rooms and meals. But the biggest chunk is still the time/labor.

If you've ever had to sue, I'm just wondering at what point did you decide enough was enough? And what were the long-term consequences?

1. Do you register your copyrights?

If you do, were you working for the magazine as a work-for-hire? If you weren't and you retained copyright on you images and your contract states that license to use the images is only granted upon full payment, you should definitely contact an attorney.

If none of that above applies, then it may not be worth it, especially if the total amount is so low that you're considering small claims. However, most attorneys will do initial consultations for free, and they will give you a run-down on what it would cost to bring a case and whether it would probably be worth it or not.

If a client doesn't pay you, they're not really a client. You don't want to keep those kinds of clients. If your auto mechanic repairs your transmission and you don't pay him and then you bring it later and he rebuilds the engine and you don't pay him for that, either, do you think he's going to write off those invoices in the hope that you'll still patronize his shop in the future?

Is a collection agency an option for you?

I'm not sure I'd let myself get to the point where I'd feel the need to sue a client. After the first no-pay, I wouldn't shoot again and I'd write it off since that would be less expensive than court.

Thanks for the feedback.

chakalakasp wrote in post #11497006
1. Do you register your copyrights?

If you do, were you working for the magazine as a work-for-hire? If you weren't and you retained copyright on you images and your contract states that license to use the images is only granted upon full payment, you should definitely contact an attorney.

If none of that above applies, then it may not be worth it, especially if the total amount is so low that you're considering small claims. However, most attorneys will do initial consultations for free, and they will give you a run-down on what it would cost to bring a case and whether it would probably be worth it or not.

If a client doesn't pay you, they're not really a client. You don't want to keep those kinds of clients. If your auto mechanic repairs your transmission and you don't pay him and then you bring it later and he rebuilds the engine and you don't pay him for that, either, do you think he's going to write off those invoices in the hope that you'll still patronize his shop in the future?

No, don't register publishing-related shoots. I figure after the piece is published, because of subject matter the pics are never useful to me again.

I could be wrong, and have not looked into it yet, but as I understand it small claims now goes up to about $7500. And as I mentioned, as I understand it you still cannot sue for lost labor in SCC - so the actual material losses would most certainly be under 7.5k.

ChuckingFluff wrote in post #11497209
Is a collection agency an option for you?

Nope. Not any longer.

cdifoto wrote in post #11497225
I'm not sure I'd let myself get to the point where I'd feel the need to sue a client. After the first no-pay, I wouldn't shoot again and I'd write it off since that would be less expensive than court.

As far as expense is concerned, I think it's about $20 to file a SCC suit. Nonetheless, not taking action needs some thought. Actual (sueable) material losses may be no more than $500. Is it worth spending a day in court forced to listen to dozens of people whine? Don't know.

It's just that it's a pisser when somebody you thought you had a good relationship with screws you.

You can sue for your lost time for your work, at least in the case where you spent time acquiring the shots for them, anything that is invoiceable is sueable. So if you invoice them for your time you can recoup that.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #11498525
Thanks for the feedback.


No, don't register publishing-related shoots. I figure after the piece is published, because of subject matter the pics are never useful to me again.

Ah, but you don't register just because you think the images will be useful, you register to protect your intellectual property. Images that are going to be widely published are far more likely to be infringed, and when your images are infringed, a registered copyright often means that you are going to get paid something, often quite a lot of something. This assumes that the infringement takes places in America, of course.

Small claims maximums vary by local jurisdiction. If you'd registered your copyrights, you wouldn't need to do this in small claims, you could likely hire an attorney on contingency who would negotiate a settlement that might be quite a bit higher than the small claims maximum.

I really need to make a big long post called "Register your damned copyrights" and try to get it stickied. There is a general ignorance of how important it is to register your copyrights. This is best practices stuff here, and if you're not doing it, you're leaving yourself open to being taken advantage of by less-than-honest publishers.

Dennis_Hammer wrote in post #11498604
You can sue for your lost time for your work, at least in the case where you spent time acquiring the shots for them, anything that is invoiceable is sueable. So if you invoice them for your time you can recoup that.

Thanks. That's good news. That would up the ante quite a bit. I'll have to look into it. As I understand it SC suits very from state to state.

Picture North Carolina wrote in post #11498525
It's just that it's a pisser when somebody you thought you had a good relationship with screws you.

I hear you. That'd be worse than the actual financial loss.

Certainly you should be able so sue for your labor if you were hired to do a job and then not paid. If not, people could hire contractors, refuse to pay them for their work and they would have no way to legally collect.

jra wrote in post #11501747
Certainly you should be able so sue for your labor if you were hired to do a job and then not paid. If not, people could hire contractors, refuse to pay them for their work and they would have no way to legally collect.

With most contractors, you pay as you go and they're never in a reversed cash-flow situation with you. With me, clients pay as they go as well (except for good repeat clients, who get more consideration in that regard).

On what grounds are they refusing to pay?

I thought you just sued for what they were supposed to pay you. Certainly the invoiced amount included labor AND materials.

Yes, I've done small claims court action against a client. I won by default (they didn't show), and they eventually paid.

tomj wrote in post #11503681
On what grounds are they refusing to pay?

No money. Not in bankruptcy or such, but info to me was they were out of money and currently seeking funding.