Update to Story About Wedding Photographer Charging For Album Cover

Hat Tip: DIY Photography

Updating a story that dates back to January. 

For those not familiar with the story.  It involves a dispute between a wedding photographer and the couple.  The photographer informed the couple that there was a charge for the cover to the wedding album that was part of the contract.  The couple insisted that the photographer was contractually obligated to deliver a wedding album and they shold not have to pay for the cover.

And then the proverbial excrement hit the spinning cooling device.

The couple went public with the issue they had with the photographer, including news interviews.

The photographer has now sued for defamation asking for up to $1,000,000 in damages.

Personally, I think the photographer will have a very difficult time winning.

The couple said that the photographer wanted extra for the album cover.  They also said she refused to deliver high-resolution copies of the wedding photos until they paid for the cover.  They described it as having their images "held hostage".

From statements made by the photographer, those statements seem to be factual, although she would dispute the emotional charge of holding the images hostage.  During the initial meeting after the wedding she did apparent inform the couple that there was a charge for the cover and that the images would not be delivered until the album was delivered.

She apparently expected no problems.  This is how she normally handles weddings.

She did apparently try to reach an amicable agreement with the couple, including offering to absorb the cost of the cover.  Those efforts were never mentioned by the couple.

The problem for the photographer is that those efforts don't change the initial situation, and the statements made by the couple factually match the initial situation.

Defamation requires more than just proving you were harmed by statements someone made about you.  You must also prove the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.  The photographer apparently can't do that.

The statements may have been made with malice, but they appear to have been factual (but not the entire story).

I think the only people winning when it comes to this lawsuit are the lawyers for both sides.