Stupid I know but help needed

Rob_S_Photographer

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I'm just going by what has been said by the OP. It's not right to judge them. We don't know them, people make mistakes and there's a lot of people who know little (or nothing) about copyright. Just because some people lie and claim they didn't know/made a mistake doesn't mean that everyone who says it is lying.

After all, if that is what happened, what are they going to say? Should they make something up just so it isn't what someone else has said who did lie?

every argument has two sides.. but you are quite happy to believe the OP who has already stole the image and tried to sell it?

The only reason the OP posted in the first place was because she knew she had screwed up and was under the misguided impression that people using this forum had a clue and could advise her how to wriggle free..

I live in the real world where I meet/come into contact with people like the op on a daily basis.. maybe if people spent less time hiding in their own little virtual world offering incorrect/useless advice and got out more they would realize what people are really like when cornered.

Rob_S_Photographer

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Why would a small claims action for £350 take any more than an hour, and do the small claims court allow legal fees to be added?

obviously you've never had the pleasure of dealing with our legal system.. its nothing like judge judy.

Rob_S_Photographer

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

You can invoice people for what ever you like, but you still need to prove your losses to a court.

Given OP didn't sell any of the disputed photos, what losses were incured?

Remember everyday thousands of people are sent invoices from car parking companies...

if im sitting in a solicitors im losing money. if i'm preparing for court im losing money. when im sitting in court im losing money.. if I have to pull out of a contract to attend court im not only losing money but a client too ..

proving how much I make per hour/week on average is easy so proving loses incurred leading up to the case is just as easy.

now what were you saying about costs?

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

Christ.. this is akin to banging my head against a brick wall... youre already saying the photographer is charging too much, but you want the OP to wait until they receive a letter/email from a solicitor which will cost them even more money?

I never said they were charging too much, I said they haven't shown where such a cost came from.

Some people would be happy to pay that little bit extra for peace of mind that it's being done legally and not a scam.

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

obviously you've never had the pleasure of dealing with our legal system.. its nothing like judge judy.

Shame, that would make life far more entertaining. Although, I never thought of cases on Judge Judy as being quick. I mean, I figured there was a fair bit of stuff behind the scenes that, first of all, wouldn't be the same as in the UK and, second, were made longer by the whole being on TV thing. Plus she might not put up with idiots, but I figured that for the entertainment value that certain things go on longer than they would otherwise.

Which would make UK cases quicker than Judge Judy...

Flyonthewall

Rob_S_Photographer wrote: »

if im sitting in a solicitors im losing money. if i'm preparing for court im losing money. when im sitting in court im losing money.. if I have to pull out of a contract to attend court im not only losing money but a client too ..

proving how much I make per hour/week on average is easy so proving loses incurred leading up to the case is just as easy.

now what were you saying about costs?

So you are willing to lose clients because you want to sit around to make cash? Sounds like a great business plan.

Is losing a client and possibly one who may be able to offer more contracts (bigger/better contracts?) in the future or one that may spread the word of how you suddenly pulled out of a contract really worth it to sue someone?

I know they've done wrong and all, but for the sake of one or two photos it seems daft to let them ruin your business.

Goldiegirl

When a borrower misses a payment on a mortgage, the lender doesn't go in with all guns blazing and start legal action for possession of the property immediately - they write to the borrower first so that a mutually agreeable solution can be reached.

It's the same sort of situation here - the OP knows they have done something wrong, so they should write back to the photographer and offer their abject apologies - that may be enough to satisfy the photographer. If not, then maybe a negotiation for a mutually agreeable settlement can be made, and a lot less than £350.

But by burying their head in the sand, the OP risks a whole lot more stress and money to pay out.

Come on OP, man up and take responsibility!

Flyonthewall

Goldiegirl wrote: »

When a borrower misses a payment on a mortgage, the lender doesn't go in with all guns blazing and start legal action for possession of the property immediately - they write to the borrower first so that a mutually agreeable solution can be reached.

It's the same sort of situation here - the OP knows they have done something wrong, so they should write back to the photographer and offer their abject apologies - that may be enough to satisfy the photographer. If not, then maybe a negotiation for a mutually agreeable settlement can be made, and a lot less than £350.

But by burying their head in the sand, the OP risks a whole lot more stress and money to pay out.

Come on OP, man up and take responsibility!

Yes, but you know who the mortgage company are and so them sending you a letter would be an official letter that shouldn't be ignored. Plus you know the cost and how it's worked out because it's based on the house you bought.

This person who sent a letter could be anyone at all and they haven't stated anything that shows where the £350 charge came from.

Goldiegirl

^^

True, but the OP won't know for sure unless he engages with the person who contacted them.

Personally, I still reckon a grovelling cringeing abject apology will be sufficient to satisfy the photographer, if he/she is genuine.

It's tough to eat humble pie, but it could be cheaper in the long run.

Flyonthewall

Goldiegirl wrote: »

^^

True, but the OP won't know for sure unless he engages with the person who contacted them.

Personally, I still reckon a grovelling cringeing abject apology will be sufficient to satisfy the photographer, if he/she is genuine.

It's tough to eat humble pie, but it could be cheaper in the long run.

Well they tried to phone them. We've yet to know if the OP ever got a call back.