Far all aspiring wedding photographers . . .
Jun 29, 2012 13:27:40 #
Found an interesting article from the NY Times. Not quite as bad in Canada as in the "sue happy USA", but still a good reason to cover your a$$ with good insurance when contracting to shoot a wedding.
An article from the NY Times:
"Of all the many things that make up a wedding, few are more important than the photographs.
Milena Grzibovska and Todd J. Remis married in 2003. Mr. Remis said the last 15 minutes of the celebration were missed.
Long after the last of the cake has grown stale and the tossed bouquet has wilted, the photos endure, stirring memories and providing vivid proof that the day of ones dreams took place.
So it is not particularly surprising that one groom, disappointed with his wedding photos, decided to sue. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss, the groom, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan, said.
But what is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remiss 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.
Although Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed most of the grounds for the lawsuit, like the infliction of emotional distress, she has allowed the case to proceed to determine whether there was indeed a breach of contract.
Although the marriage did not last, plaintiffs fury over the quality of the photographs and video continued on.
Mr. Remis is suing H & H Photographers, a 65-year-old studio known fondly among thousands of former and current Bronx residents because it chronicled their weddings, bar mitzvahs and communions.
In November 2003, Mr. Remis, an equity research analyst, and his fiancée, Milena Grzibovska, stepped into the H & H studio, which was then in Riverdale, met with Mr. Fried and signed a contract to have photographs and videotape taken of their wedding the next month on Dec. 28 for $4,100.
It was a small party, with fewer than 40 guests, at Castle on the Hudson in Tarytown. Photographs show a cheerful bride and groom surrounded by delighted relatives, including Ms. Grzibovskas mother, Irina, and her sister Alina, who traveled from Latvia.
But a month after the wedding, when Mr. Remis returned to the studio to look over the proofs, he complained that the three-person crew had missed the last 15 minutes the last dance and the bouquet toss. He noted in a deposition last July that the employees at H & H did not respond in a courtly fashion.
In his lawsuit, he also complained that the photographs were unacceptable as to color, lighting, poses, positioning.
I need to have the wedding recreated exactly as it was so that the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot, he testified.
Mr. Remis, who said at his deposition that he has not been employed since 2008, and his lawyer, Frederick R. McGowen, did not return messages left on their phones. Ms. Grzibovska did not respond to a message left through her Facebook page. The next court hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
Mr. Fried said Mr. Remis left the studio in 2004 with 400 proofs essentially small photographs used for selecting a few dozen photographs for the album; Mr. Remis claims the office kept everything. But a 2004 magazine published by Mr. Remiss 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.
The couple separated around 2008 and their divorce, which Mr. Remis contends was amicable, was finalized in 2010. Mr. Remis sued in 2009, just before the statute of limitation was about to expire, according to Mr. Fried.
Mr. Remis testified that he wanted photographs of the wedding, even if it ended in divorce and even if Mr. Fried contended he already had them.
It was unfortunate in its circumstances, he said, but we are very much happy with the wedding event and we would like to have it documented for eternity, for us and our families.
Dan Fried said that the costs of defending the lawsuit had already matched the amount sought by Mr. Remis and that it was hurting his businesss bottom line. He said the case was an abuse of the legal system.
Curt and Dan Fried are paying their lawyer, Peter Wessel, themselves, they said, and the costs $50,000 the time the suit has taken and the distress have taken a toll.
I had a good life, thank God, Curt Fried said, and at the end of my life this hits me in the face.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 3, 2011, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Years Later, Lawsuit Seeks to Recreate a Wedding."
An article from the NY Times:
"Of all the many things that make up a wedding, few are more important than the photographs.
Milena Grzibovska and Todd J. Remis married in 2003. Mr. Remis said the last 15 minutes of the celebration were missed.
Long after the last of the cake has grown stale and the tossed bouquet has wilted, the photos endure, stirring memories and providing vivid proof that the day of ones dreams took place.
So it is not particularly surprising that one groom, disappointed with his wedding photos, decided to sue. The photographers had missed the last dance and the bouquet toss, the groom, Todd J. Remis of Manhattan, said.
But what is striking, said the studio that took the pictures, is that Mr. Remiss 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.
Although Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed most of the grounds for the lawsuit, like the infliction of emotional distress, she has allowed the case to proceed to determine whether there was indeed a breach of contract.
Although the marriage did not last, plaintiffs fury over the quality of the photographs and video continued on.
Mr. Remis is suing H & H Photographers, a 65-year-old studio known fondly among thousands of former and current Bronx residents because it chronicled their weddings, bar mitzvahs and communions.
In November 2003, Mr. Remis, an equity research analyst, and his fiancée, Milena Grzibovska, stepped into the H & H studio, which was then in Riverdale, met with Mr. Fried and signed a contract to have photographs and videotape taken of their wedding the next month on Dec. 28 for $4,100.
It was a small party, with fewer than 40 guests, at Castle on the Hudson in Tarytown. Photographs show a cheerful bride and groom surrounded by delighted relatives, including Ms. Grzibovskas mother, Irina, and her sister Alina, who traveled from Latvia.
But a month after the wedding, when Mr. Remis returned to the studio to look over the proofs, he complained that the three-person crew had missed the last 15 minutes the last dance and the bouquet toss. He noted in a deposition last July that the employees at H & H did not respond in a courtly fashion.
In his lawsuit, he also complained that the photographs were unacceptable as to color, lighting, poses, positioning.
I need to have the wedding recreated exactly as it was so that the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot, he testified.
Mr. Remis, who said at his deposition that he has not been employed since 2008, and his lawyer, Frederick R. McGowen, did not return messages left on their phones. Ms. Grzibovska did not respond to a message left through her Facebook page. The next court hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
Mr. Fried said Mr. Remis left the studio in 2004 with 400 proofs essentially small photographs used for selecting a few dozen photographs for the album; Mr. Remis claims the office kept everything. But a 2004 magazine published by Mr. Remiss 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.
The couple separated around 2008 and their divorce, which Mr. Remis contends was amicable, was finalized in 2010. Mr. Remis sued in 2009, just before the statute of limitation was about to expire, according to Mr. Fried.
Mr. Remis testified that he wanted photographs of the wedding, even if it ended in divorce and even if Mr. Fried contended he already had them.
It was unfortunate in its circumstances, he said, but we are very much happy with the wedding event and we would like to have it documented for eternity, for us and our families.
Dan Fried said that the costs of defending the lawsuit had already matched the amount sought by Mr. Remis and that it was hurting his businesss bottom line. He said the case was an abuse of the legal system.
Curt and Dan Fried are paying their lawyer, Peter Wessel, themselves, they said, and the costs $50,000 the time the suit has taken and the distress have taken a toll.
I had a good life, thank God, Curt Fried said, and at the end of my life this hits me in the face.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 3, 2011, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Years Later, Lawsuit Seeks to Recreate a Wedding."
Jun 29, 2012 14:44:43 #
Good grief,,some people have nothing better to do with their time. Aside from insurance,,,a clearly defined contract with couple as to what exactly will be covered, also a statement to the effect of "photographer reserves the right to creative license, and makes no guarantees implied or otherwise" may have helped. If he was that unhappy at the time, maybe they could've worked something out with a pro rated refund for the portion the photographers missed. This story is just sad.
Jun 29, 2012 19:18:48 #
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/nyregion/suit-against-photographer-seeks-re-creation-of-wedding-after-divorce.html
Published: November 2, 2011
Published: November 2, 2011
Jun 30, 2012 08:57:35 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Without knowing the structure and content of the contract assuming there was one, it would be hard to speculate on the outcome of this battle. If i am understanding this correctly, it makes a good case for not handing over original proofs.
Jun 30, 2012 09:12:08 #
Weddingguy wrote:
Found an interesting article from the NY Times. No... (show quote)
Had the bride's name been Sue, it would have added to the humor and irony. Probably not the case, her being from Latvia with her mother and sister named "Irina" and "Alina" respectfully. "Sulina" would come close.
Jun 30, 2012 11:18:01 #
This is a simple case of greed. Making other peoples lives a living hell....poor photographer needs this like a hole in the head...I think the guy suing should get sued from the photographer for stupidity and wasting his time:(
Jun 30, 2012 13:11:36 #
kurme wrote:
Lawyers SUCK - - THEY are the root of all evil today. They facilitate the greed and envy of others with no consequence to themselves. This is a simple case of greed. Making other peoples lives a living hell....poor photographer needs this like a hole in the head...I think the guy suing should get sued from the photographer for stupidity and wasting his time:(
- - - - (other than not being reimbursed for their time)
If I ran the world - the LOSER in any law suit would be required to reimburse the other party for ALL legal expenses, lost time and wages, as well as emotional pain and suffering. This would apply to Civil as well as Criminal trials (plenty of instances of state prosecutors trying to nail an innocent person).
In this case - the photographers screwed up.
BUT - - How LONG did the ceremony last. If the photogs missed the last 15 minutes, but DID capture the other three hours (whatever) they should be held responsible for missing the last 15 minutes out of the total 255 minutes and reimburse 15 / 255 of the $4100 = $241.18
No money-grubbing bottom-feeding scum-sucking lawyer would take 30% of THAT as retainer.
-
END of story.
Jun 30, 2012 17:20:41 #
In my 39 years as a wedding photographr I never heard of this. Some used to have a set time. Like just so many hours. I never did this I always stayed till the couple left the recption. Even then I would ask the couples parents if they would like any other photos taken. The only law sutes I heard of is when some photoghapher didn't deliver the photos.
Jun 30, 2012 18:02:13 #
it never ceases to amaze me what people will do to make money, nor what lawyers will take on,and lastly what stupid rulings courts will give in support of such money grabbing, (Err, how can i put this politely) - err, individuals.
Even making an honest buck, you have to watch your back, even the honest are not safe from criminal activities dressed up as lawful and proper litigation.
Even making an honest buck, you have to watch your back, even the honest are not safe from criminal activities dressed up as lawful and proper litigation.
Jul 1, 2012 00:27:29 #
kurme wrote:
This is a simple case of greed. Making other peoples lives a living hell....poor photographer needs this like a hole in the head...I think the guy suing should get sued from the photographer for stupidity and wasting his time:(
I fully agree with this one.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.