Wedding photographer loses all photos in a fire, offers only 90% refund because of “time invested”
Aug 20, 2019
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
If you make a living from photography, losing the photos you shot is not only your loss. When something unpredictable happens, it’s your clients who lose their precious memories, too. One very strange case recently got under the spotlight: a photographer’s house burnt down, and the fire destroyed all photos from a wedding he’d previously shot. So, he’s delivering anything to his clients, but also not giving them a full refund. He reportedly offered a 90% refund because of the time he invested in shooting and editing the photos.
The post was originally published on Reddit’s AmItheAsshole subreddit. The client writes that he and his wife hired the photographer to shoot their wedding for $2,000. However, the photographer contacted them after the event to tell them that his house was burnt down. He apologized and told the couple that he wouldn’t be able to deliver the wedding photos as the files were destroyed.
“I snooped on his social media profiles to double-check that this was true and not just an excuse,” the man writes. And as it turned out, the photographer was telling the truth.
“He posted pictures of the burnt-down house. He also posted that he has homeowner’s insurance that will cover it, and has posted some pics of him staying at his sister’s, so, fortunately he isn’t on the street or totally screwed. Still a pretty shitty situation, though.”
However, the catch is that the photographer offered the couple a 90% refund ($1,800) instead of the full $2,000 one. According to the post, he said that it was because “huge amount of time he put into editing, the 5 hours he spent shooting at the wedding, and the hour-and-a-half round trip he drove to shoot.”
“I’m not trying to sound too selfish or entitled, but while I think it’s all well and good he put all that work into it, all that doesn’t really benefit us if we’re not getting a single photo out of it, and I don’t see why we owe him anything. It’s sad and not his fault (IDK, maybe he could have saved an extra hard drive somewhere not his house), but we’re not getting our long-awaited & treasured pics, and I feel we deserve the full refund.”
The client adds that he demanded the full refund, but the photographer has stood very firm that he’s only giving the 90% refund. Because of this, the man says he’s even prepared to take the photographer to small claims or request a chargeback if he doesn’t back down.
Basically, the man who wrote the post was wondering if he was the a**hole for requesting a full refund. He received a lot of positive feedback, and many people believe that he has a right to the entire amount. The post was later cross-posted to Photography subreddit, where the comments are pretty much the same. Most people believe that the couple is indeed entitled to a full refund because they didn’t actually get a single photo of the wedding.
Many commenters emphasized the need for a good backup strategy. It’s definitely something all photographers should have developed, especially if they make a living from photography. A lot of people believe that it was photographer’s mistake that he didn’t back up the files on a cloud, and that it’s not the clients’ fault if the fire destroyed the SD cards or a hard drive where the photos were stored.
Personally, my first thought was that I empathize with the photographer. It’s a huge loss and stress to have your house destroyed in a fire, even if the damage is covered by the insurance. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for him and his family.
Still, if I observe the case without emotions and empathy, purely from the practical, rational side, I tend to stand with the clients. No matter the circumstances that caused the loss of all photos, I think that they are entitled to a full refund. Also, I believe that it doesn’t matter how much time the photographer spent traveling, shooting and editing photos if the clients didn’t receive a single one of them.
If I were in this client’s situation, I can’t say for sure what I would do. It’s sometimes difficult for me to draw a clear line between emotional and rational response. What would you do? Would you empathize with the photographer’s situation and accept the 90% refund, or you’d request a full refund?
[via Reddit]
Dunja Đuđić
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Related Posts
Wedding photographer “scams” couple with blurry photos, ghosts them without a refund
Amazing Timelapse Showing The Amount Of Work Invested In Restorating A Damaged Photo
How I Invested 8 Months In Creating A 2.5D Movie To Attract New Clients
Wedding client: “my fiancée died, can I get a refund?”; Videographer: “life’s a b**ch”
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
70 responses to “Wedding photographer loses all photos in a fire, offers only 90% refund because of “time invested””
It should have been a full refund if he couldn’t deliver the images as contracted. His poor as Sh*t workflow isn’t the customers fault.
I agree it should be a full refund first job when you get back with client images or even as soon as you have broadband access is get an off site back up if he had already edited them there should 100% be a backup of the output
The first thing I would do, and I’m surprised the article didn’t mention it, is check what the terms are on the contract for covering eventualities where the photographer loses the photos. If there isn’t any such specific terms then I think the photographer, despite their poor luck, should refund the whole amount.
Asa cliente I care less how much time he spend on what. If I paid for a service and did not got it then I want to be refunded.
Sure its awful what happened… but its not my problem is it?
Full refund, the photographer should have professional indemnity insurance in any case because the client has lost far more than what he paid as a fee for the job!
Actually… When you HIRE a PERSON to perform a SERVICE you need to ask yourself these 3 questions… 1) What is the service I’m getting? 2) Who is providing that service? 3) What do I get from that service?
If the service is to shoot your function, that is only part of the service. Whether it’s one or more photographers and/or assistants, they PROVIDE the service. Their time is valuable, just as yours is. Then a product comes from that service—the photos are the product. That’s 3 parts that create a whole. Some of you are arguing that their time has no value, because an accident occurred.
Unless you can prove negligence occurred, then we as customers should also understand that accidents occur. A 90% refund in many cases sounds particularly fair in most instances.
I totally agree… But… it depends on the contract….unless the contract clearly states and is broken down into the different areas i.e. to shoot the images… to edit the images…. to supply the client with the finished product I would agree he should be paid for the areas of the contract that he fore filled. If however the contract states he will shoot their event and supply them with the images. I feel no he doesn’t have the right to ask for 10% of the original cost.
Also his workflow… if you shoot for a client you always always have backups and one of them off site. lets face it, as a professional photographer FTP isn’t that expensive.
Contracts are a must and should be considered, but human decency and ‘how would I want to be treated if the situation were reversed’ should also play a factor. In the end the photographer was hired because the couple wanted photos. They got no photos. Despite how much work the photographer did or didn’t do, they didn’t get the product they wanted to get by hiring him/her. A full refund should be issued.
Scott Stevenson lest flip this a little. You hire a builder to construct a house, something tragic happens and he can’t put a roof, windows or doors up. Do you accept a partial refund or would you except him to complete the service agreement as contractually obliged?
As a professional photographer the service provided is the creation AND delivery of photos. As a professional he shoukd have backed up his data, his workflow should have had sufficient fail dates. For example dual memory cards, backup to the cloud when the files are imported, backup to the cloud when the files are fully processed. Data storage is relatively cheap and would be classed as a business expense to him.
This guy failed to do his job and as such his client is entitled to a full refund as he breached the contractual agreement.
I think your example might be a little off. If you did hire a builder to build a house, and he spent 2 months building and buying materials and then lets say, his entire business went up in flames, At that point you would have to cut ties with him at that moment, the cost of things he already used and incurred (that you pay for) is already done. There is a partial house, and you go to the next contractor to finish it. You don’t get a 100% refund on all the materials and costs of labor already incurred just because the contractor went out of business. You would get a pro-rated or negotiated discount based on work already done. I don’t even think a judge would side with the person looking for a 100% refund, from this. The guy lost his house, and he is essentially looking for Gas/Toll and time spent money most judges would be pretty sympathetic to that. We are talking about $200!
The example may be flawed but he delivered NOTHING to the couple so 100% is due for a refund. He was negligent in not having cloud backups, that are a cheap insurance. I say this as a photographer.
Or this. Say you go to a restaurant and prepay for your food, then the kitchen comes back saying the oven, fryer whatever stopped working and therefore they can’t serve your meal at all. But they went through the process of chopping vegetables, preparing meat etc so they are only going to refund 90 percent of your bill because after all, they did invest some time in meal preparation. Would anyone consider that an acceptable compensation? And yes, I’m half of a professional photography team. We also charge a non refundable deposit that clients will not get back if they cause a problem (last minute cancellation, etc) but if the problem is mine, as the photographer, and they don’t get their product, then YES, they get all their money back!
I’d say negligence has occurred. The photographer didn’t have a proper backup strategy including off site backup. It’s not even a very expensive service these days.
Alan Laighleis – Poor example… You insure building projects for just such tragedies or inconveniences… Let’s say the builder actually dies and has no residual money to claim from probate. Who do you sue? What court do one go to to claim, he/she owes me?
The law indicates when individual parties are bound by contract (written or verbal) that particular levels of care be practiced depending on the service and/or products/goods involved. The law is also designed to make people “whole” which does not, confusingly enough, mean complete. It also understands that a person’s time has value. Like if you have a clown come to your child’s birthday party. Unless they do something destructive or potentially damaging, or hurtful, just because you didn’t like their performance it doesn’t entitle you to a full refund. Your satisfaction, unless guaranteed, is not protected by the court. It’s not like ordering pizza, where the cost of the service is billed with the purchase of the pizza.
I’ll give one last example. Back to photography… You hire a photographer… The photographer comes and shoots the event. One of your guests is inebriated. Hey, you thought open bar would be a good idea. That person accidentally knocks the photographer’s bag with all the film/memory cards into a fire pit… Is that the photographer’s fault? Why should the photographer not be paid for their time? Why should the photographer not be paid for YOUR inconvenience? Not their fault. Stop expecting others to go without for YOUR inconvenience.
Take 90% because they spent their time coming out and taking the photos and this was something out of their control. They may have also been editing already and that’s more of their time spent on my stuff. They deserve to keep at least 10%.
Hmm.. so if I go to a garage to install new brakes, and the mechanics installs them, and then uninstalls them, and installs the old ones back, should I still pay for his “work”?
Sergi Yavorski that’s in their control the fire is not. That’s two completely different issues. I do see what you’re trying to say but I still don’t agree seeing as how that doesn’t even begin to address the same issue. In your scenario you are saying they intentionally put the old one back on. In the other scenario fire destroying property isn’t something that they chose to do.
yeah stuff like that should have been in the contract, somebody who just lost everything tries to give you back most of the money seems to be trying to do right by you, but they deserve to be compensated for thier time.
Hoselton Christine I don’t think so. I, as a photographer, am responsible for delivering my product. Whether it was a fire that prevented me from delivering it or my gross negligence is irrelevant. The client doesn’t get anything either way. Therefore, the client get a ZERO value out of it. You can’t make a client pay for what he doesn’t get. It makes absolutely no sense. Besides, any professional knows to backup his work. This is imperative. If you don’t backup your work and don’t keep it safe, it’s your fault and none of the client’s. Nature and acts of god can’t be blamed either.
Sergi Yavorski right I’m not saying that isn’t a factor. I’m saying that they deserve a refund but me personally I would still let them keep 10% for even showing up and taking photos in the first place. Part of the hard work is being there, knowing how to set up shots, knowing how to use the camera etc. I agree if they are smart they will back it up and keep it in a safe place but we live in an imperfect world so not everyone thinks to do that. Maybe I’m too nice…I don’t know but I do know that everyone’s time is worth something. And it’s ok for me to think different from everyone else. I’m allowed to be sympathetic towards others.
Hoselton Christine Yes, I suppose you are too nice?
He is asking client to bear his own risk. If photography were his job, he should pay insurance on his house and gears.
Photographers that work for others, should always have a good backup, and maybe the clients ought to ask about it. If he had time to start editing, an automatic online backup would also have had the time to back at least some, if not all, of the pictures.
90 or 100…for feck sake…it’s only a couple of hundred dollars at most.. Pathetic.
As a professional he shoukd have had a backup off site. Cloud storage is relatively inexpensive and would be a business expense to him that would be deductible at the end of the day. He has learned an expensive lesson at a brides expense. Instead of being an ass he shoukd own his mistake and pay her back and Also offer something by way of compensation like a shoot for her and her husband when they return from honeymoon for free.
Why no insurance? Back up in another location.? Trouble is client’s do not want to pay for the costs.
Full refund. No doubt about it.
The time spent on providing a service has any value only when the product resulting from this service is delivered. Plain and simple.
File suit to reclaim damages because I’ll need to spend a lot to recreate those pictures. It’s not just pictures. Hopefully I wouldn’t have to wait a year because of outside pictures and everyone survives who was there.
100 percent refund is due. He turned out to be a “guest,” not a vendor.. which is why you get paid.
Should be covered under the “act of God clause” in the contract.
Neglecting to have an adequate backup strategy isn’t an “act of God.”
Where is his cloud backup? Full refund since he is negligent.
Not just negligent, outright lazy. $6 a month at backblaze, every single file is backed up. My “deliverables” are exported to Dropbox. My dropbox folder is backed up by backblaze. And everything is backed up to a USB hard drive ($180 or so) in case my computer dies. So I have 3 places for every file, and 4 places if you include client deliverable JPGs on Dropbox.
All of this done with consumer-level gear and middle-tier services. You don’t have to be rich to have your stuff backed up.
My NAS backs up nightly/automatically to AWS.
I’m curious, how much do you have on your NAS, and how much does that end up costing per month for AWS?
And which storage type do you use?
About 6 GB, but I back up less than that. I couldn’t say the total storage. But I’ve moved older information (the bulk of it) to Glacier and it got much cheaper.
I would off course not accept anything else than 100% refund – and as a photographer, I would offer a 100% refund AND do what I could to recreate the portraits – including hiring hair and makeup and going out one more time.
Am I the only one here who see’s this as a classic reason to have a non-refundable deposit BEFORE the day of the shoot? That would have covered his loses in the case of this going this direction.
It goes, “The cost of the wedding will be $2,000. I need $200 in the form of a non-refundable deposit at least 2 weeks prior to the wedding to make sure we are in agreement and to make sure my time covering the wedding is accounted for.” or something like that….in a contract….
Of course, it is already stated here, having backups off site if this is your living.
Deposits are usually there to cover your costs if the client flakes – not to cover your costs if you’re negligent.
The photographer had a contract with the client. Either it was verbal or written. You must be able to perform your part as a photographer and deliver the photos to the client. If you are unable to complete this part of the contract the client has no responsibility to pay the photographer and all deposit money must be returned to the client. A judge would side with the client if taken to small claims court.
Who cares about the time the photographer spent if they didn’t produce an end product?
It’s what having a good backup plan, strong contracts, & insurance are for. The client doesn’t absorb your bad luck unless they caused it…
I for one would never imagine not giving a full refund & doing something additional for them to try to make it right for loosing the “official” images of a day that can’t be recreated, if for nothing else just so I don’t get sued as this is now the photographers liability.
Additionally the only confirmed time invested is the travel to/from & event. The fire may or may not be the photographers fault, but who really knows if they spent 5 hours editing or if it’s just a claim since they haven’t produced an end product so no proof that the images even came off the memory cards… At that point it’s semantics, is the photographers supposed time worth more then the couples time they took to pose for formals they will never get?
LOL unbelievable. I would agree he deserves some money for the time spent. The entitlement of people is insane. There can be arguments made on both sides, but I think neither of them should argue and it seems 90% is fair. To make a big stink about this is absolutely typical of the entitlement of the young who have yet to experience any big traumatic life events. Give the guy a break, jesus.
He screwed up by not backing up. This is one of the most important moments in a person’s life and he gave them NOTHING to remember it by. Nothing to do with entitlement.
1. Wedding insurance would’ve covered this and more for the clients for a few hundred bucks they would’ve had full peace of mind.
2. The photographer should’ve had an indemnity clause to have covered himself from issues like this.
3. The photographer should have business insurance to cover his financial loss in the case of an insurance like this.
These are the three things that should’ve been taken care of before the conversation of backups and refunds.
But this does explain why the photographer only valued his work invested at only $200.
All that said, in THIS case, if you’re offering 90, might as well give the full $2000, unless contracted otherwise.
Well said.
Peace of mind? The photographer at my wedding had no backup camera, her camera malfunctioned, and none of the photos could be developed. NO INSURANCE IN THE WORLD replaces those photos or gives “peace of mind”. Unlike the photographer here, she realized it was all on her.
Second: if I faced a contract with a clause saying there was a possibility I would have to pay for nothing, I would not sign it, and would be searching for a pro photographer. At that point, I’ve been talking to a scam artist.
Third: Can photographers get business insurance that covers this? I don’t know. Back in the day, an “umbrella policy” would cover his loss, if I recall correctly, if his business operated out of his home. I looked into this at one point because I ran a business out of my spare bedroom. I moved to a rented office before getting business insurance but if I recall correctly I had options while working at home.
The client should take the 90% refund then bill the photographer a 10% stupidity fee for not having backups.
Full refund. Who cares about time spent if nothing is delivered! Would you still tip the pizza delivery guy if he showed up with no pizza?
The only reason I would not refund 100% would be if there were unusual expenses specific to this particular client.
Expenses that The client would normally have paid directly for but asked the photographer to include in their bill.
For example, dressing in an unusual manner, shooting using an old speed graphic with flash bulbs. Somethi g out of the ordinary.
There are so many sides to this story….any professional should back up all images to cloud immediately. Then the full refund wouldn’t be necessary as you still have all the images….
As to refunding after you didn’t take good care of your client’s images, should be 100% full refund in my books…
If I pay someone to build me bookshelves, and they invest a day into making the shelves and their house burns down, would I not expect my money back for the shelves I’m not getting? Or for anything I paid for and didn’t get? I think people somehow feel the rules are different when it’s photography. In this case, the loss to the client is even more, because they can’t just have someone else “make the bookshelves”.
PSA: If you haven’t yet.. go back up your photos offsite now!
It’s probably in the T&C if the photographer do make weddings photography as a living. Most if not all professional would have their clients to sign some sort of brief contract prior to the photoshoot. If the photographer doesn’t have it on his T&C then he should be dealing with cold hard truth and he’d learn to have a client contract in future
I am a wedding photographer. I would not be happy if this happened. I would give a full refund. I would offer another shoot (free of charge). Taking those hits to restore/maintain my reputation would be the least of my worries. You have to appreciate it is someone’s wedding day and that hurts. Many wedding suppliers (not just photographers) don’t honour the professionalism required for the sector.
On backups, cloud backup of heavy RAW files can be a non runner. 3 copy backup has to be done (I know so many who cheat this). Off-site copy requires discipline.
Agree. They could export and put full or very high resolution jpegs in cloud additionally though – as an extra measure. That would have meant the world to the couple. If you live in an area where you can get fast internet, cloud backup of raw is absolutely feasible. Do a quick cullt get rid of the obvious crap ones and upload the rest.
Why risk getting a shit reputation over 200?
back them up no?
Why are we even debating this? I paid for a product/service I didn’t receive, I deserve a full refund. As a professional he should also be covered by insurance, if not is negligence
Redundancy is everything
A full refund wouldn’t balance the scales: that photographer’s failure to maintain data security means the couple lost wedding photos they can never get back – and the opportunity to have someone competent have done the job instead.
I could see this ending up in court with the photographer paying damages.
Even without a decent backup, data can be recovered from a fire burnt drive.
People need to know this stuff.
It’s just a matter of money. How much are you willing to spend?
(Not so sure about memory cards)
I would say 90% refund is generous.
why didn’t they back that stuff up? they just lost a huge moment in a person’s life! they’ll never get that back. I would never risk loosing a moment like this for a client. I’ve had a fire was was devastated at all the memories I lost of our children. (this was before the digital age) back that stuff on at least 3 or 4 platforms!
The photographer is lucky he wasn’t sued for damages. Backup systems are part of being professional and part of why we charge more.
A full refund is due. Hopefully they had insurance on the home which would have a contents rider. If the amount was too low – it’s the photographers problem. If the photographer didn’t have insurance – still the photographer is at fault. No insurance on the business – AGAIN, the photographers problem. Unfortunately, you don’t pay someone for their time if you don’t receive the product promised. No off-sight storage – once AGAIN, the photographers responsibility.This shouldn’t even have a Gray area.
Shocking that so many voted for anything other than full refund. If he gets in front of a judge, he will be in a worse situation because under the law the couple owes him nothing. Then he will have this judgment on his public record. Why doesn’t he already know all this?
I have been an editorial and advertising photographer for 39 years and I have photographed many jobs over my career. What is this photographer thinking. He must return all money the client paid. A judge will very easily give the client the win. If you cannot deliver a job and not perform on the contract then it is the photographer’s fault. That happened to me with a client about 20 years ago I shot an editorial job for a national magazine. The lab processed my E6 film plus two stops and nothing was usable. I could not charge the magazine a fee. The job could not be reshot. It hurt my reputation with the magazine and I settled out of court with the lab. Accidents happen but you cannot charge money for an accident the client had nothing to do with. I am sorry for his fire but this photographer needs to learn a business lesson and doing this is the fastest way to lose clients.
The photographer is just plain stupid and they should get the full refund out of him. He is liable for more but it’s probably not worth it for the couple to pursue.
I agree with all the backup comments, but common sense, why ruin your rep over 10%?