|
Forums >
General Industry >
Unhappy client wants refund
Vampman Studios wrote: Well they have the product. are they willing to delete all the files and sign a statement that they will never EVER use any of the footage? Or the fee will be triple what they paid you originally. Feb 15 13 02:24 pm Link Look, I'm just saying that this "arrangement" was amateur hour from the get-go: ... No agreement documentation. ... RAW files handed off. ... No backup copy kept by the photographer. ... No way for the photographer to prove that the images/video was his. ... We are asked to believe that 9 minutes out of 140 were bad, but how does the photographer know this if he doesn't have the files? ... No performance criteria or satisfaction guarantee documented. I'm just saying the photographer should cut his loses, end the drama, and learn from his experience. If he refuses to refund the guy's fee, well, that has the potential of prolonging the drama. Finally, treating this "client" with disrespect also extends the drama and is (in my opinion) unprofessional. But the OP is welcome to do whatever you want. I'm guessing that the OP has already decided his course of action. Feb 15 13 03:15 pm Link Andrew Thomas Evans wrote: I keep copies of all my work for my demo reel. Most of the footage was quite good, so it's a shame that I don't have a copy to put on the reel. Feb 15 13 05:09 pm Link Vampman Studios wrote: Ok, I didn't know that he only paid you $120! You did the right thing after all. I know we didn't get his side of the story, but he sounds like a cheap SOB and got his money's worth! Feb 15 13 06:37 pm Link Patrick Walberg wrote: Well, that's another thing... he did see my work. When I answered his ad I left a link to the video portion of my website, and a few days later he said my work was good and hired me for this gig. The only thing about the videos I have... they're ALL edited. Not one of them is a raw file. Feb 15 13 09:44 pm Link The only thing I see you doing wrong is not having a clearly defined contract up front and posting stories about your mistakes in a public domain. Both make you look very unprofessional. It's not unheard of to provide raw footage for someone else to edit, and it's not unheard of to give all copies. It's all down to what you agree to before hand and what the client is willing to pay for. From what you write here, sounds like you were being scammed. How will this look to future clients if they come across this thread? Darren www.Facebook.com/darrenbradephotography Feb 16 13 12:34 am Link Well, since there was no contract stating otherwise, you do own the copyright on the footage. So, if the band uses the footage, then you might have some recourse legally. The client sounds like a dirtbag and very likely most of what he makes from playing music goes up his nose, so there's probably nothing to recover if he pirates your video. One good reason to attempt to recover the files from your card(s) is to prove ownership of the video. For the paltry amount they paid you for 2+ hours of work, plus the use of your equipment, don't refund them squat. Sounds like you've already informed them that squat is what they are getting back -good. Yes, you made some errors. As has been suggested, learn from them and move on. You can't please everybody. If your footage shows up, then you can make a decision as to whether it is worth going after them. I do a fair amount of video work for clients. I never, ever, let them have raw footage. They are told that upfront. Feb 16 13 01:18 am Link It sounds like the client was expecting a videographer, and ended up with a still photographer that also does video. I suspect the client wanted one continuous take. This is easily possible on many video cameras. It may not be possible on a still camera that does video. Did you wait until you hit the 20 minute limit and then switch files, or did you watch the time and proactively switch between songs? Having a 2 second loss of video between songs while the audience is clapping is not so bad. Having a 2 second loss during a solo can make the song unusable. As to audio volume, did you have an external microphone, or were you using the built-in mic on your camera? An external mic typically yields better quality. It sounds like there was a fundamental lack of pre-shoot communication. There was a mis-match between what the client expected, and what you thought the client wanted. One of the issues is that it isn't clear why the client wanted the video. If the client just wants to review the concert so he can improve his performance, then your deliverables sound acceptable. If he is putting concert video on a web site, making a music video, or wants archive footage for a big screen retrospective (after the band makes it big), then your footage may be lacking. I am assuming you have no paperwork signed with the client. I assume the client wants to be able to publicly display the footage. Why not offer a compromise. Offer to wave your shooting fee and apply the money already paid to a usage license for the footage. Without paperwork, you may be the copyright owner. Even though the client is in possession of the only copies, he may need additional permission from you to put the footage on his web site. Feb 16 13 05:24 am Link BrunetteGrenade wrote: He doesn't have it. They deleted the files from his computer when they took them. Feb 16 13 09:39 am Link Erlinda wrote: You "don't MAKE any mistakes"??? Or you don't DELIVER any mistakes? If the client took the card at the end of your shoot, all images would be perfect? Feb 16 13 09:41 am Link Chain Reaction wrote: This. Feb 16 13 06:37 pm Link Vampman Studios wrote: I'm going to channel zack arias here for a minute. Feb 17 13 02:03 am Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: or, you know, just recover the footage from the card, register it with the copyright office, refund the money, and then sue the everloving shit out of them when they do use it? Feb 17 13 02:06 am Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: or, you know, just recover the footage from the card, register it with the copyright office, refund the money, and then sue the everloving shit out of them when they do use it? Feb 17 13 02:07 am Link Vampman Studios wrote: Sorry No Pay Pal! Feb 17 13 02:09 am Link In addition to the ones already posted, I think an additional mistake you made was letting your storage cards out of your hands. When I'm on a shoot, the only time my cards leave my hands is when -MY- assistant stores them. That's it. End of discussion. The fact that you allowed your cards to leave your possession and allowed this cheapo client to remove files and delete your cards is inexcusable on your part. If your arrangement was for you to deliver the RAW files of the shoot, then you should have burned them on a DVD from your laptop with the cards never leaving your possession. Feb 17 13 06:50 am Link Another example of a client being pennywise but pound foolish! Also, don't let others have access to your memory card. Feb 17 13 09:44 am Link Mask Photo wrote: If you're looking for a SURE way to get bad press about your business..just sue one client. It doesn't matter who is in the right. Feb 17 13 02:49 pm Link KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote: completely false, disingenuous, and borderline infantile. else nobody would ever enforce copyright. The only bad press you'll get are to the scumbag client's drinking buddies, and you don't really want them as clients, either. Feb 17 13 09:21 pm Link dp Feb 17 13 09:21 pm Link If you bought a 60 inch LED TV from Walmart, and then called them and said you wanted your money back, they would probably ask you for the television. If you said you lost it, do you think they'd give you your money back? Personally I wouldn't have taken the job because I have zero experience in shooting concerts. I may have offered to be a second shooter just to get the experience though. But no way would anyone get the only copy of the footage and they wouldn't get unedited stuff. That said, you only get refunds when you return something. Feb 18 13 09:23 am Link Rick Dupuis Photography wrote: The client bought a service, not a product. Generally, services cannot be returned. Feb 18 13 10:50 am Link Moore Photo Graphix wrote: Quite true on both counts! Feb 18 13 10:54 am Link Still waiting to hear if OP tried to recover the files from his cards. It's been suggested multiple times, but in case I haven't seen it, he hasn't even addressed the suggestion yet, which would help rectify this situation for himself. Feb 18 13 11:19 am Link Sleepy Weasel wrote: The most he would be able to recover would be the second set (one hour): Vampman Studios wrote: It appears that the OP only used one card. He recorded the first set (90 minutes), transferred the contents to the customer's computer, clearing his card in the process, and then used the same card for the second set. Feb 18 13 11:41 am Link Sleepy Weasel wrote: I had a shoot the next day and since I thought the footage was gone (the little sub-folder icon was missing from the D5100 camera card folder) I reformatted the camera card to get the space back. That was BEFORE I knew the footage could be recovered. My bad. (Or is it?) Feb 23 13 03:32 pm Link Thyronne wrote: This may well be the very best advise offered in this thread. Not sure why anyone shooting anything professional would ever shoot anything with just one card in their possession. And a 16GB card at that. Feb 24 13 04:31 pm Link Sometimes you have to take control... clients being impatient and wanting raw footage, that's their mistake. If they had paid you properly and waited for decent edited footage, they would have no complaint. As far as I can see you were dealing with someone who thought he knew better than the professional, as a result he got exactly what he asked for. Feb 24 13 06:07 pm Link Michael Fryd wrote: True enough. Feb 24 13 06:56 pm Link Vampman Studios wrote: Do I understand this correctly: you only take one card to a shoot? Feb 24 13 06:58 pm Link You got paid for your time . . . . . forget everything else You don't owe them a cent KM Feb 24 13 07:00 pm Link I'd tell him to piss up a rope!! $120.00 is barely worth your time alone. Feb 24 13 07:03 pm Link Orca Bay Images wrote: Doesn't copyright come into play here, was he given a copyright release, if not I wouldn't think he could use it. Feb 24 13 07:15 pm Link |
