Wedding Photographer Threatened with Ludicrous $300,000 Lawsuit | Hacker News Reader

Wedding Photographer Threatened with Ludicrous $300,000 Lawsuit

petapixel.com

24 pointsuptown10 comments

This situation, where a lawyer uses the financial threat of having to deal with the legal process (little to no cost for the lawyer, great cost and risk for the defendant) to win a highly questionable lawsuit for his (the lawyer's) personal gain is highly disturbing - speaking as a non-lawyer.

It's bullying, plain and simple. Carreon is another example, and I'm sure there are thousands of such threats made a month that we don't hear about.

I think that this is a complete abuse of the power that is given to the attorney and should result in disbarment.

I make most my living doing stuff for wedding photographers. I also know Gary (the guy in the video) a bit—he does a good job calling out some charlatans in the industry.

Digital photography, social media, cheap equipment/software and a bad economy have brought a lot people in the industry. They try to make some extra cash with their Costco camera by shooting a wedding and handing over the files.

I hear/see all sorts of crazy things: no contracts, no backing up of files, stealing others' images for their portfolio, no backup gear/insurance, doing unsafe things with babies, not paying taxes, and then lying about how much money they make so they can do workshops for other photographers.

I think much of it comes from people who don't treat it like a full-time business and career.

I still get to sell them websites and software but sometimes I feel like the industry is imploding.

Why is this on Hacker News? It doesn't seem to belong here.

This is probably US Law 101 but it doesn't jive with my UK knowledge.. if verbal contracts aren't enforceable in that state and the claimant is making the point that there was "no contract", what is the basis to sue a photographer for services made under a "contract" the claimant doesn't even acknowledge?

Separate to that, the photographer's professional liability insurance would help here if the claimant won, wouldn't it?

Assuming that the photographer is carrying insurance. It did sound like this was someone that was a true professional though, as opposed to someone that does photography on the side so I would hope they carry insurance. In fact, if they do have insurance, it's very likely that the insurance company would provide a lawyer in the case of the lawsuit as winning the suit would save them more money that having to pay out a claim.

Their insurance should help, assuming they have it; but considering s/he works without a contract I find that unlikely. Further, even if the photographer has insurance it may not cover incidents arising out of situations not covered by a written contract.

Pedantic nit-picking time: you mean oral contracts, not verbal contracts. A verbal contract is simply any contract that is in words. A contract that is spoken but not written is still verbal.

I think the main takeaway is never ever do business with lawyers. That guy is not fit to run a lawyer firm imo and he should have his license/privileges/diploma/whatever revoked. What an asshat ... it's surreal.

But some good tips to look out for for people considering this business professionally.

Also, I wonder what FroKnowsPhoto would have to say about this ;o

Anyone got a link to a copy of the letter? A nearly 10 minute video of someone reading the letter is inefficient and makes it hard to go back and forth over the content--and from what I saw before I gave up on this video, the host is interspersing his commentary with the reading of the letter, making it even more annoying.

Did anyone ever measured the effective tax of writing and signing contracts as opposed to just doing the work?

It's actually not good, while you learn to write/read contracts you're not becoming better skilled professional neither you spend your time meaningfully signing it on every occasion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com