Woman Leaves Bad Review On Wedding Photographer, Gets All The Photos Taken Away

Organizing a wedding is a lot of work, from the guest list, to the venue and decorations. So it’s not at all surprising that, between the “once in a lifetime” moment and the effort put into making things beautiful, folks would want to have the event photographed for posterity.

A netizen reached out to a legal advice forum to learn if they could sue their wedding photographer for a breach of contract. She was rude, took terrible photos and, the final straw, she cut access to the online gallery after the “happy couple” asked for a refund. Internet users did their best to give some suggestions and tips on how to proceed.

While some might argue that memories are always more important than pictures, let's face it, it’s always nice to have a permanent memento. Indeed, some folks say their wedding went by in such a flash that it might even be nice to get a few pictures. Similarly, a good photographer can often set up creative compositions that the happy couple might not have imagined when thinking about the visuals. Plus, even if some problematic guests made a mess, at least some professional pictures can “save” the good parts for posterity.

This is all to say that getting a wedding photographer is worth it. Some folks simply enlist a family member with a camera and pay them in beer, but it’s generally worth hiring a professional. Firstly, the images will simply be better. A career wedding photographer will have the experience and equipment to really make the most out of the photos. Photo editing is another vital part of having good pictures, something a professional will be better at. After all, real software and experience nearly always beat a hobbyist.

But one of the main reasons one might consider a professional photographer is that it also brings some degree of security. Most folks will make the happy couple sign a contract, which then means that there will be clear terms and conditions for what happens if one party is unhappy. A lot of wedding drama tends to come from the guests, in-laws and other parties who might get emotional or a little inebriated, but someone you hire under a contract is a much safer bet.

Some photographers might include clauses, like the one in this story, that give them “artistic freedom” in case the couple do not like the images. However, as the person asking for advice notes, the subject of the photo having their eyes closed is hardly an “artistic choice.” Similarly, the whole reason you might want a professional is to guide the subjects of the photo on how to pose and where to look. The person asking for advice seems aware that “I don’t like the images'' won't really hold up in court. Fortunately, they have also read the fine print and have elected to go after the “access to photos” angle.

Many of the commenters suggest this exact course of action, although the one downside is that if she complies, the OP still only ends up with a gallery full of images they don’t like. However, that’s still a better alternative to having paid for photos and not getting any. This would basically mean sending a “demand letter” outlining what the couple wants her to do. If she doesn’t comply, that is when a court can be involved. While it might sound extreme, suing a wedding photographer is not at all unheard of and sometimes necessary, given the sums of money involved.

This is just another reminder of why it’s vital to read the fine print. Some of the advice revolved around the question of “where” the couple should sue if it comes to that. In the US, if the damages don’t exceed a certain threshold, one has to go to a small claims court. It’s important to do your research, as this amount can greatly vary depending on the state. In some places it can be $2500 and in other states, as much as $25000. Just how expensive one’s wedding is will always depend on the couple, but if you’ve paid for something, you better get your money’s worth.