Reading mode: Light Dark

Wedding photographer sued for $300,000

Go to last post
SIGNED CONTRACTS, SIGNED CONTRACTS, SIGNED CONTRACTS!

Make sure your contracts are clear and in detail to cover all issues and potential problems. In fact consider having a lawyer look at and review/draft one if you may.

EDIT YOUR WORK! REPEAT AFTER ME, EDIT YOUR WORK! Never release any images that you do not like or think is professionally to your standards or offered shown standards, Clients DO NOT NEED nor any sane ones want the DUDS! Edit your work.

Also, ie: Never steal or use another's work claiming it's yours.

OBTW, at a wedding NEVER DRINK ANY ALCOHOL GET IT!?! Save your drinking for home off the job.

Never promise or offer MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU CAN DO! REPEAT AFTER ME NEVER PROMISE OR OFFER MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU CAN DO! Be it weddings, portraits, and/or commercial work!

Never under deliver, make sure the client gets all services and products you sold, promised them.

If a client bullies or threatens you, get a lawyer to review such and send a ASAP letter right back to the bully noting THE LAWS THAT EXIST! and that essentially two can play the lawsuit/counter suit game! Defamation of your character business is a legal way to sue another party.

ONE LAST THING! AGAIN SIGNED FREAKING CONTRACTS!!!
 
Interesting video. But the letter never said what was actually wrong with the pictures. Rather, it just demanded money and tried to bully him into paying. What was the complaint?

By the way, $3,800 for shoot and burn... AND no contract. What's up with that?
Brian D. Schneider said:
This is just stupid, sure glad I'm retired.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/24/wedding-photographer-threatened-with-300000-lawsuit/
--
Brian Schneider
http://www.pbase.com/klatuu/shooting&page=3
Click to expand...
 
and all the gizmo's and gadgets.

However, the guy has gone way up in my estimation for his exposure of this parasitic lawyer and his threats to a photographer, who seemingly did a great job.

I do wonder if the photographer was led into the - no contract, all images- situation by the lawless vermin who is trying to sue him.
 
I wonder in this case - is it a good thing there was no contract - there was nothing to breach. Lack of contracts go both ways. That "lawyer" should know that without a contract, there is no breach...

I can see the court case now...

Defendant - "Basically, your honor, I was invited to the wedding. This was my gift - I do not know what he is talking about..."

Judge: to lawyer Dismissed. I need to contact the State Bar...

Defendant - "Don't I own the copyrights to these photos..."
.
.
.
 
See, the photog can't claim that, he got $3,800 from the client, so there was a service/product rendered, goes back to contract !

Bernard

--

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !
 
Contract? What contract. I was paid to attend. If paid in cash, even better.
 
I wonder if there's a pre-nupt agreement -- and how much that's going to cost.
 
Before I even shot my first professional wedding, I made sure I had at least two dozen high end wedding photography assignments under my belt working for a well known professional photographer. My first few solo weddings, my mentor tagged along as a second photographer to make sure I did not screw up.

My wedding contracts spells our everything from A-Z down to the minute details of dates when things are to be completed. Payment schedules and included are production schedules.

Since we have a photo lab on premises, we attack work orders to that order so we have a detailed timeline of events with any notes attached to it such as when the bride/groom called and the reason for the call.

We have never been sued over wedding pictures but we have been sued over Little League images. In those cases, the judge ruled in our favor and we received several nice damage awards costing the plaintiffs plenty of money. One has a lien on his house because he defamed us which was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We lost a $120,000 contract because this guy wrote a two page letter to our client and the client decided not to use us as their official photographer. This client testified for us and his testimony proved our damages. Interest is accumulating every day he does not pay us. When it reaches $350,000 my attorney said he will ask the court to demand payment because we will be the second lien on the house next to the plaintiff's mortgage. So that means we can foreclose on the house if he does not pay us. We also got attorney fees up and beyond the damage award!
 
The photographer being threatened is Nelson Tang. He has a newborn that he's struggling to support, and he worked for a non-profit with the bride for 10 years, so he considered them friends. His english is not so great, and the lawyer, a real estate attorney from a single-man firm, is vietnamese. I'm not about to release his name, but internet detectives are welcome to weed through google!

Nelson gave the couple the contract, but the big-shot attorney gave him back so many amendments that it would've taken an attorney to fight back. So, with $3,800 for a three day shoot, including air travel to Las Vegas from Seattle, he figured this was so reasonable that nothing could go super wrong. So, no contract - that's lesson #1 for him. But as someone said, yes it does go both ways. Without a contract, there are no written representations for performance.

Second big lesson, is don't give out all of the unedited images. This couple said that they were proficient in Lightroom, and to save on the fee, they would do all of the post production. So it was agreed that on this shoot to burn, they were given all of the files, straight out of the camera, no processing. That's a big issue because say it takes you a few images to get one right (flash doesn't go off until the 2nd shot, focus doesn't lock until 2nd shot, etc) the couple can use your outtakes to show that you were technically incompetent!

I've seen the images, and they were of very high quality. I'd say in the 90th percentile. The photographer was there for everything, except the food shots - and that is because the couple had so many group photo requests after the ceremony. That was their big complaint.

The attorney threatened to hire a SEO expert to soil the name NELSON TANG all over the internet, so what I'm doing is as many blog posts, etc. as possible so if anybody searches for Nelson Tang, Photographer, the google result will come up with the line, "bullied by attorney client threatening him with a $300,000 lawsuit"

--
Gary Fong
http://www.garyfong.com
 
GARY FONG INC said:
The photographer being threatened is Nelson Tang. He has a newborn that he's struggling to support, and he worked for a non-profit with the bride for 10 years, so he considered them friends. His english is not so great, and the lawyer, a real estate attorney from a single-man firm, is vietnamese. I'm not about to release his name, but internet detectives are welcome to weed through google!

Nelson gave the couple the contract, but the big-shot attorney gave him back so many amendments that it would've taken an attorney to fight back. So, with $3,800 for a three day shoot, including air travel to Las Vegas from Seattle, he figured this was so reasonable that nothing could go super wrong. So, no contract - that's lesson #1 for him. But as someone said, yes it does go both ways. Without a contract, there are no written representations for performance.

Second big lesson, is don't give out all of the unedited images. This couple said that they were proficient in Lightroom, and to save on the fee, they would do all of the post production. So it was agreed that on this shoot to burn, they were given all of the files, straight out of the camera, no processing. That's a big issue because say it takes you a few images to get one right (flash doesn't go off until the 2nd shot, focus doesn't lock until 2nd shot, etc) the couple can use your outtakes to show that you were technically incompetent!

I've seen the images, and they were of very high quality. I'd say in the 90th percentile. The photographer was there for everything, except the food shots - and that is because the couple had so many group photo requests after the ceremony. That was their big complaint.

The attorney threatened to hire a SEO expert to soil the name NELSON TANG all over the internet, so what I'm doing is as many blog posts, etc. as possible so if anybody searches for Nelson Tang, Photographer, the google result will come up with the line, "bullied by attorney client threatening him with a $300,000 lawsuit"

--
Gary Fong
http://www.garyfong.com
Click to expand...
Thanks Gary, I hope it all works out ok for Nelson.
--
Brian Schneider

 
I bet Nelson is hugely thankful that you are on his side against this moronic and vindictive attorney.
 
Thanks for the update. I did see the blog video dated July 27. Just a few comments:

First, laws vary by state, so these observations may or may not be applicable.

The court stamp is not necessarily a deal-breaker in my state. It serves as proof of filing, but matters less for proof of service. What does matter is whether there is a court case number and whether it was properly served so as to give sufficient notice. If there's no case number, then it's likely all a ruse designed to intimidate, and may even be construed as harassment. Interesting that it was done by process server, however. That certainly implies a suit has been filed, but is certainly not the same as service by local sheriffs. Whatever the case, the PRUDENT thing would be to go to the court office and see if, in fact, a suit has been filed. Even if it was not properly served, it is best to know what the court knows. There may be no merit to a suit for a variety of reasons, but ignoring it can still result in an adverse judgment that then has to be contended with.

Listing his wife and then failing to name her as a party is pure amateur hour. And laws in that state MAY require separate service on her anyway. But any competent attorney can argue that she SHOULD not be a party to the action because she had no involvement in the matter, anyway, regardless of what constitutes the assets of the defendant.

Finally, this clown has failed to realize that the defendant, as part of the action, can also raise a counter claim for damages. In this case, the dumb asss actually threatened to harm his livelihood in a written letter. And, depending upon state laws, COULD even be potential CRIMINAL CHARGES for extortion in there, too. Furthermore, he sabotaged any hope of collecting any attorney fees himself, as he bragged that he has "zero out-of-pocket expenses" from the litigation. With just a little knowledge of the law, Tang could keep this thing in court for YEARS, with discovery, depositions, etc., which would seriously drain even an attorney's will to see it through... and the attorney would have little chance of recovering his expenses because of his dumb threat. And I seriously doubt that Tang would be hurting for any EXPERT WITNESSES to testify on his behalf, attesting to both the procedure of shooting more than is required (so as to explain the bad shots) to the over all quality of the rest of the coverage. And the couple's Facebook page comments have already been mentioned.

As to the "missing shots" from the formal groups... it would seem to me that, with or without a contract, the onus would be on the plaintiff to show that he was actually guaranteed that certain shots would occur. To even suggest that a photographer is solely liable for getting certain group shots is absurd, for it implies that he has CONTROL over both the situation and the people involved. For instance, can the plaintiff prove that every person who was supposed to be in a shot at any given moment of opportunity was there and that it was solely due to the negligence of the photographer than the photograph was not taken? Of course not! The photographer cannot legally be held liable for the behavior of others, and thus cannot be held negligent for not getting any specific photograph with any specific person UNLESS each and every person testifies that they were present, ready, and the photographer simply failed to get the shot due to absence, incompetence, or negligence, or outright unwillingness to perform.

The letter from the groom/lawyer was both disgusting and amateurish. I hope Tang has secured an aggressive lawyer would will hit back hard and stop this bullying.
GARY FONG INC said:
The photographer being threatened is Nelson Tang. He has a newborn that he's struggling to support, and he worked for a non-profit with the bride for 10 years, so he considered them friends. His english is not so great, and the lawyer, a real estate attorney from a single-man firm, is vietnamese. I'm not about to release his name, but internet detectives are welcome to weed through google!

Nelson gave the couple the contract, but the big-shot attorney gave him back so many amendments that it would've taken an attorney to fight back. So, with $3,800 for a three day shoot, including air travel to Las Vegas from Seattle, he figured this was so reasonable that nothing could go super wrong. So, no contract - that's lesson #1 for him. But as someone said, yes it does go both ways. Without a contract, there are no written representations for performance.

Second big lesson, is don't give out all of the unedited images. This couple said that they were proficient in Lightroom, and to save on the fee, they would do all of the post production. So it was agreed that on this shoot to burn, they were given all of the files, straight out of the camera, no processing. That's a big issue because say it takes you a few images to get one right (flash doesn't go off until the 2nd shot, focus doesn't lock until 2nd shot, etc) the couple can use your outtakes to show that you were technically incompetent!

I've seen the images, and they were of very high quality. I'd say in the 90th percentile. The photographer was there for everything, except the food shots - and that is because the couple had so many group photo requests after the ceremony. That was their big complaint.

The attorney threatened to hire a SEO expert to soil the name NELSON TANG all over the internet, so what I'm doing is as many blog posts, etc. as possible so if anybody searches for Nelson Tang, Photographer, the google result will come up with the line, "bullied by attorney client threatening him with a $300,000 lawsuit"

--
Gary Fong
http://www.garyfong.com
Click to expand...
 
That link led to a court case number, leading to some legal records found on the website of the court in question, naming a certain plaintiff (female). I can't see the info for myself yet so I hesitate to post the name without getting it directly through the court's website.

The information is apparently out there, but I still want to see the pictures too. From what I have seen so far the guy's not half bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top