It's interesting how two different websites will cover similar subject matter on the same day.
DIY Photography has an article covering Non-Disparagement Clauses in Wedding Photography Contracts and SLR Lounge has one on Couples Threatened By Their Wedding Photographers Over Bad Reviews.
I'm not a wedding photographer, so I don't have any personal experience in this field. (My father did act as a wedding photographer when a couple of my cousins got married. That's not exactly the same thing since he was taking pictures at a relative's wedding for free.)
Barring unforeseen accidents, a wedding involving rational people and a competent photographer should never result in any sort of legal action.
The problem is, not every wedding involves rational people. You're talking about an extremely emotional situation and some people just don't handle the emotional stress well. The photographer can make a convenient target to blame when it comes to the Bride's "ruined" wedding, even if they did nothing wrong.
The photographer is just as capable of being the source of a problem. The photographer's duties include more than just producing good wedding photos. They have a responsibility not to negatively impact the wedding ceremony. A bad attitude or intrusive actions can do just that. Unfortunately, photographers can only control one side of the equation. They have no control over the actions of the people that are part of the wedding, including the one paying for their services.
Even the best wedding photographers can encounter completely unreasonable clients. The question they have to answer is how to handle this type of client. Legal responses are usually the last resort that should be considered.
Non-Disparagement Clauses
I suspect that the photographers that include these clauses may have encountered one of those completely unreasonable clients. Including the clause in the service contract does provide some additional legal ammo when it comes to addressing defamatory statements made on social media or review sites.
These type of clauses don't really prevent bad reviews in general. The client is the only person covered by the non-disparagement clause. The rest of the party is free to post bad reviews if the photographer provides poor service.
They can also prove counter-productive. Prospective clients may see the clause as a red-flag (if they actually read the contract) and can result in lost business.
The photographer is faced with the situation of balancing the effect of having that clause in the contract against the effect of not including that legal option in the contract. I suspect most photographers will choose not having that clause in the service contract unless they have encountered "The Client from Hell."
Any photographer or company that includes this clause without having encountered an irrational client first, is probably one best avoided. Including a non-disparagement clause proactively is a clear sign of a photographer or company that is going to be far to quick to threaten legal action in order to "protect" their reputation.
Someone that concerned with their reputation is not going to be concerned with the needs of the client.
Non-disparagement clauses also provide an opportunity for some very bad publicity. Threatening to sue over an honest review can be a very bad idea if the tactic becomes public knowledge. The attempt to control negative press may itself generate an even worse problem.
It will eventually get out that a company or photographer is constantly harassing clients with lawsuit threats. That may negatively impact business far more than the honest reviews would have. Especially if those reviews include the photographer's attempts to rectify any problems that occurred.
No comments:
Post a Comment