Wendy Le wrote:
Hi all, I'm new to MM. About a month and a half ago a photographer offer a TFP shoot with me and we met up and shot a month ago. I did sign the model release. He told me that the pictures will be ready in a week or two. Then I texted him asking for the pic three weeks after the shoot he said it might take up to 30 days. It has been more than a month and I haven't seen any pictures. I have worked with other photographers and they give me the pictures in less than 14 days. What can I do in this situation? Honestly I'm not even looking to get the pictures anymore. I just want to know if there is a way to report him or write review so that other models look out for him because it is a waste of time, money and effort to shoot without receiving pictures.

For starters...

1. I've pretty much learned not to trust the expected turnaround date given when the shoot is going on or just wrapping. Everyone is happy & still under the euphoria of what was presumably a stellar shoot. Not to mention, people tend to hear what they want to hear.

This is why it might be a good idea to ask about the turnaround time question prior to actually meeting for the shoot. Therefore you can factor that part into the equation when you choose to work with someone or not work with them.

2. Also everyone's work flow & schedule is different. Just because you've gotten pictures back the next day from Photographer X does not in any way shape or form bound Photographer Y to have the same turnaround.

3. That being said, I'd say you're on the right track with the photographer who hasn't gotten you your pictures. Be polite & be persistent.

4. That being said, the whole TF* endeavor can be a complete crapshoot. Its not unheard for models to wait months for their pictures if they even get them at all. Yes, it suck. Yes, it blows.

You could report him but think of it this way, your complaint ultimately boils down to not receiving pictures that you never paid for. You could write a bad review on your profile (the only way MM allows as such is that you put the photographer's name & then put "not recommended") but at the same time when other people see that, it speaks more about you than it does about the very person you're complaining about.

It may seem like I'm trying to be a d*ckhead but your best bet is to use it as a learning experience as well as appreciating those photographers who do give you your photos in a timely manner (however that's defined).

Top Gun Digital wrote:
If you formally signed a contract before the shoot that spelled out his obligation to give you images you could probably sue him.   Do you have an E-Mail trail of messages where he commits to giving you images in a certain time frame.   Short of that there probably isn't much you can do.  To be honest, this is something that happens all the time.   When this happens some models will put a blurb in their profile that they do not recommend a certain photographer.

Terrible advice in this specific case.

According to the OP, it was a TF* shoot where she didn't get her pictures. In order to sue (even in small claims), she'd have to sue for damages. Last time I checked 97% (or whatever percentage you want) of $0 is still $0. In the court's eyes, she's essentially complaining about not getting the pictures she never paid for.

She may be able to argue the money for gas, cosmetics, or wardrobe. But if the tax rules are anything gas & cosmetics can be used for everyday use. Same with wardrobe (with the exception if they're so elaborate that they're defined as a "costume").

The court fees just to bring it to trial & then to collect would probably cost someone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than they'd ever receive if they were to have gotten the pictures.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Terrible advice in this specific case.

According to the OP, it was a TF* shoot where she didn't get her pictures. In order to sue (even in small claims), she'd have to sue for damages. Last time I checked 97% (or whatever percentage you want) of $0 is still $0. In the court's eyes, she's essentially complaining about not getting the pictures she never paid for.

She may be able to argue the money for gas, cosmetics, or wardrobe. But if the tax rules are anything gas & cosmetics can be used for everyday use. Same with wardrobe (with the exception if they're so elaborate that they're defined as a "costume").

The court fees just to bring it to trial & then to collect would probably cost someone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than they'd ever receive if they were to have gotten the pictures.

So what you're saying is that a models time has no value whatsoever.  What difference does it make if she was working for images or working for cash.  She did her job and did not get the compensation she was promised.

Top Gun Digital wrote:
If you formally signed a contract before the shoot that spelled out his obligation to give you images you could probably sue him.   Do you have an E-Mail trail of messages where he commits to giving you images in a certain time frame.   Short of that there probably isn't much you can do.  To be honest, this is something that happens all the time.   When this happens some models will put a blurb in their profile that they do not recommend a certain photographer.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Terrible advice in this specific case.

According to the OP, it was a TF* shoot where she didn't get her pictures. In order to sue (even in small claims), she'd have to sue for damages. Last time I checked 97% (or whatever percentage you want) of $0 is still $0. In the court's eyes, she's essentially complaining about not getting the pictures she never paid for.

She may be able to argue the money for gas, cosmetics, or wardrobe. But if the tax rules are anything gas & cosmetics can be used for everyday use. Same with wardrobe (with the exception if they're so elaborate that they're defined as a "costume").

The court fees just to bring it to trial & then to collect would probably cost someone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than they'd ever receive if they were to have gotten the pictures.

That isn't correct at all.  You need to look up the tort "unjust enrichment."  There are other torts which would apply as well.  Enrichment of this case would be procuring the services of the model without the delivery of the agreed upon consideration.  There are a number of legal theories.  The fact that there was no money attached to her original agreement, doesn't mean that there were no damages.  If she wins, the court has the discretion to assign a value to the services she delivered and then render a judgment.  I can't speculate as to what that will be, but it won't be "zero."  The problem isn't getting the judgment, it is the time and effort it takes to collect for a relatively small amount.

To say the value is nothing though, is just incorrect.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Terrible advice in this specific case.

According to the OP, it was a TF* shoot where she didn't get her pictures. In order to sue (even in small claims), she'd have to sue for damages. Last time I checked 97% (or whatever percentage you want) of $0 is still $0. In the court's eyes, she's essentially complaining about not getting the pictures she never paid for.

She may be able to argue the money for gas, cosmetics, or wardrobe. But if the tax rules are anything gas & cosmetics can be used for everyday use. Same with wardrobe (with the exception if they're so elaborate that they're defined as a "costume").

The court fees just to bring it to trial & then to collect would probably cost someone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than they'd ever receive if they were to have gotten the pictures.

Going to go out on a limb and say you are not an attorney or ever been to small claims court.

CBs Photography wrote:
Just my 2 cents.

.01 List the photographer, the shoot date and "awaiting pictures" on your profile.  If and when you do receive your pictures then you can either remove it from your profile or leave it with the date you received the pictures.

.02 Let future photographers know ahead of time that you will not sign a model release until you receive your pictures.

Both ridiculous pieces of 'advice'.

1. The only thing people are allowed to put on their profiles here is "MM#XYZ: Not Recommended". However, even doing that will cause some people to regard the person posting it as the problem, so it can be very counterproductive.

2. Most photographers won't agree to a trade unless a release is signed at the shoot. And also, they are not 'her' pictures.

My advice to the OP would be to remain civil and on friendly terms with the photographer and just briefly 'check in' every few weeks with a happy, excited "Hi, how's it going?" or something similar.

Pestering, hectoring and demanding stuff, even if perfectly justified, will probably only result in further delays as the photographer loses interest and begins to regard her as a pain in the ass rather than a sweet girl who's patiently and excitedly still waiting for the pictures.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
2. Most photographers won't agree to a trade unless a release is signed at the shoot. And also, they are not 'her' pictures.

+1

Wendy Le wrote:
Thank you all for your advices. Lesson learned. I'll definitely do research on a photographer before agreeing to work with them. It just surprises me how unprofessional and untrustworthy some people are.

I would 100% give you your photos if I was the Photographer .. sucks !! He's just not a good guy .. I hope it doesn't give you pause .. just chaulkit up as " whatever" don't lose trust and keep positive

The Grand Artist wrote:
Going to go out on a limb and say you are not an attorney or ever been to small claims court.

You'd be wrong.

I actually have been to small claims court back in 2000 when a "friend" failed in keeping to a payment plan & failed to keep me informed (so as not to have me think he ran off or whatever). Went so far as to get the original agreement put in writing & notarized by my local town.

Took 3 separate court dates, 2 with the city (1 was the original hearing, 1 was the rescheduled one which I won) & the other was a hearing with the county to which it got bumped up to if I wanted to put in a judgement against him. Again, I won the third hearing & successfully got a judgment against him. Tis a pity that during all this time he fell onto hard economic times (however undefined that is) & declared bankruptcy before I got my ruling, making me like #5 on his list. The translations of which is I'll never see my $3000 I loaned him...but y'know what? Its been so long I'm ok with that.

Cost of those court fees as well as the judgment, $500. Cost of the travel in gas & tolls since the court was 2 hours away (I hadn't thought of a long-arm statute at the time I filed), about $150. Also keep in mind this was in the year 2000 dollars.

So yeah, I actually do know something about going through small claims & whether its "worth it" to get something or not.

Top Gun Digital wrote:
So what you're saying is that a models time has no value whatsoever.  What difference does it make if she was working for images or working for cash.  She did her job and did not get the compensation she was promised.

It doesn't matter what you or I think that the model's service does or does not have value. Its what the court thinks.

As GPS has stated in a following post, there are ways to go about it. But generally the COURTS see no value in what essentially is a barter arrangement that didn't pan out. Its that old saying, "You get what you pay for."

Think about it in THEIR eyes, the model loses time & expenses making the shoot happen but IF the photographer bothers to show up, he could also argue that the damages issue is a wash & it could use arguments that any delay that occurred was reasonable & not of a malicious intent.

We also don't know what may or may not have happened with those picture because we're only hearing one side of the story (the model's). The photographer could be taking his sweet time but there could have been something catastrophic like the pictures getting accidentally deleted or not being uploaded right or a computer crashing losing whatever was shot. That's certainly not unheard of. It also could be something COMPLETELY unrelated like an unexpected heavy workload or illness in the family or issue with the kids. I know when I get like that shooting & editing is the LAST thing on my mind.

I'm not remotely saying that the model doesn't have a right to be mad. Nor am I saying the photographer shouldn't just be straight IF something is up. Its just that again, we here in the forums are only reading one side of the story.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Both ridiculous pieces of 'advice'.

1. The only thing people are allowed to put on their profiles here is "MM#XYZ: Not Recommended". However, even doing that will cause some people to regard the person posting it as the problem, so it can be very counterproductive.

2. Most photographers won't agree to a trade unless a release is signed at the shoot. And also, they are not 'her' pictures.

My advice to the OP would be to remain civil and on friendly terms with the photographer and just briefly 'check in' every few weeks with a happy, excited "Hi, how's it going?" or something similar.

Pestering, hectoring and demanding stuff, even if perfectly justified, will probably only result in further delays as the photographer loses interest and begins to regard her as a pain in the ass rather than a sweet girl who's patiently and excitedly still waiting for the pictures.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

All of this is very true.
I'd like to add that sometimes, especially with newer photographers, they severely underestimate that time that it takes to process images.

One of the things we must do as photographers is manage expectations.  A good way to succeed is to undersell and over perform.

To the OP, 6 weeks might seem like a long time, but depending on the photographers skill level, your skill level, plus the number of images you've been promised it could take a lot longer than 6 weeks to get images.