Originally posted by magkelly You'll note in her rebuttal she says nothing about the cover charge which leaves me wondering.
Ah in the open letter it says she offered to wave the cover charge BEFORE tv crews were contacted..
Quote: This conflicts with the numerous emails in which we clearly reiterated what is stated in the contract: low-resolution watermarked proofs are sent to the couple several weeks after the wedding for them to choose their desired photos, while the non-watermarked, high-resolution images are released upon completion of the album.
and
Quote: In fact, over two weeks ago we emailed the bride and stated our willingness to release to them their images prior to having a completed album. Then last week, we also offered to assume the cost of the album cover before the mention of a news interview ever occurred. Although the contract provides when the images were to be delivered, we attempted to make concessions to keep the bride satisfied.
This is one big dramafest.. looks like there was a hangup with the album cover and the release of the final images, but they had the watermarked versions from which to pick while they waited. Seems, from the little info we got, the cover was something that had to be bought additionally which is odd.. why not include that in the total price? Also seems it was mentioned in the documentation the couple received too.. this is starting to get a bit too gossipy for me so I guess I'll end it there. Hope they all work it out though.
In any case, this is why I don't want to have anything to do with commercial wedding photography.
I'd like to photograph a wedding though.. as a side third or fourth shooter.
I've thought about maybe one day finding a couple that can't afford a big time photographer that might want photographs slightly better than aunt elma using her point and shoot or cellphone and take them for free... but even that has me a little bit squeamish since I'd probably still have to draft some kind of legal document just in case poo hit fan.