Hi everyone,

Just wanted to share story that I read this morning from the local newspaper.

Just feel sorry for the couple....

Here it is: Calamity camerman ruined our wedding day - Sunday Sun (http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2011/03/20/calamity-camerman-ruined-our-wedding-day-79310-28363641/)



Wedding Videos London | Wedding Videos Essex | Wedding Videos Surrey from YouMyWorld Productions (http://www.youmyworld.co.uk)

Its hard to imagine what they expected to arrive for £350. While some would say that because they paid something they deserve a professional product its also true that you cant expect much for that price. We know exactly what it costs us to produce each feature for materials, equipment depreciation and even if you remove the cost of our time the cost for us to just get out of bed is 3 times what he charges for the finished product.

Pay peanuts, you will get monkeys.

I agree Danny, recently i had two viewings and both i lost to someone cheaper by far!!! So i rang the clients to provide feedback why they had chosen the cheaper guy when they loved my work, they had said simply because it was cheaper and nothing against me. i had asked them did they view the videographers work they said no!!! so i then left the conversation by saying ok no problem and did not go any further. This was regular for me so i have put my prices up by double but giving discount like Danny from minty slippers kindly adviced me which was the best advice anyone has given me... thank you Danny.... steve

A fuller account here: Wedding photographer ordered to pay compensation for 'dreadful' £350 video - Capitalbay News (http://news1.capitalbay.com/news/wedding_photographer_ordered_to_pay.html)

For anyone to expect to get a professional video done for £350 is completely unrealistic. That's a full days work (he was contracted up until 8.30pm) for a cameraman, his equipment, his transport, and a full edit delivered on dvd. What were they thinking?

It's amazing that people will spend ridiculous amounts on lavish weddings, but then skimp on the one sure way to actually document the whole event.

Seemingly they had never even met the guy: they were surprised to see his face covered with scars, when they asked him he said he was a 'cage-fighter'.

Yeah, it's unfortunate but they probably got what they paid for...

Whilst not intending to put the responsibility for the poor work on to the couple, surely if they had looked around before making a booking they would have realised that at £350 they were buying from the bottom of the barrel.

The groom runs a publishing business so should know that cost and value have a strong correlation in producing any media product. But maybe people are so determined now to beat all suppliers down on price that getting a low price becomes their only concern.

I note that the videographer was based in Sunderland and they were in Essex, did it not ring alarm bells that someone was prepared to travel maybe 4 or 5 hours each way covering 600 miles before even switching a camera on, then spending the day and then more time afterwards to edit the recording, all for £350. I cover weddings around the country and to be honest my travel costs for that distance would be near that figure.

I am a bit dubious about promoting a higher price and then offer a discount back to where you want to be. That in my opinion only reinforces the idea in clients minds that DVD is a bater-able product. Those who are only intending or hoping to pay the lower price would probably not be contacting someone offering the higher price anyway.

I am a bit dubious about promoting a higher price and then offer a discount back to where you want to be. That in my opinion only reinforces the idea in clients minds that DVD is a bater-able product. Those who are only intending or hoping to pay the lower price would probably not be contacting someone offering the higher price anyway.

Depends on your clientèle George. In Asian culture bartering is the norm, so you can expect to have to give a little. Although it does not necessarily mean discounting your product. It could mean offering more DVDs/Blu ray which are cheap to produce anyway.

With regarding to the OP's link, I've seen worse footage from people charging more here in the Manchester area :(

You get good and bad in all industries and this was obviously a bad!! Surely the couple looked at samples before buying??? Sometimes people look at price first and "assume" that the end product will be OK.

George?? I agree about not inflating your price and then giving a discount. I have found a simple solution to avoiding eithnic/asian wedding clients that want to barter and eventually get your services for a fraction of your original price. I just don't offer my services to them at all. I have had 3 bad deals in the last 5 years and all were ethnic couples and all were over getting "double the service for half the money"

I see ads here for photogs that will give you 5 hours of their time (with TWO photographers!!!) and at the end you get 2 x 16"x20" enlargements and all the exposures on a DVD PLUS a coffee table book all for $800.00 ?????? Surely the average person has enough brain power to calculate that after expenses the vendors are making so little the end result will be bad!!

Chris

Interesting points being made...

IMO, the wedding video industry does appear to be inflating prices and the consumer is on to it. The old ploy of stating "you get what you pay for..." is not a truism, as not in all cases this can be held as fact. It's often a statement put out to denigrate a more competitive supplier against one who is justifying a (much) higher price. It probabaly also serves to reinforce a belief that all others are inferior in comparison... As is always the case, the consumer will be the final judge.

In the case of the report about "Sunderland Man" here is a man who spotted an opportunity like many do. Unfortunately for him he did not have sufficient sense to approach it from a business point of view and learn more about what he was about to involve himself in. From the pictures, it does look like he hired his gear (check out the stickers on the camera) and may have been attempting to do an "at cost" job to build a portfolio - we just do not know. I'm sure we will hear or cite other similar examples in the future. The fact he is reported as being a cage fighter is not relevant - the UK press are very good at ridicule and absurdity. What were some on this forum doing 10 years ago for example might give some surprises?

Discounting IMO is all part of salesmanship. Not something I like personally. But if someone wants to get as much as they can out of the consumer then that's their business, but it's often at the consumer's expense (no pun intended). But clearly if they are discounting and prepared to do the job (and still make a profit) then it says much about where they are pitching their price in the first place.

There are two types of consumer, those that like the product and ask "...how much do I need to buy it?" The other says, "...how much discount will you give me? As a result a manufacturer (or producer) inflates the sticker price by a few points (in the large format audio console manufacturing business it was often 15%) only to give the same points back in discount - salesmanship.

:)

Quoted from the newspaper:

'Wedding coordinator had to go searching for cameraman Clayton Bennett and found him at another wedding'

This is unforgivable, unless the Bride's "twin" sister is celebrating another wedding of her own at the same location there is no excuse for this.

Perhaps at his price he had to do two at a time to make it pay, or maybe he just got bored; apparently some people do at weddings.

Hate to disagree with you Claire, but aside from the ocaissional "great deal", and one must learn to HUNT for those... you can't alter the facts.

Statistically and practically speaking, you generally do get what you paid for, unless you discover the rare bargain, or are the victim of a fraud or rip-off... I'm guessing the clients here THOUGHT somehow they had #1, and later discovered they had a pile of #2... that's usually EXACTLY how that works, to be sure.


EVERY business has "hard costs", meaning the amount one HAS to expend/spend to make a product/provide a service, and in addition a business must provide sufficient cashflow to provide a "living", or it will quickly cease to be a business, as this fellow PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt.

Depending on business models, one may charge a PREMIUM for certain services on certain dates or times of the week (not many weddings Monday through Thursday, but WEEKENDS... and certain dates...), or conversely provide a discount to pick up a bit of extra work in slow times (there are better times to go purchase "big ticket items" - like when they are trying to meet quota on a slow month...). Point being it's EASY to criticize an industry that effectively has to squeeze 5 days of "profit/wages" into 1-2 days of "work" shooting (no one knows how much time editing takes, so that must be free, right?).

IOW, a wedding shoooter MUST charge about 1/2 of a solid weeks wages plus overhead, MINIMUM, or plan on a 2nd career as a greeter at Wal-Mart. It's actually probably higher than that, if one doesn't do other video work in the many weeks/months that there isn't much wedding business.

If any of the planning sites were interested in giving brides a REALISTIC pricing gauge rather than telling them to go cheap on the videographer, they'd probably begin to use such a metric. They have a "standard" for how much the guy should spend on the ring, wouldn't it benefit if the wedding video industry did a little market research and began to promote a "reasonable" pricing expectation? Maybe that would be a good thread here on DVi...

Of course the fly in the ointment is equipment costs are coming down FAST, and virtually any schmuck can buy some gear and pretend to be a per-fesshinal. Yeah, so maybe most of us resembled that remark at one time, but I'm illustrating that the "barrier to entry" in this business gets lower and lower... and if the expectations of the client get lower and lower, "Uncle Bob" will be quite busy... but you won't find many videographers in business, or much quality finished work product. And perhaps more than a few ex-cage fighters...

The informed consumer MAY shop price, but particularly when you're talking a creative or technical product/service, "lo-balling" or bottom fishing on price alone will more often than not come back to bite you in the rear (What? You mean this ISN'T a real Rolex?? But the guy who sold it to me SAID it was!). That sure looks like what happened here. Not to minimize the legitimacy of the couple's grievances, as they didn't really get ANYTHING for the consideration paid, but if you consider hiring a vendor without vetting them, reviewing their work or sizing them up a bit, you need to have a look in the mirror when things go south.

The price quoted is absurdly low, any way you slice it. Even if it was someone saying they needed a "show reel" (no indication that was floated), would they EVER show such shoddy work?? This whole story borders on "scam", it's almost surprising the guy showed up at all IMO. This sort of thing happens when times get tough, and people will do anything for a buck (or to "save" a buck).

Sad to see it, but it is what it is. In the end it means someone "lost" the memories of their special day FORVER, and it looks like the "vendor" will no doubt be off to another enterprise soon enough. Another "old truism" is that you shouldn't deal with some "fly by night" operator who will be here today, and gone tomorrow. Perhaps the young couple might have heard of that, and saved themselves some unfortunate grief.

The problem with this whole thing is that now that the story has made the morning shows and news magazines here in the US it give ALL of us in the wedding video business another strike. It hard enough out there with budget constraints, the Uncle Charlies, the CList cheapos, their aunts 2nd cousin thru marriage to her step uncle and the brides that don't feel any need or desire to have their wedding day captured for eternity. This can only give more brides who might have been on the edge another reason to NOT hire a quality video person/company.
The thing that really sticks in my craw is, 1) the couple hired this guy who lives as I understand it, 4 hours away. Gotta be a couple of hundred miles and while many of us HAVE traveled that and more to do weddings I think most of us have been around for long enough to have developed a reputation to warrant being hired. 2) The price. I agree that every once in a while the low priced work can be very well done, it's a super bargain special deal price and that's great but most often that low a price should raise red flags, lots of them 3) They never saw any of his work? I have nothing to say to that. How he looked, how he dressed, how he acted or not since appearently he dissappeared for sometime, yeah he was wrong, shouldn't be allowed to have a camera in his hands and certainly shouldn't call himself a professional but the bottom line while he most assureadly screwed up so did the couple that hired him. Looking at the whole package that led to the lawsuit, they both should hang their heads with shame.

Hey Don

I agree wholeheartedly with you!! The couple are just as much to blame for actually hiring this guy. Surely any couple with half a brain would realise that his fee asked would hardly cover his 8 hours of travelling, never mind the actual shoot!!!

I don't believe in over-paying for any service or product but equally there comes a point where even the most stupid person must be able to see that something smells fishy with such a low price.

Chris

Wow. I wasn't expecting the victim-blaming mentality here.

The local news here said he charged $500. That's 20 hrs of work at $25 an hour. $25 an hour is a good wage and is much higher than many people make (perhaps including that young couple). Why should someone not entrenched in the wedding business have cause to be alarmed at that price, those hours, and that rate?

Or even change it to 25 hours of work at $20 an hour -- still a pretty good rate. The videographer is getting more hours and better wages than someone working part-time for $8.25/hr doing retail, and is still doing better than recent graduates of our top universities working for $15/hr (if they are lucky) in office jobs.

I feel sorry for the couple, and I'm proud of them for sticking it too "the man", even if it is just a little man. And the press is wonderful for the wedding videography business. It's a big heads up to potential brides to make sure they get someone who is "legit" and a big warning to jokers to shape up or ship out.

Sorry can't agree. It ain't just the money. Read what I said. HE SCREWED 'EM no doubt but THEY SCREWED THEMSELVES as well. No due diligence. Not to mention $500 is pretty inexpensive for wedding video. While pricing is all over the place depending on market place and many other variables I know of no one that will go out travel 4 hours each way, shoot the job, preceremony, ceremony, postceremony and reception which in my area makes for a typical 10 to 12 hour day plus travel then load the footage edit, author, burn and print the DVDs for $500. That's not making a living that's a hobby. I'm not quite sure where you got the 20-25 hours to do this but it appears to me you don't do weddings.If you do and can shoot, load, edit, author, burn and print all in 20-25 hours for a full wedding please let me know your secret.
Am I blaming the client. Yep, to a certain IMO well deserved degree. It's like anything else. If you don't do due diligence and get burned, you've got no one to blame but yourself. End of story.

The local news here said he charged $500. That's 20 hrs of work at $25 an hour. $25 an hour is a good wage and is much higher than many people make (perhaps including that young couple). Why should someone not entrenched in the wedding business have cause to be alarmed at that price, those hours, and that rate?Wedding videographers are not wage earners... that is, not unless they're working for someone else, and working by the hour. I've done that, when I was still in school -- I shot video for a husband and wife wedding photographer team in San Antonio. I shot with their camcorder (Super VHS! heh, back in the day... early '90's). When the night was done, so was I. They took it from there, with the editing and video package and all. But that probably doesn't describe most of the folks here today.

Most folks here today as wedding videographers are small business owners, and that's an entirely different ballgame than being a wage earner, so it really shouldn't be described as such. You're not working for an hourly rate; instead you're working to not only sustain but to elevate your business and all of the costs that go with it. Wage earners work at McDonald's (no offense intended to anybody). Wedding videographers -- most of them -- are small business owners, not wage earners.

I don't blame the couple at all. They just got conned.

If the videographer was a friend who did it for free, would his conduct be acceptable?
If he was a famous person who charged 500K, would his crappy video be acceptable?

I like the title of this post. Any of the eminent wedding videographers in this forum could be a con artist. A showreel, a cool website and some 'references' can be created overnight. If you take a job for money, you must deliver. The judge was right.

If you do anything that takes TIME and you receive a FEE for it, divide one by the other and you now have a WAGE. If you haven't thought about it, maybe it's time to sit down and keep detailed metrics of your work for a few months.

If someone has never had a wedding before -- never hired a videographer or even thought about hiring a videographer ever before in their entire life -- how do you expect them to know that $500 is a "bad" price for video? Let's say the bride makes $500 a week. Paying someone $500 for two or three or four days work doesn't seem outlandish, does it?

Due diligence? Cut them some slack. They hired a guy (hobbyist or professional - doesn't matter) with a camera, and all they got was the camera... They could have gotten better results if they'd just given the camera to one of the kids at the wedding. At least it would have been three or four feet off the ground.

I'm glad he got nailed. I'm also glad the news is all over it. Can't hurt to have brides reminded on national news that a wedding video is a must-have!

PS. Did you see their wedding photos? Awesome shots. Doesn't look like the photographer was a joker...

"victim blaming mentality" - REALLY? Nope, we're just pointing out the simple fact that the quoted budget was probably less than they spent on sending out invites, or hiring a limo, or the DJ, or the flowers or... oh nevermind.

It's so easy to point fingers, and hey, the guy who did this was pretty much a scammer if you ask me, thought that was clear enough. I wouldn't even give him ANY credit for what he did shoot...

BUT, unless you're pretty naiive (wasn't the groom in a media business, so should have known a bit about such things?), this situation could EASILY have been avoided if the "clients" hadn't wanted a cheap "video". And I have no doubt that PRICE was the primary consideration here, NOT quality, reliability, reputation, or skill.

$500 won't even buy a used high end consumer video camera, so this was below even "do it yourself on the cheap" budget. I won't say I have never done a job "on the cheap" for a friend/family, or for a specific purpose (like to try out a new toy under fire), but that's just an absurdly LOW budget, and probably was whatever the couple had left so they thought "gee let's get video", what can we get for a few quid? A little "bargain hunting" later, and they got a stinking pile for their outlay. Sad, but you can't expect to drink Champagne on a beer budget, then be surprised or offended when you don't like the taste.

I'm sure they learned something, very likely along the lines of "you get what you pay for". I do think they should get their money back but from the article even that appears unlikely - hopefully they will learn to be more careful in their spending and purchase decisions, and in that case this was a cheap "lesson". The "gone forever" memories... to quote Master Card, priceless, literally.

As I suggested earlier, and Don touches on, brides should have a budgetary metric that would allow for hiring a qualified vendor at a fair price... so they don't end up goofing themselves up the way these poor folks did. Instead, from what I've heard and seen, most of the "how to's" are more oriented to how to get video for cheap on CL...

We of course only know what made print, and there MAY be more to the story, but however sorry we may feel for the bride and groom, the situation just SCREAMS scam/trouble/danger Will Robinson, and that is the most important lesson to be learnt.

No doubt we all feel sorry for the victim, but sometimes you have to ask "what did you think was going to happen"? That's not blaming the victim, it's just a realistic evaluation of the situation given the facts... there's a financial disconnect that's just too big too ignore.

If you do anything that takes TIME and you receive a FEE for it, divide one by the other and you now have a WAGE. If you haven't thought about it, maybe it's time to sit down and keep detailed metrics of your work for a few months.

If someone has never had a wedding before -- never hired a videographer or even thought about hiring a videographer ever before in their entire life -- how do you expect them to know that $500 is a "bad" price for video? Let's say the bride makes $500 a week. Paying someone $500 for two or three or four days work doesn't seem outlandish, does it?

Due diligence? Cut them some slack. They hired a guy (hobbyist or professional - doesn't matter) with a camera, and all they got was the camera... They could have gotten better results if they'd just given the camera to one of the kids at the wedding. At least it would have been three or four feet off the ground.

I'm glad he got nailed. I'm also glad the news is all over it. Can't hurt to have brides reminded on national news that a wedding video is a must-have!

PS. Did you see their wedding photos? Awesome shots. Doesn't look like the photographer was a joker...

Your points are well taken - it doesn't hurt to at least sit down and do a spreadsheet and figure out how much you're making per hour... but that's NOT how a bride should evaluate what she's paying by a LONG SHOT - there's editing, travel time, overhead, and QUALITY of the finished product.

As I pointed out earlier, one could say "hey, easy sweet gig, show up for a few hours at a party, shoot some video, eat some cake and stuff and get paid like $20 hour for it". Doesn't even scratch the surface of the BUSINESS considerations (thanks Chris).

And also well taken that brides are too often "suggested" to downplay the video and accompanying budget, thus perhaps have expectations that set them up for this sort of "fall". Since video is too often almost an afterthought, and they've spent what seems like outrageous sums on everything for their "special day" they probably are thrilled if they find a "cheap" option... so are an easy "mark". Weddings are not typically "cheap" in ANY aspect, but I certainly can understand how one could get taken in by a shady/shoddy operator.

I've already pointed out they didn't even spend enough to hire a camera, let alone a qualified operator, they could've strapped a flip camera to the back of a dog and done better... and my young kids CAN shoot better shots, though I think they'd wander off to the other wedding too, if not watched...

This really DOESN'T help the industry, although I guess you can take the "I don't care what they say about me, just as long as they're talking about me" tack. It just shows the dark side of hiring a bad vendor (we see those when a venue goes belly up, but somehow it's more often the video dude... oh the humanity).

And to put it in perspective, I'm guessing they spent around 3-5x the budget ($1500-2500 in USD) on the photographer, and we all know he just shows up for a couple hours, points the camera, downloads the pix, and hands them a disk and maybe a couple prints... sweet gig... maybe I'm in the wrong biz... <ducking and running>

Hi Don

I cost at $75.00 per hour absolute minimum and I'm really cheap....anyone costing at $25 isn't serious.

I did a job which was a 2 hour drive from home last January and the immediate travel cost and fuel extra was $300.00 ...If it was a 4 hour drive then it would have been at least $600 ..that's before overnight accomodation costs AND before I even pick up a camera. What he charged would barely cover travel never mind staying over (there is no way you can drive 4 hours, shoot a 10 hour wedding and then drive home at 1am for 4 hours)

The couple were probably blinded by the incredible low cost and never looked any further....here the general rule is "buyer beware" anyway.

They were lucky to get compensated for their lack of common sense.. even if the vendor was a total idiot!!

Chris

ABC news did an outstanding job comparing the professionally done pics vs, the video. This should be a very good marketing tool for Photography.

I think it is safe to assume that if the videographer did manage to capture the march, the cake cutting & took tons of footage, no matter how crappy it may seem the couple wouldn't have sue.

I think that we may have a blinkered view as to the way people outside of the business view wedding video. Our individual experiences lead us to believe that what we do is acceptable/desirable/valuable because we get bookings. I expect that each of us does work that is all of the above, but the public out there will only ever think about hiring someone like us once (or maybe twice) in their life and will be doing it with a wedding head on. The best source for them is personal experience from family, friends or acquaintances. These are equally good sources for us as they come to us with an already considered quality and cost in mind. For those doing it 'blind' it can be very difficult. Reading some of the many comments that people have made after the newspaper article it becomes obvious that many think that wedding videographers (cinematographers) are either inept amateurs or greedy chancers. It may surprise many of us that so many people think that £350 is not cheap.
People report that they have booked a videographer (or video company as many style themselves) after being impressed by a very competent website, only to be disappointed with what they eventually get, though not many take the next step of taking it to law, they just accept they made a bad choice. We all know that this is probably a minority of the 'professional' videos but don't we all suffer from those stories and articles like this, and it's not the first, which only go to reinforce in many peoples minds that a wedding video is a bit of a gamble. Due to the nature of the business we have an ongoing task of reassuring people that a good wedding video will be worthwhile and will become a family heirloom, something that there future family will be so grateful to them for having the foresight to have it made.

Depends on your clientèle George. In Asian culture bartering is the norm, so you can expect to have to give a little. Although it does not necessarily mean discounting your product. It could mean offering more DVDs/Blu ray which are cheap to produce anyway. :(

I was just reading back on your quote Aaron and by coincidence I had two call this afternoon asking for prices and both asked if I'd discount my prices before even asking to see any work. It seems it's now becoming endemic and not just in the Asian culture.
You'll probably know that all the magazine type programmes on UK TV have 'consumer champions' who are forever telling people to ask for discounts on everything; it's now becoming automatic, turning us all into market traders.

The second girl was so apologetic about asking but said her father wouldn't forgive her if she didn't ask. It's annoying because I set my prices at a fair rate and I don't want to artificially raise them just to be able to cut back down if asked to do so. I feel that instantly cutting the price suggests that I was chancing my luck trying to get a price higher than I'm willing to do it for.
When they ask before even looking at work it all seems so arbitrary, would they ask just as readily if I'd said £350 as they would at £3,500? By the way I'm not at either of those prices.

Or even change it to 25 hours of work at $20 an hour -- still a pretty good rate. The videographer is getting more hours and better wages than someone working part-time for $8.25/hr doing retail, and is still doing better than recent graduates of our top universities working for $15/hr (if they are lucky) in office jobs.

Firstly your analysis here is completely out of context and doesn't apply to this situation. You're not working in retail or in an office job, for this to be an accurate comparison you need to look at what the owners of the retail business & office firm earns per hour. You're not simply an employee, you're a business owner with a lot of overheads, marketing, employees, taxes, equipment & working in a high risk demanding job. Our cameras cost more than most peoples cars and editing doesn't fall between 9-5 working hours.

This is another lesson learned - you get what you pay for! Videographers aren't over-inflating their prices go to any art gallery and look at the prices of any well known artist, talent has no price limit. If anything I think many videographers are giving away their services at under priced levels, I know I am. The couple should have known better...really.

After watching this I get the opinion that this guy works in volume he gives it away at a cheap price then tries to pack 3 jobs or more in a weekend ive seen it before. We really dont have enough info to tell who conned who. What is this guys demo like? Is it his work? The price is ridiculously low in my market (which is low) we get a minimum of $1000 for a basic (4 hours of coverage) goes up to about $1700. I would also be interested in seeing his contract and package agreement.

Story I read said he's BK (bankrupt), so I'm guessing he probably isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and was doing this because it seemed like a good idea, NOT because he'd planned to remain in business long term...

I was just in the middle of telling this story to a college professor with a Ph.D. from Stanford. As I mentioned that the videographer charged 350 pounds, she gasps, and asks "Why so much?!"

Remember that each of us only gets to see the weddings we work at. It actually makes it difficult to grasp the great diversity of weddings. Especially for those of us with higher rates -- we only get to work weddings with budgets in the five figures, which may or may not be a minority.

Story I read said he's BK (bankrupt), so I'm guessing he probably isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and was doing this because it seemed like a good idea, NOT because he'd planned to remain in business long term...Probably the only reason that this case ended up in the Small Claims Court is that he didn't have the money to pay them when they demanded a full refund which as far as I am aware is all that they were entitled to. Despite what the newspaper reports states there would be no question of damages just recompense for the expenses of bringing the case which as it was the Small Claims Court would not involve lawyers fees.

On a side note. What are the copyright implications of using the footage on websites or tv programmes?
Was the copyright transferred to the couple or do they need the videographer's permission to show it?

In my agreements I state that I retain copyright of my material, though I have never had to enforce it, but if there was footage of mine that I was not happy with I'd not want it doing the rounds.

On a side note. What are the copyright implications of using the footage on websites or tv programmes?
Was the copyright transferred to the couple or do they need the videographer's permission to show it?

In my agreements I state that I retain copyright of my material, though I have never had to enforce it, but if there was footage of mine that I was not happy with I'd not want it doing the rounds.The video guy would retain copyright unless it was explicitly assigned to the couple (unlikely). Use of the video in news reporting on TV could be 'fair use' but some other uses might be more of a grey area. Given that the guy couldn't afford £350 to keep the case out of the Small Claims Court I don't think he will be setting the lawyers on anyone. Presumably the couple gave or sold their copy of the video to one or more of the newspapers & TV channels.

Just to put this into perspective, the UK National Minimum Wage is £5.93/hr ($9.54 USD, $9.27 AUS), so spending 25 hours on the whole job amounts to a minimum of £148.25 ($237.46 USD, $231.93 AUS)

Assuming his vehicle runs on Diesel, which is currently £6.46 per Imperial Gallon ($8.65 USD per US Gal, $10.10 AUS per Imp Gal), in the UK, and estimating his vehicle does a 50mpg average (Imp Gal), and average journeys here in the UK might be at 40mph overall, an 8 hour trip would amount to £41.31 ($66.19 USD, $64.62 AUS)

So, at Macdonalds floor sweeper rates of pay, he'd want a minimum of £189.56 before considering vehicle wear and tear, business insurance, hire of equipment, cost of media, postage, staying overnight, etc, etc.

Even the most cost conscious purchaser of a service can see the potential flaws in engaging someone for £350, so I have limited sympathy for the couple, who may claim they know no better, but if you're planning a wedding, surely you research everything before setting budgets.

Personally, I'd never do a wedding because I'd find it boring.

There is a longer report in today's newspaper with tales of more disgruntled couples so the guy obviously had form for poor customer service Wedding photographer Clayton Bennett’s trail of misery - Sunday Sun (http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2011/03/27/wedding-photographer-clayton-bennett-s-trail-of-misery-79310-28409947/)

BTW Everyone seems to have jumped to the conclusion that as the groom is reported as living in Essex that this is where the wedding was held & that the videographer will have travelled hundreds of miles. I think that it's far more likely that the wedding was held in the North East & that they just hired a local guy.

When you work the day job the salary is all yours. But working for yourself all that money isn't yours, it goes to lots of people and places and in 3-5 years your gear will need replacing, skills updating and at some point you realise that working from home full time consumes a lot more toilet roll than you did before :)

That'd be the point where I'd ask if they'd like me to bring my $300 P&S camera (which actually shoots pretty decent video!) or the $5K pro gear (yeah, I know, that's a silly low figure for what we usually cart around).

And I can hand her a disc with the unedited files, or take it back to the editing computer (another couple grand invested)...

I don't know what some people are thinking when they look at another's work product and go "I can do that, and do it cheaper to boot"...

Reminds me of the old jioke "how many guitarists does it take to screw in a light bulb" - ONE, and dozens standing around saying "I can do that... and better..."

Someone please dig up the old pic of the HC3 with the lampshade on it, and we'll update the "joke"!!

There is a longer report in today's newspaper with tales of more disgruntled couples so the guy obviously had form for poor customer service Wedding photographer Clayton Bennett’s trail of misery - Sunday Sun (http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2011/03/27/wedding-photographer-clayton-bennett-s-trail-of-misery-79310-28409947/)

BTW Everyone seems to have jumped to the conclusion that as the groom is reported as living in Essex that this is where the wedding was held & that the videographer will have travelled hundreds of miles. I think that it's far more likely that the wedding was held in the North East & that they just hired a local guy.


Wow, at least they keep saying he's a photographer (looks like he does BOTH), but what a maroon... then again there's the 4th page where they cancelled the wedding and expected a refund... And the last one, any competent person with a photo editing program could "fix" the color problems, just sayin'

And it looks to me like the guy DROPPED his rates?!? Guess there weren't enough suckers at 650, so offer 350...

I'm back to "con man", sorry, only logical conclusion here, although it does look like he TRIED to deliver SOMETHING... so maybe just completely incompetent boob... but if you're that incompetent, at some point you're a con man to continue! At least it appears he's out of business, that's a plus, one less bottom fishing loballer for you guys in the UK to contend with!

And it looks to me like the guy DROPPED his rates?!? Guess there weren't enough suckers at 650, so offer 350... I think that for £650 it's a combined package of video & photographs versus £350 for video alone.