Another Photographer Contract Story Making the Rounds

Earlier this week it was a story about a photographer being sued by the model he photographed.

Now, it's a wedding photographer demanding money for the cover of the wedding album.

The written contract between the photographer and couple includes deliver of a custom photo book.  After the wedding, the photographer demanded additional money for the photo album's cover.  The price was "at least" and additional $150.

The couple balked when it came to paying the extra fee and the photographer threatened to withhold delivery of the CD containing digital copies of the wedding photos that is included in the contract.  The are also threatening to charge the couple an additional "archiving" fee of $250.

The couple went to the news media.

The best defense the photographer has been able to come up with: "It's in the order form."


Several problems for the photographer here.

1)  The order form does not constitute the contract between the parties.  The actual written contract does and that document obligates the photographer to deliver a photo album as part of the services paid for by the couple.

2)  The photographer was in control of the contents of the contract.  Under contract law, any ambiguity in contracts terms are resolved in favor of the other party.  The theory here is that the party in control of writing the contract is the party in position to clear up any ambiguity.

The contract says the photographer must deliver a photo album, with specified dimensions and a certain number of pages and images.  There is no mention in the contract when it comes to additional costs related to the album.

3) The price the photographer is charging.  That's "at least" $150.  For the cover.   Do some shopping for custom photo albums.  You can get an album with the specifics laid-out in the contract and a custom cover for less than the amount the photographer is charging for the cover alone.

That is not going to go over well if this goes to court.  It photographer really looks as if they are double charging for the album

4)  Industry standards.  This also goes to determining what the party means by certain terms.  In the case of any ambiguity, courts will look at the standard practice within the industry in question.  From the NBC 5 story on this when talking to another wedding photographer  "he has never heard of a photographer charging extra for an album 'cover'."

In other words, the industry standard is not to charge for the album's cover.  Since that is not part of the contract the photographer has no business doing so.

5)  Bad publicity.  In an attempt to get an additional $150-$400 from the couple, the photographer is receiving thousands of dollars in negative publicity.  Just losing one client as a result of the publicity will result in the photographer losing far more revenue than they will get out of the couple.

6)  The photographer is also refusing to comply with the terms of the contract when threatening to withhold the CD they are obligated to send to the couple.  This is not only breach of contract, it borders on extortion.  Which is illegal.

The photographer is also charging for services that don't appear to be part of the contract with the "archiving" fee.  If it's not part of the contract you can't charge for it.  The other party has not agreed to pay for the service.


The photographer is on shaky legal ground, and now faces serious damage to their business reputation as a result of the bad publicity involved.