A UK couple, Marc and Sylvia Day, sued their wedding photographer because he did such shoddy work that only about 20 pictures out of over 400 were able to be used. The photographer, if you can call him that, cut the heads off of people and dropped the video camera in the church prompting a curse that can be heard on tape.
I know before you start saying things like “get over it” or “please, don’t we have enough frivolous lawsuits in the world today” or “don’t you think they’re overreacting?”, you need to look at the video below.
Now granted, women are a lot more sensitive when it comes to things like wedding pictures and the big day in general, but this guy deserved to have to pay the $2000 plus dollars that a judge awarded to the disappointed couple. It’s purely business, he was paid for a service that he didn’t provide; the money should be returned.
A judge in West Yorkshire ruled that the photographer (Gareth Bowers) had indeed done inadequate work, and that he would have to reimburse the couple for the cost of the photos plus court costs.
Marc and Sylvia Day weren’t looking to get rich out of this lawsuit; they simply wanted the money back that they had spent. The biggest loss is the fact that they will never have the opportunity to capture their wedding memories on film again.
The Days didn’t just haphazardly pick the photographer to shoot their wedding; in all they had attended 11 wedding fairs before deciding to go with Gareth Bowers. As for Gareth Bowers, he probably won’t be shooting any weddings anytime soon.
What’s the moral of this story? Well, if you’re a photographer, especially in the UK, couples can sue based on your work. So you’d better make sure that camera’s in focus.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
With over 30 years in TV production (ITV trained and several awards to my name), 23 years running my own production company and nearly a decade as a part time lecturer in TV and Video production at a legitimate academic institution I’m unsurprised to read this tale of woe…
If you think the pictures this guy supplied were bad you should see the video…
The fact that certain trade organisations (both in video and stills) basically ’sell’ pseudo-qualifications to clowns like this calls the whole industry into disrepute as the public can’t tell the difference between genuine pros who will have spent literally thousands of hours gaining proper qualifications from those who spent a few hundred quid to go through some sham ‘assessment’ process….
2400+ hours study over two years to get an HND, nearly 5000 and four years for a honours degree… Or £100 from some sham ‘institute’ or ‘association’ Guess which way the cowboys go?
… High time this practice was made illegal!
If someone has put letters after their name that indicate anything other than a University degree, and/or association with an organisation that demands anything less than a legitimate academic qualification then they’re a charlatan… Why else would anyone seek to cynically ape the academic achievements of those who HAVE spent years learning their craft?
The wedding video trade has been ruined by these ‘types’ to the point that very few legitimate pros will touch weddings! In fact to do so often gets people ‘blackballed’ for more lucrative broadcast and corporate work. Looks like the stills trade is heading down the same sorry path…