Good point and I feel the same way. Especially when she mentioned that the value is essentially zero. I wonder if the video hurt their case in that maybe she felt the photographer tried to get the guest out if his way.
@@aliciabarron2583 He was paid to take the photos, not for the editing. The way he got paid for the photos is when people order them. Thats fair. If the photos are not good then people wont order them and he makes nothing but his fee. I am photographer too but not for weddings. If it were me, I would have got rid of the other bloke and I am on his side. How can he deliver good wedding photos with some amateur wrecking all his shots.
@@travis8665 yes he took the pictures, but he took down the site for people to order them and also didnt give them the tablet, he didnt deliver anything to them.
I'm in media and what happens is the photographers sort of work "together" when a bunch of them end up having to shoot the same function. What they *dont* do is get in one another's way. This man was an annoyance.
Lol as a wedding photographer myself. This photographer is crazy. It’s plenty of times you will have to shoot with another photographer or videographer. Just make it work regardless
So what??? He just expected to give them nothing and get to keep their 3500 dollars??? How do we even know that he edited the photos in the first place??? It's not like they got to see them to know for sure!!!
I believe the reason the photographer didn’t want anyone else taking pictures is because he wanted to have the only pictures so he could hold the pictures hostage ie. that 3000$ editing fee that wasn’t even in the contract, he was a narcissist and a A-hole
The mother definitely told the photographer that they were going to print the photos at CVS. Her reaction was a dead giveaway. Lol. I found it hilarious that the co worker was so dedicated to taking pictures. He should have just offered to photograph the entire wedding.
It's hard to do things like that coming from someone who always had a video camera in hand for hobby reasons....you never want to promise to be the photographer for free you just want to promise to have fun and share what you take at the end of it. I thought the same thing about the mother though LMAO it cracked me up she wouldn't be good at poker 😂😆
I thought it was disrespectful of the coworker to interrupt the paid professional photographer.. especially after he was told to stop interrupting the professional.. in life we need to stay in our lane. I can understand why the professional photographer was frustrated. Can you imagine hiring a professional caterer to cook the food at your wedding and they planned the menu and arranged what foods would be served and at what time.. Then your coworkers push the waiters out of the way and start serving the food they made.. everything should take place decently and by arrangement..
This dude was nuts! He was already paid in full or the majority of it. Just take the pictures man, lol. And then he had the nerve to argue about the contract during the wedding ceremonies. That's beyond ridiculous.
He wasn't. Do you know how wedding photography works? A good photographer will sell many photos to family members. He couldn't do that because the idiot with the camera ruined all the shots.
@@fjccommish I absolutely know how wedding photography works with me being a photographer/filmmaker and have done weddings before. Do you know how any of this works, is the question. You clearly missed the part about him already getting paid. Everything else would have been on the customer once he's brought it to their attention about this other guy but he got paid and should have just kept snapping shots. He also provided no proof that his pics were "ruined". In the weddings I have worked, I too typically got paid upfront in full and I couldn't have cared less who else was there taking pics. And in every wedding I have done there were other folks with cameras and flashes. It's unavoidable unless the wedding invitation explicitly states no cameras.
@@brennenjones6658 Yes - been doing it for 40 years. Wedding photographers get paid. AND THEN they make more money selling the photos to family members. I roll that into the fee - I'm that good. I worked with the greatest people photographer in the world. I'm in high demand. Most don't work it into the up front fee. They rely on family members purchasing good photos. Some hack like you ruining every photo ruins that market/opportunity for the pro. Cameras are one thing. A guy in every photo, more and more boldly interfering with every shot is a different thing. If he wouldn't stop, I'd have him thrown out - the people who hire me would do it. I'm that good. Within the walls of where I photograph, I am always king.
@@fjccommish Just browse through the comments then. To each their own but there are other photographers chiming in and saying EXACTLY what I am saying so I don't know why you felt the need to pick my comment out and pick on me. Your business practices are your business practices and mine are mine. But as I said, if I got paid already, it's not an issue for me since that's the goal anyway. My work will still speak for itself regardless of what other "photographers" are doing there at the wedding. As long as they honor the contract which they did, would have been cool with me.
If the guest's constant flashes were ruining his photos, and the wedding party refused to make the guy stop ruining the photos, the photographer should have said "Ok, I'm out then, since I'm being prevented from doing the job I was hired to do." And left. And refunded their money, minus his time & travel expenses.
So defendant takes pictures sells none of them delivered none of them but got paid in full before he took any of the pictures. Now he expected to be paid even more money before any pictures are handed over? This is the guy that has a flawless reputation and treats customers fairly. He should have refunded them in full.
This case was ridiculous but I absolutely love that the groom did not hesitate for a second when Doug asked if he would marry her again just to have photos
For someone that says he cares about his "work" so much, I can't tell. He cares more about his ego and won't ever make as much money as he could because of his bad attitude. Defendant aside, it is so stupid to allow someone else to get in the way of the professional photographer when you already paid 3500. I'm not even professional and someone else's flash has messed up the quality of my photo, why wouldn't the groom just thank his coworker for coming and tell him to try to avoid the photographer's shots or something or ask that he photograph like one on one guest photos since the guy wanted to be that goddamn busy.
Yeah. That counterclaim was purely out of revenge, possibly for both the situation at the wedding and the plaintiff's claim. No way a professional photographer can claim that much money for editing. That's supposed to be factored into the contract price.
No it's not factored into the contract price at all, it's factored into the money he makes when guests/family/friends order photos from his website (which are really expensive too)... which HE blocked people from doing. Isn't it interesting how we usually make things worse for ourselves with our angry reactions, no matter how justified we believe it is!!
@@bev9708 So he was charging them extra for work he had not done and refused to do? I thought he was claiming he had already done that seventy-odd hours of work already, without anyone having ordered prints.
WHAT? Why didn't they get refunded in full, he was paid to do a service for which he provided nothing. If he was awarded to keep some of the money then he should have been ordered to give them their photos...
Very hard to believe plaintiffs had no knowledge of his "co-worker" acting like a professional photographer, and they were caught in a lie claiming the defendant never spoke to them about the guest photographer.. E.O.S.
So what? It's their wedding, their event. They were smart enough to have other people taking photos. That's the smart thing to do, why on earth would they allow people like that clown to keep the moments of such important moments of their life as hostage? Based on that kind of contracts they only have not to have other proffesional photographers in their event, they have every right to take their own photos too.
@@hyperion6 Ya but the guest had no right to "stalk" the photographer while doing his work. I agree tho that the photographer had no right to hold the photos hostage tho.
@@ShortyLexiex3 He didn’t! His job was to take the pictures and give it to them. It’s like saying - the restaurant sat us down at the table, we never got served, but we should pay for part of the bill because they sat us down. Huh??
@@wackybrattyx he went to the wedding and took pictures. That was part of the job. He didn't deliver what they paid for, so that's why they got most of it back. So yes, he did do the job, just not completely to what he was hired to do.
I agree! It doesn't matter that he showed up and took the photos if they never got any of them! That's like a chef saying, "I cooked the food, you have to pay even though I didn't let you eat any of it!"
No. It's also on the photographer. Part of his business is based on the quality of his work. Prospective clients like to see previous work & if it's messed up, it affects him. The wedding guest was messing up the shots
For one if I paid that much for a photographer I would make sure no one got in his way. If he told me that I would let everyone know to stay away from the photographer. But then again, the friend gave them pics so it’s a good thing he was in the way.
I suspect so would most people who wanted good, professional photos. But as the judge said, if the plaintiff didn't mind having bad pictures, it is their wedding and their prerogative. The plaintiffs did not breach the contract because the contract referred to not having another professional photographer, not the BS about what defendant wants to consider professional equipment. I do think the judge cut the plaintiff a lot of slack for clearly lying either on their answer or in court about the photographer having talked to it at the reception. I think the judge did that because she didn't care whether or not the photographer had come up to them---the plaintiffs had no legal obligation to do anything about their guest, whether the defendant actual spoke to them or not.
People don't even have time to eat at their own weddings sometimes. So many things are going on at once to have the foresight or presence of mind to wrangle overexcited guests.
That really is annoying AF for that amateur photographer to be in so many shots, and his flash ruining priceless moments, but he definitely didn't handle the situation appropriately at all!
He didn't have to use these photos or advertising or his website. He should've just gave a warning and spoke to the bride and groom. Then continued his work as professional as possible. The mother should have never said they were going to go to CVS (people talk to much) but then again the photographer should have released them anyways.
Two great friends were getting married...My husband and I attended with a 20.00 cameo camera and took better pictures than their expensive photographer...I had 2 prints done at no extra cost and the bride wanted to pay for them...I was like that's my wedding present to you and your husband....She loved my pictures better than her photographer...I did unique candids etc...
The bride saying he ruined the big day is silly. Even after all that time. I think he should still be required to provide the tablet. What’s the big deal?
The photographer was correct. I cant believe the bride and groom would have been happy with his pictures the way he had to take them. He only wanted them to be good.
Napoleon complex....small stature big ego. He even disrespected his partner by disowning their relationship. And let's not mention the tie! 🙄 The plaintiffs are a lovely couple and I'm sure their guests have lots of snaps to memorialise their day
I'm still at paying $3,500 for some pictures. Maybe it's because I'm not into pictures like that, but the newer iPhones take great pictures and your guests are going to be taking pictures, so paying thousands for someone to take pictures seems insane to me.
@@g355150 My Galaxy whatever it is, not a newer one, takes beautiful pictures. It's a huge reason I am so reluctant to upgrade. Lol But yeah, I have some gorgeous pictures I took of nature on my husbands iPhone. They look like a professional did it on an expensive camera.
The pictures on the tablet and website are low resolution and water marked so not fit for printing so you dont even get them except to look at on a tablet. The defendant was basically paid $3.5k for a catalogue of images that they could buy at a premium price after the wedding.
@@miriamkivlehan3498 that's what I thought happened...insane! Professional editing isn't comparable to what a phone can do, it's one thing I would spend a decent amount for but 3500+price of pics is crazy!
Kurt, the hallway guy, is a trip. Surprised he's never gotten punched or at least a good cussing over the years he did this. I love his directness. Lol Doug L, that took his place, is much the same. Great follow-up and calling litigants out on their nonsense.
Always thought the same. Feel like there's 3 giant security guards near the camera man in the hall after the case to deter people punching Kirk or Doug. Lol
Wow my wedding photographer only charged me $600. He was only 19 years old and I was his first gig. This was six years ago he stored the pictures for me through the web which I downloaded and I’ve had to order later. But I still have the pictures online and can print out myself if I want also he made a short video composite with music background. All this for only $600. Those guys are way over the top.
Exactly. I saw a wedding done on an iPhone once. We were blown away with buddy's skills. The photos printed beautifully. It was all free. People are insane to pay that much for the same thing a kid can do. Lol
it's not uncommon for some to take photos and then not release many of the pics unless the couple pays more money. This was done to me afetr my wedding 23 years ago. They took photos & wouldn't release the rest unless we paid more money. However we didn't take them to court, we talked it over with them & eventually they have us the photos, which we had already paid for anyway since it wasn't mentioned in the contract that we had tio pay extra...but this isn't uncommon, very old old tactic. We're still married and after all of those years we realized that what was important to us back then isn't now. I've been caring for my husband with cancer, after being together for so many years it's almost embarrassing that we got upset over a few photographs. Life is short, not worth it.
WoW! Judge was 100% wrong. The plaintiffs now have NO wedding photos. They received nothing for the $3500 they paid except pain and aggravation and now they have NO photographs?????
Thankfully they have coworker and other guests photos but $3500 should have been returned cause he gave nothing to the couple of what they paid him to do.
I don't believe for a second, that a guest showed up with a huge camera and the bride and groom didn't know he was going to take lots of pictures. I bet they even paid him! How does JM know he's not a professional? And when the judge asked the Plaintiff: "what did you say to him," he said, "he never came up to me." And that became: "I don't remember what I told him.". Plus, not every wedding will lead to referrals--- for lots of various reasons.
I'm a wedding coordinator, and it's super common for photographers to have a clause in their contract stating it's a breach if someone else has a professional camera there aside from other hired vendors.
I used to be into photography bigtime and still have all my gear. If a 'normal' person saw me with it you'd think I was a professional photographer (or at least someone with pro gear, ha!). I can say a few things; - This photographer was a real piece of work. As Judge Judy would say - outgrageous! Hopefully people in their area saw this when it was originally aired and it cost him business because it should. Also the plaintiff's should have left a review on his business is as many places as possible and letting everyone know the defendant lost this case where he wouldn't provide their photo's. - Looking at the photo's on that tablet I can say with absolute certainty that those were not 'my work is impeccable' quality photo's - Even if the co-worker with the pro gear was using a flash, flashes go off in fractions of a fraction of a second. Like 1/120th or 1/160th of a second. For the 'real' photographers photos to be consistently ruined because of the co-workers flash is some kind of grassy knoll happening. Once? Yeah. Thrice? OK, suuuuure, I mean it's kinda possible, like it *could* happen. Dozens or hundreds of times? Absolutely not! Paid photog should be buying lottery tickets with that kind of 'luck'. When the flash pops it doesn't hang around for half the night, the light is gone in a blink of an eye.
Two mins in and the photographer is nuts, does he think that he's the only person on the planet who can tell what would make a good photo? Professional means in the business and not someone with a good camera!
I don't understand why the plaintiffs didn't get their full amount. If the plaintiffs didn't get anything from the photographer they should have been reimbursed the full amount.
I think it was a little rude of the guest to be taking pictures like that. I wonder...if this case was different, would they be suing because they didn't like the pictures & instead liked the guests? Also I do think the mom was up to no good. However he still should given them the pictures. He would have been in better standing with the judge.
Good lord did he try to claim 70 hours of editing! This guy might want to buy different software cause even I can make professional photos even for products including killing the entire background in just a few minutes Photoshop ain't that hard to operate, lol !
Send me one of your pics and give us a laugh. Yes, you can kill a background but it looks fake because you need to apply lighting and other editing as well which can take hours. it looks ok on a 3 in phone screen but on a high end tv screen it is unusable.
@@travis8665 have no clue what your talking about and the quality of my logo is meant to be difficult for anyone else to just use! If you want to see what a real product photos should look like check out the website products, lol!
Pride is such a useless emotion.....wtf is I won't give you your pics because your friend took pics too....and he had a bigger camera with a brighter flash! Lol I can't.
Regardless of the judgement, why would a guest find it necessary to take photos to this degree at a wedding, not to mention it was a co-worker. Seems creepy to me.
I think they found out the coworker did photography after they hired the defendant but it was too late to cancel without losing money. So they figured they could sue and get their money back. And the coworker would take photos as a "gift"
Someone gets it. Judge said it was clear the guest was in the way and it is clear in the video he was dogging the photographer and getting in his way, ruining the shots.
The wedding photographer is arrogant. The judge suggested what he could have said to the guest photographer but it went over his head. When you think too much about yourself you miss the point.
I love that the coworker was so dedicated to photograph their wedding lol I think if he would have said he was doing so, the plaintiffs wouldn’t have hired a photographer
I’m in my kitchen making spaghetti 🍝 dying laughing from the defendant’s claim there was another professional. And if I’m paying $3,500 you ain’t gona tell me what I nor my guests can do and I better be able to print shit out too.
If it is discussed beforehand no pro photographer would do the job. its like painting a house and the next door neighbours kid comes over and wants to paint as well, but in a different colour.
Who in the world pay $3600 for a wedding photographer than allows a friend to roam around the party ruining the professional work that needed to take place?
He gets paid for each picture he sells from orders. Of course he would get more money. I took some photos today of a house and have been editing for 5 hours already. The charge is $1500.
The photographer is a self-centered jerk who thinks everything is about him and threw a tantrum when it wasn't. "This case is about MY work." No, buddy, this case is about THEIR WEDDING. It wasn't HIS wedding--he was hired to do a job, that's it. Yes, the guest was wrong to keep shooting when he was asked to stop but the photographer is supposed to be the professional. Jobs don't always go the way you hoped or planned, that's life. Professionals handle it and figure out how to do the job anyway.
WHAT?!!!!! The customers who paid for their wedding pictures are not allowed to print them? Because it would be copyright infringement?? That's insane. I don't understand why they didn't get all their money back. They paid for a certain result / product, and didn't get it. Him spending time there taking pictures is worthless if they didn't get the pictures.
I get so sick of people claiming "Paid photographer" just because I like to take nice photos and not photos from my phone. I don't like to upgrade my phone often, so yes, I have a nice DSLR with a removeable lens. I'm still not a professional at all!
This photographer thinks he is so saavy for showing them pictures through an iPad. Haha. He obviously doesn't know that those files can be moved out of those devices. Every person has phones with cameras that produce very nice photos now. Have you ever not seen a wedding picture with someone not taking a photo? However I do understand his frustration. Usually when there are videographers and photographers, they communicate to be out of each other's ways. It can be frustrating when someone keeps getting in your shots. Also, that coworker that brings their dslr is pretty pretentious. Everyone thinks they are professionals now. Who brings that kind of camera to a wedding? Just use your phone...
I’m not quite sure how accurate this is, but I think that the iPad/galaxy tab is included with the wedding photos as a package. It might be incentive to spend more money and get more than just photos, since cell phone cameras make it easy for anyone to take great pictures. It’s probably a way to maintain profit is what I’m basically saying 😄
@@mamiminowknowsbest that's what someone does when their pictures are not that great. Luckily when I got married, my wife had a college friend who was featured in photography magazines. He gave us a great price. He also got to enjoy being at the wedding.
I would never use someone like the defendant. He is rude and crass. The fact that he was paid in full, didn't deliver what he promised and then wanted to keep the money is outrageous.
If you think for one minute they weren't trying to cheat this photographer out of needing to purchase the pictures from him, think again. Guests don't bring huge cameras like that to weddings - everyone uses their cell or a smaller camera. This was so obvious it's ridiculous - they frustrated his performance to save a dime. What a shame they got the money instead of the pictures.
The last 2 weddings I have been it was announced " no camera use "during the ceremony. I told my little sister who was a bride at one of the weddings, and she said she did not make that request and was disappointed cause she had no video footage or pictures from her guest. Watching this it tells me that is just the photographers request. So if you plan on getting married make sure the photographer is clear that you want all of your guest to take pictures if that is what you want. But in this case the other photographer was just rude.
Why would anyone want to pay a photographer to give them a tablet and you can't do anything with the pictures after unless you go to them , that is just stupid.
I can’t believe he was able to keep any of it. They paid for pictures and he didn’t give any. Full refund, period.
Came here just for this comment, why did he get to keep any money? They dont have any pictures!
Right!!! I couldn’t believe he got to keep any of it! Then give some photos up them!!! Bad verdict!
Good point and I feel the same way. Especially when she mentioned that the value is essentially zero.
I wonder if the video hurt their case in that maybe she felt the photographer tried to get the guest out if his way.
@@aliciabarron2583 He was paid to take the photos, not for the editing. The way he got paid for the photos is when people order them. Thats fair. If the photos are not good then people wont order them and he makes nothing but his fee. I am photographer too but not for weddings. If it were me, I would have got rid of the other bloke and I am on his side. How can he deliver good wedding photos with some amateur wrecking all his shots.
@@travis8665 yes he took the pictures, but he took down the site for people to order them and also didnt give them the tablet, he didnt deliver anything to them.
He should’ve just gave them the pictures he had even if the other “photographer” was in them
Exactly! He made things so much more difficult.
Exactly
I'm in media and what happens is the photographers sort of work "together" when a bunch of them end up having to shoot the same function. What they *dont* do is get in one another's way. This man was an annoyance.
Given. Proper grammar please
Yes, they paid for them.
Defendant's evasiveness about his relationship with his business partner will drop his credibility with the judge.
And with the “business partner” as well.
Lol as a wedding photographer myself. This photographer is crazy. It’s plenty of times you will have to shoot with another photographer or videographer. Just make it work regardless
To me its like singing in a band and someone from the crowd jumps on the stage and grabs the mic to sing.
The photographer’s logic doesn’t even make sense to himself
The pap do it all the time!
@@travis8665 And that's one of the many reasons why you're not a judge.
He's a control freak, sir.
So what??? He just expected to give them nothing and get to keep their 3500 dollars??? How do we even know that he edited the photos in the first place??? It's not like they got to see them to know for sure!!!
He got paid in full, did not deliver photos..... shot himself in the foot and not smart enough to realize. Anyone who saw this, will not use him.
Shot himself in the foot. He still got paid for not delivering any photos. He did ok.
I believe the reason the photographer didn’t want anyone else taking pictures is because he wanted to have the only pictures so he could hold the pictures hostage ie. that 3000$ editing fee that wasn’t even in the contract, he was a narcissist and a A-hole
The mother definitely told the photographer that they were going to print the photos at CVS. Her reaction was a dead giveaway. Lol. I found it hilarious that the co worker was so dedicated to taking pictures. He should have just offered to photograph the entire wedding.
It's hard to do things like that coming from someone who always had a video camera in hand for hobby reasons....you never want to promise to be the photographer for free you just want to promise to have fun and share what you take at the end of it.
I thought the same thing about the mother though LMAO it cracked me up she wouldn't be good at poker 😂😆
I thought it was disrespectful of the coworker to interrupt the paid professional photographer.. especially after he was told to stop interrupting the professional.. in life we need to stay in our lane. I can understand why the professional photographer was frustrated. Can you imagine hiring a professional caterer to cook the food at your wedding and they planned the menu and arranged what foods would be served and at what time.. Then your coworkers push the waiters out of the way and start serving the food they made.. everything should take place decently and by arrangement..
What is CVS anyway ? I got lost
@@emo-channel Lol it is a pharmacy/store just like Walgreens… With a photo department
@@KyTy-yb3vl Oh thank you for the information
This dude was nuts! He was already paid in full or the majority of it. Just take the pictures man, lol.
And then he had the nerve to argue about the contract during the wedding ceremonies. That's beyond ridiculous.
He wasn't. Do you know how wedding photography works? A good photographer will sell many photos to family members. He couldn't do that because the idiot with the camera ruined all the shots.
@@fjccommish I absolutely know how wedding photography works with me being a photographer/filmmaker and have done weddings before.
Do you know how any of this works, is the question.
You clearly missed the part about him already getting paid. Everything else would have been on the customer once he's brought it to their attention about this other guy but he got paid and should have just kept snapping shots.
He also provided no proof that his pics were "ruined".
In the weddings I have worked, I too typically got paid upfront in full and I couldn't have cared less who else was there taking pics. And in every wedding I have done there were other folks with cameras and flashes. It's unavoidable unless the wedding invitation explicitly states no cameras.
@@brennenjones6658 Yes - been doing it for 40 years. Wedding photographers get paid. AND THEN they make more money selling the photos to family members. I roll that into the fee - I'm that good. I worked with the greatest people photographer in the world. I'm in high demand.
Most don't work it into the up front fee. They rely on family members purchasing good photos.
Some hack like you ruining every photo ruins that market/opportunity for the pro.
Cameras are one thing. A guy in every photo, more and more boldly interfering with every shot is a different thing. If he wouldn't stop, I'd have him thrown out - the people who hire me would do it. I'm that good. Within the walls of where I photograph, I am always king.
@@fjccommish Just browse through the comments then. To each their own but there are other photographers chiming in and saying EXACTLY what I am saying so I don't know why you felt the need to pick my comment out and pick on me.
Your business practices are your business practices and mine are mine. But as I said, if I got paid already, it's not an issue for me since that's the goal anyway. My work will still speak for itself regardless of what other "photographers" are doing there at the wedding.
As long as they honor the contract which they did, would have been cool with me.
@@brennenjones6658 Lots of hackholes out there.
If the guest's constant flashes were ruining his photos, and the wedding party refused to make the guy stop ruining the photos, the photographer should have said "Ok, I'm out then, since I'm being prevented from doing the job I was hired to do." And left.
And refunded their money, minus his time & travel expenses.
I was thinking that he should’ve left, too, because if the photos were affected they definitely would’ve faulted him
So defendant takes pictures sells none of them delivered none of them but got paid in full before he took any of the pictures. Now he expected to be paid even more money before any pictures are handed over?
This is the guy that has a flawless reputation and treats customers fairly.
He should have refunded them in full.
Why, He only got paid to do the shoot.
They wanted money, not pictures,= The guest took some very good pics
The photographer has himself confused with a celebrity. smh
This case was ridiculous but I absolutely love that the groom did not hesitate for a second when Doug asked if he would marry her again just to have photos
I know. that was so sweet 🥹
not doug
I get the feeling that photographer gets angry at a lot more than just that wedding.
For someone that says he cares about his "work" so much, I can't tell. He cares more about his ego and won't ever make as much money as he could because of his bad attitude. Defendant aside, it is so stupid to allow someone else to get in the way of the professional photographer when you already paid 3500. I'm not even professional and someone else's flash has messed up the quality of my photo, why wouldn't the groom just thank his coworker for coming and tell him to try to avoid the photographer's shots or something or ask that he photograph like one on one guest photos since the guy wanted to be that goddamn busy.
Kurt was pissed at the end when the defendant called out the integrity of the show and wasn't gonna let him just walk away
kurt is just a paid boy who always agrees with the judge
I agree with the defendant. His manner was impeccable. The video of him losing his temper was him whispering to the guy who was ruining the shots.
Yeah. That counterclaim was purely out of revenge, possibly for both the situation at the wedding and the plaintiff's claim. No way a professional photographer can claim that much money for editing. That's supposed to be factored into the contract price.
No it's not factored into the contract price at all, it's factored into the money he makes when guests/family/friends order photos from his website (which are really expensive too)... which HE blocked people from doing. Isn't it interesting how we usually make things worse for ourselves with our angry reactions, no matter how justified we believe it is!!
@@bev9708 So he was charging them extra for work he had not done and refused to do? I thought he was claiming he had already done that seventy-odd hours of work already, without anyone having ordered prints.
WHAT? Why didn't they get refunded in full, he was paid to do a service for which he provided nothing. If he was awarded to keep some of the money then he should have been ordered to give them their photos...
The photographer is wild! The audacity
Very hard to believe plaintiffs had no knowledge of his "co-worker" acting like a professional photographer, and they were caught in a lie claiming the defendant never spoke to them about the guest photographer.. E.O.S.
So what? It's their wedding, their event. They were smart enough to have other people taking photos. That's the smart thing to do, why on earth would they allow people like that clown to keep the moments of such important moments of their life as hostage? Based on that kind of contracts they only have not to have other proffesional photographers in their event, they have every right to take their own photos too.
@@hyperion6 Ya but the guest had no right to "stalk" the photographer while doing his work. I agree tho that the photographer had no right to hold the photos hostage tho.
Defendant: It's not your wedding
So basically the defendant want ppl to know he's single 😂😂 wow smh
probably because that lady looks like a troll
you noticed those ugly leather boots she walked in with?
I've seen lots of weddings where they ask guests not to take photos. It's not unheard of
ASK.
He thinks he is Emperor or something.
"I "allow " cellphones."
When you are on your Wedding Day, you have a lot more on your mind
then some conflict with the photographer and he has already got $3500.
Wow! I am not agreeing with Judge Marilyn on this one. They never got any pictures!! So why would they pay him?!?😳😳😳😳
Bc he still did the job. That's how she always rules.
@@ShortyLexiex3 He didn’t! His job was to take the pictures and give it to them. It’s like saying - the restaurant sat us down at the table, we never got served, but we should pay for part of the bill because they sat us down. Huh??
@@wackybrattyx he went to the wedding and took pictures. That was part of the job. He didn't deliver what they paid for, so that's why they got most of it back. So yes, he did do the job, just not completely to what he was hired to do.
I agree! It doesn't matter that he showed up and took the photos if they never got any of them! That's like a chef saying, "I cooked the food, you have to pay even though I didn't let you eat any of it!"
@@luteydog perhaps because the reason why he didn’t deliver was due to the other guest
Defendant let his ego get the best of him. He already made the groom aware and if they pics come out bad, it's on them.
No. It's also on the photographer. Part of his business is based on the quality of his work. Prospective clients like to see previous work & if it's messed up, it affects him. The wedding guest was messing up the shots
For one if I paid that much for a photographer I would make sure no one got in his way. If he told me that I would let everyone know to stay away from the photographer. But then again, the friend gave them pics so it’s a good thing he was in the way.
I suspect so would most people who wanted good, professional photos. But as the judge said, if the plaintiff didn't mind having bad pictures, it is their wedding and their prerogative. The plaintiffs did not breach the contract because the contract referred to not having another professional photographer, not the BS about what defendant wants to consider professional equipment.
I do think the judge cut the plaintiff a lot of slack for clearly lying either on their answer or in court about the photographer having talked to it at the reception. I think the judge did that because she didn't care whether or not the photographer had come up to them---the plaintiffs had no legal obligation to do anything about their guest, whether the defendant actual spoke to them or not.
People don't even have time to eat at their own weddings sometimes. So many things are going on at once to have the foresight or presence of mind to wrangle overexcited guests.
Her husband at the end said “I would love to” at the idea of making a fake wedding for new photos 💜 ☠️ 😂 💗
He took their money gave them nothing and he’s offended based on pride. In what world?
That really is annoying AF for that amateur photographer to be in so many shots, and his flash ruining priceless moments, but he definitely didn't handle the situation appropriately at all!
He didn't have to use these photos or advertising or his website. He should've just gave a warning and spoke to the bride and groom. Then continued his work as professional as possible. The mother should have never said they were going to go to CVS (people talk to much) but then again the photographer should have released them anyways.
Yes people talk too much, lol. I’m sure that she knew that she wasn’t supposed to tell him that
Two great friends were getting married...My husband and I attended with a 20.00 cameo camera and took better pictures than their expensive photographer...I had 2 prints done at no extra cost and the bride wanted to pay for them...I was like that's my wedding present to you and your husband....She loved my pictures better than her photographer...I did unique candids etc...
We hired a photographer that had been working for the local newspaper. She did nearly all candid shots and I LOVE them.
How can we contact you on social media to check out your work. 😊
The bride saying he ruined the big day is silly. Even after all that time. I think he should still be required to provide the tablet. What’s the big deal?
He was freaking out during her wedding. That's grounds to wreck a day.
MC, you are a fool
The judge should have ruled to give back the full $3500 I think.
He did the job,. He earnt his $3500
The photographer was correct. I cant believe the bride and groom would have been happy with his pictures the way he had to take them. He only wanted them to be good.
Napoleon complex....small stature big ego. He even disrespected his partner by disowning their relationship. And let's not mention the tie! 🙄
The plaintiffs are a lovely couple and I'm sure their guests have lots of snaps to memorialise their day
Let me get this straight they spent $3500 to get pictures on a tablet and then still have to buy any other pictures??
I'm still at paying $3,500 for some pictures. Maybe it's because I'm not into pictures like that, but the newer iPhones take great pictures and your guests are going to be taking pictures, so paying thousands for someone to take pictures seems insane to me.
@@g355150 My Galaxy whatever it is, not a newer one, takes beautiful pictures. It's a huge reason I am so reluctant to upgrade. Lol
But yeah, I have some gorgeous pictures I took of nature on my husbands iPhone. They look like a professional did it on an expensive camera.
I'm thinking the same thing and he should of still gave them their pics rather the other man was in them or not
The pictures on the tablet and website are low resolution and water marked so not fit for printing so you dont even get them except to look at on a tablet. The defendant was basically paid $3.5k for a catalogue of images that they could buy at a premium price after the wedding.
@@miriamkivlehan3498 that's what I thought happened...insane! Professional editing isn't comparable to what a phone can do, it's one thing I would spend a decent amount for but 3500+price of pics is crazy!
Kurt, the hallway guy, is a trip. Surprised he's never gotten punched or at least a good cussing over the years he did this.
I love his directness. Lol
Doug L, that took his place, is much the same. Great follow-up and calling litigants out on their nonsense.
Always thought the same. Feel like there's 3 giant security guards near the camera man in the hall after the case to deter people punching Kirk or Doug. Lol
I think Doug was once punched by a litigant in the 80s.
Never pay in full.
Wow my wedding photographer only charged me $600. He was only 19 years old and I was his first gig. This was six years ago he stored the pictures for me through the web which I downloaded and I’ve had to order later. But I still have the pictures online and can print out myself if I want also he made a short video composite with music background. All this for only $600. Those guys are way over the top.
That’s great a lot of people have terrible experiences with what people consider “amateur” photographers I’m glad it worked out for you!
Exactly. I saw a wedding done on an iPhone once. We were blown away with buddy's skills. The photos printed beautifully. It was all free. People are insane to pay that much for the same thing a kid can do. Lol
it's not uncommon for some to take photos and then not release many of the pics unless the couple pays more money. This was done to me afetr my wedding 23 years ago. They took photos & wouldn't release the rest unless we paid more money. However we didn't take them to court, we talked it over with them & eventually they have us the photos, which we had already paid for anyway since it wasn't mentioned in the contract that we had tio pay extra...but this isn't uncommon, very old old tactic. We're still married and after all of those years we realized that what was important to us back then isn't now. I've been caring for my husband with cancer, after being together for so many years it's almost embarrassing that we got upset over a few photographs. Life is short, not worth it.
@@christophernunn77 Some people are so talented I swear!
@@Anglynn74 wowww! people can be so low and dispicable sometimes, and all for stubborness or a grudge or due to greed.
The guest was a total jerk copying the defendant.
When judge asked "you already hv their $3500 right" to the defendant , I already knew how this was gonna end
The coworker was out of line but the old dude screwed the pooch over his EGO 🤣🤣
WoW! Judge was 100% wrong. The plaintiffs now have NO wedding photos. They received nothing for the $3500 they paid except pain and aggravation and now they have NO photographs?????
Are you deaf? You can clearly hear 12:12 that they have better photos from the other photographer.
They still showed up and took photos so he got paid for his time. They even admitted they had better photos from the other guy.
I think she should've awarded them the photos and no money🤷
It wasn't fair. Didn't even get the money for the makeup artist that was lat
Thankfully they have coworker and other guests photos but $3500 should have been returned cause he gave nothing to the couple of what they paid him to do.
I don't believe for a second, that a guest showed up with a huge camera and the bride and groom didn't know he was going to take lots of pictures. I bet they even paid him!
How does JM know he's not a professional? And when the judge asked the Plaintiff: "what did you say to him," he said, "he never came up to me." And that became: "I don't remember what I told him.".
Plus, not every wedding will lead to referrals--- for lots of various reasons.
i have taken photos at a wedding and i never have a trouble with people take pictures but they have always had the sense to stand behind me
The so-called professional photographer was an arrogant A$$hole. I would have reported him to the Better Business Bureau for sure.
I'm a wedding coordinator, and it's super common for photographers to have a clause in their contract stating it's a breach if someone else has a professional camera there aside from other hired vendors.
Why does the defendant look like a mafia member?
Yeah and if you don't buy his pictures you'll wake up on honeymoon with a horses head on your pillow🤣😂
Because he wants everyone to think he’s with the mafia ???
Buy or swim with the fishes!
He is 😄😄😄
@@tracylangsley4064 🤣🤣
That photographer's pride and ego will be his undoing.
I used to be into photography bigtime and still have all my gear. If a 'normal' person saw me with it you'd think I was a professional photographer (or at least someone with pro gear, ha!).
I can say a few things;
- This photographer was a real piece of work. As Judge Judy would say - outgrageous! Hopefully people in their area saw this when it was originally aired and it cost him business because it should. Also the plaintiff's should have left a review on his business is as many places as possible and letting everyone know the defendant lost this case where he wouldn't provide their photo's.
- Looking at the photo's on that tablet I can say with absolute certainty that those were not 'my work is impeccable' quality photo's
- Even if the co-worker with the pro gear was using a flash, flashes go off in fractions of a fraction of a second. Like 1/120th or 1/160th of a second. For the 'real' photographers photos to be consistently ruined because of the co-workers flash is some kind of grassy knoll happening. Once? Yeah. Thrice? OK, suuuuure, I mean it's kinda possible, like it *could* happen. Dozens or hundreds of times? Absolutely not! Paid photog should be buying lottery tickets with that kind of 'luck'. When the flash pops it doesn't hang around for half the night, the light is gone in a blink of an eye.
Two mins in and the photographer is nuts, does he think that he's the only person on the planet who can tell what would make a good photo? Professional means in the business and not someone with a good camera!
I don't understand why the plaintiffs didn't get their full amount. If the plaintiffs didn't get anything from the photographer they should have been reimbursed the full amount.
I think it was a little rude of the guest to be taking pictures like that. I wonder...if this case was different, would they be suing because they didn't like the pictures & instead liked the guests? Also I do think the mom was up to no good. However he still should given them the pictures. He would have been in better standing with the judge.
Good lord did he try to claim 70 hours of editing! This guy might want to buy different software cause even I can make professional photos even for products including killing the entire background in just a few minutes Photoshop ain't that hard to operate, lol !
Send me one of your pics and give us a laugh. Yes, you can kill a background but it looks fake because you need to apply lighting and other editing as well which can take hours. it looks ok on a 3 in phone screen but on a high end tv screen it is unusable.
@@travis8665 have no clue what your talking about and the quality of my logo is meant to be difficult for anyone else to just use! If you want to see what a real product photos should look like check out the website products, lol!
Pride is such a useless emotion.....wtf is I won't give you your pics because your friend took pics too....and he had a bigger camera with a brighter flash! Lol I can't.
Regardless of the judgement, why would a guest find it necessary to take photos to this degree at a wedding, not to mention it was a co-worker. Seems creepy to me.
The defendant looks like his suit swallowed him!😂😂
I think they found out the coworker did photography after they hired the defendant but it was too late to cancel without losing money. So they figured they could sue and get their money back. And the coworker would take photos as a "gift"
Someone gets it. Judge said it was clear the guest was in the way and it is clear in the video he was dogging the photographer and getting in his way, ruining the shots.
Judge Millian whiffed big time on this case. The defendant keeps 1/3 of the money without producing ANY work product?!?
The wedding photographer is arrogant. The judge suggested what he could have said to the guest photographer but it went over his head. When you think too much about yourself you miss the point.
Omg this was the absolute most funniest case ever! He said “you gotta be kidding me!”
The photographer is. An arrogant jerk who is way too snotty. He just thinks his word is critical and that what he did to them doesn’t even matter.
This photographer is insane!!!! He’s so disrespectful and has a major anger problem.
I love that the coworker was so dedicated to photograph their wedding lol I think if he would have said he was doing so, the plaintiffs wouldn’t have hired a photographer
He was annoying. I think they hired him as back up
The interviews at the end are the best part of the show 😂
I can't get passed the dirty tablet screen...wear gloves, Judge! lol
He looks like a mini Tony Saprano 🤣🤣 No? Just me... 🤷♀️😆
3,500 fo getting wasted at a wedding and take some photos, man I'm in the wrong field.
What about the 20 years learning the skills and paying out 30k for equipment.
@@travis8665 well the defendant didn’t do all that. Why should I? Lmfaoo
@@travis8665 Travis you’re just calling out random numbers aren’t you
Totally ❤
The dependent is a prime example of what it means to be unhinged.
"This is about MY work..."It's freaking wedding pics. Not Ansel Adams photography . He's a scam "artist".
You say that but I make 351k a year shooting video and photography for my clients. I would never let anyone fuck up my work.
@@travis8665 351k. Yeah...in your head.
@@dfa3366 💜 ANSEL ADAMS, MY ALL TIME FAVORITE PHOTOGRAPHER 💜
I'm not sure why the plaintiffs were not awarded the full amount paid. They didn't get any thing for the 1/3 the defendant was allowed to keep, right?
Yes, they got the video and memory of appearing on TPC and possibly an autograph from Douglas.
Bro, that photograph should be avoided at all times. You can tell he is rude by the way he took this situation
I’m in my kitchen making spaghetti 🍝 dying laughing from the defendant’s claim there was another professional.
And if I’m paying $3,500 you ain’t gona tell me what I nor my guests can do and I better be able to print shit out too.
If it is discussed beforehand no pro photographer would do the job. its like painting a house and the next door neighbours kid comes over and wants to paint as well, but in a different colour.
And the kid keeps going over your finished work and messing it up. The client then complains that your work is crap.
Who in the world pay $3600 for a wedding photographer than allows a friend to roam around the party ruining the professional work that needed to take place?
This defendant was an absolute tool.
Word of mouth for this photographer... the word is bad... and don't use him...
Final case- defendant- he remind anyone else of the penguin character from Batman? 🐧 large, yet very slippery
😂😂😂
Happy Tuesday Everyone 🤩
😒Its only Tuesday, omg, why did u remind me🤣
I can't wait until Friday!!!!
Happy Tuesday!
Nah he was trying to hold the pictures hostage in hopes that he would get more money.
He gets paid for each picture he sells from orders. Of course he would get more money. I took some photos today of a house and have been editing for 5 hours already. The charge is $1500.
The photographer is a self-centered jerk who thinks everything is about him and threw a tantrum when it wasn't. "This case is about MY work." No, buddy, this case is about THEIR WEDDING. It wasn't HIS wedding--he was hired to do a job, that's it. Yes, the guest was wrong to keep shooting when he was asked to stop but the photographer is supposed to be the professional. Jobs don't always go the way you hoped or planned, that's life. Professionals handle it and figure out how to do the job anyway.
So did the Judge told he can keep some of the money what about the pictures? They don’t get them? She didn’t say anything about the pictures.
WHAT?!!!!! The customers who paid for their wedding pictures are not allowed to print them? Because it would be copyright infringement?? That's insane. I don't understand why they didn't get all their money back. They paid for a certain result / product, and didn't get it. Him spending time there taking pictures is worthless if they didn't get the pictures.
Who could've easily taken pictures without the other photographer in it
This photographer was paid to do a job in full so regardless of who is taking photos if you have a better camera the photos should fail in comparison
I honestly think they told the friend to come with the camera 🤷🏽♀️
👍 You and me both
I get so sick of people claiming "Paid photographer" just because I like to take nice photos and not photos from my phone. I don't like to upgrade my phone often, so yes, I have a nice DSLR with a removeable lens. I'm still not a professional at all!
The way the announcer said "this hackkkkkk"🤣
This photographer thinks he is so saavy for showing them pictures through an iPad. Haha. He obviously doesn't know that those files can be moved out of those devices. Every person has phones with cameras that produce very nice photos now. Have you ever not seen a wedding picture with someone not taking a photo? However I do understand his frustration. Usually when there are videographers and photographers, they communicate to be out of each other's ways. It can be frustrating when someone keeps getting in your shots.
Also, that coworker that brings their dslr is pretty pretentious. Everyone thinks they are professionals now. Who brings that kind of camera to a wedding? Just use your phone...
I’m not quite sure how accurate this is, but I think that the iPad/galaxy tab is included with the wedding photos as a package. It might be incentive to spend more money and get more than just photos, since cell phone cameras make it easy for anyone to take great pictures. It’s probably a way to maintain profit is what I’m basically saying 😄
Keep in mind these episodes for filmed like 5+ yrs ago… maybe more.
@@mamiminowknowsbest that's what someone does when their pictures are not that great. Luckily when I got married, my wife had a college friend who was featured in photography magazines. He gave us a great price. He also got to enjoy being at the wedding.
@@mamiminowknowsbest iPhones are unusable for pro work. You are talking silly. .
@@mamiminowknowsbest there better be a tablet included when you're paying 3500 dollars! Lol
I would never use someone like the defendant. He is rude and crass. The fact that he was paid in full, didn't deliver what he promised and then wanted to keep the money is outrageous.
Judge Millian has a lot of tolerance for people blatantly lying. Mathis would’ve dismissed this case. Both sides got caught in lies.
I agree! And Judge Judy would have backed them into the corner and ate them for lunch! 🤣
@@brendanelizabeth9418 she sure would’ve!!! 😂😂😂
If you think for one minute they weren't trying to cheat this photographer out of needing to purchase the pictures from him, think again. Guests don't bring huge cameras like that to weddings - everyone uses their cell or a smaller camera. This was so obvious it's ridiculous - they frustrated his performance to save a dime. What a shame they got the money instead of the pictures.
As a photographer, something is not right with this photographer and he does not make sense
Well, we all just learned that Rudy Giuliani is a wedding photographer on the weekends
The last 2 weddings I have been it was announced " no camera use "during the ceremony. I told my little sister who was a bride at one of the weddings, and she said she did not make that request and was disappointed cause she had no video footage or pictures from her guest. Watching this it tells me that is just the photographers request. So if you plan on getting married make sure the photographer is clear that you want all of your guest to take pictures if that is what you want. But in this case the other photographer was just rude.
Took me a few minutes to realise that the plaintiff didn't have a unibrow XD
Photographer has a Napoleon complex. Poor short little dude.
Why would anyone want to pay a photographer to give them a tablet and you can't do anything with the pictures after unless you go to them , that is just stupid.
defendant is 1000% right.