Calling all Facebook friends for their legal opinion: A photographer friend of mine took photographs of 5 properties owned by a a residential developer. He had a contract signed by the client stipulating what was included for the money and authorizing the work. It was very clearly spelled out that it included cameras, photographer, driver, all materials and a set of digital images. It was also mentioned in various emails and the cover letter of the contract, that prints were not part of the contract price. All of this was upfront and clarified to the client before the photography took place The photographer shot the clients sites and presented them with a set of 73 digital images. He then received an email from a client rep that the photographs looked great and they would decide which ones they want for prints . When the photographer mentioned the price for prints, the client indicated they should get the prints at no charge as it was part of the proposal, even though the proposal clearly explained that it was not. The client claimed the prints are part of the materials that are included in the cost. (Arent materials items that are used in the creation of a photograph?) The photographer tried to work out an amiable solution, but eventually the client shut down all communcations and the photographer had no recourse but to sue in Small Claims Court. If you were the judge or jury and you were shown the signed contract, a proof sheet of the images, the approval of the photographs, and a copy of the unpaid invoice, would you rule in favor of the photographer or his client. Is it fair for the client to withhold all $3000, because of a $400 dispute? What sayeth you?
Posted on: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 05:33:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015