No Wedding Video - what are my rights?

marliepanda

EstrellaOscura wrote: »

Anything GDPR wise about the videographer keeping a video on me longer than necessary? I'm so confused - he has the entire event and I have no idea what he's doing with it

What are you worried about that hes doing with it...

unholyangel

hasaposse wrote: »

It depends how it's worded. If you asked him for their contact details as a work recommendation because you'd like to enquire about his prices, then it'd be fine, so you could try that route!

It doesn't matter how its worded, OP has no right to the photographers details therefore the company doesn't have to give her them (and may be breaching data protection if they do so assuming the photographer is an individual and not a company themselves).

Unfortunately its entirely possible OP won't get their wedding video. However due to the type of contract, its likely they'd be able to claim for distress/inconvenience element in addition to a refund.

And I don't see why the company would refund but not pay their contractors. They'll be refunding the contractors cost + their profit by giving a full refund as well as being liable for damages.

hasaposse

unholyangel wrote: »

It doesn't matter how its worded, OP has no right to the photographers details therefore the company doesn't have to give her them (and may be breaching data protection if they do so assuming the photographer is an individual and not a company themselves).

I didn't say she had a right to them, I said she could ask for them. If she's asking for their details on a recommendation of work then it's fine. It's unlikely the photographer is an individual and not a company (even if just a sole trader) because then they'd be working illegally, and it's also likely they advertise their services even if that's just on their own website.

Probably a moot point though since it sounds like this person is ripping her off and just making loads of excuses. It's doubtful he even paid the videographer.

unholyangel

hasaposse wrote: »

I didn't say she had a right to them, I said she could ask for them. If she's asking for their details on a recommendation of work then it's fine. It's unlikely the photographer is an individual and not a company (even if just a sole trader) because then they'd be working illegally, and it's also likely they advertise their services even if that's just on their own website.

Probably a moot point though since it sounds like this person is ripping her off and just making loads of excuses. It's doubtful he even paid the videographer.

You said it depends on the reason for asking and if she was asking for that particular reason, it would be fine.

A sole trader is not a company (they are an individual) and no they would not be working illegally.

hasaposse

unholyangel wrote: »

You said it depends on the reason for asking and if she was asking for that particular reason, it would be fine.

So exactly what I originally said.

unholyangel wrote: »

A sole trader is not a company (they are an individual) and no they would not be working illegally.

I was trying to clarify what you meant by "individual" and "company", since there would be no difference between giving her the details of a sole trader or a limited company, so your definitions were pretty ambiguous.

unholyangel

hasaposse wrote: »

So exactly what I originally said.


I was trying to clarify what you meant by "individual" and "company", since there would be no difference between giving her the details of a sole trader or a limited company, so your definitions were pretty ambiguous.

Well unfortunately, you are wrong in your own understanding of what I meant. You said it was unlikely the photographer was a individual and not a company (even if just a sole trader). A sole trader is an individual, not a company. Even if they are trading as "ABC services" they are an individual.

Data protection applies to living individuals, not to companies. So there is quite a big difference.

hasaposse

unholyangel wrote: »

Well unfortunately, you are wrong in your own understanding of what I meant. You said it was unlikely the photographer was a individual and not a company (even if just a sole trader). A sole trader is an individual, not a company. Even if they are trading as "ABC services" they are an individual.

Data protection applies to living individuals, not to companies. So there is quite a big difference.

If I read it the way you meant, it would have been incorrect, hence giving you the benefit of the doubt and working under the assumption that you'd phrased it strangely rather than simply being wrong.

There's absolutely no data protection breach in giving the contact details of a business to someone, especially if that business advertises their contact details, which is pretty much 100% going to be the case with someone who shoots weddings.

If, however, they get work only through some kind of secret underground network of wedding photographers who are under an ancient oath not to reveal their details to any clients, you would be correct in saying that it would be a data protection breach.

I feel like the former is more likely.

unholyangel

hasaposse wrote: »

If I read it the way you meant, it would have been incorrect, hence giving you the benefit of the doubt and working under the assumption that you'd phrased it strangely rather than simply being wrong.

There's absolutely no data protection breach in giving the contact details of a business to someone, especially if that business advertises their contact details, which is pretty much 100% going to be the case with someone who shoots weddings.

If, however, they get work only through some kind of secret underground network of wedding photographers who are under an ancient oath not to reveal their details to any clients, you would be correct in saying that it would be a data protection breach.

I feel like the former is more likely.

You want to move the goalposts some more?

I didn't phrase it strangely or wrong. You're conflating company with business. If you disagree, then please explain why you said a sole trader is a company and that they'd need to be a company or be acting illegally.

EstrellaOscura

Valli wrote: »

He's holding it to ransom because HE hasn't been paid, for a guess. If you ever do manage to get in direct contact with whoever actually filmed the swedding the chances are he is still going to want paying.
You need to start getting firm - either send a LBA demanding a full refund plus any associated costs in bringing the claim or demanding the video is provided, as per his contract, within (say) 21 days.
And if you do persist in emailing/phoning make a record of calls, when they took place, who spoke to whom and a summary of what was said.

Can I send an LPA given he is a sole trader?
Thanks for the feedback - I'm just coming to terms that this company filmed my wedding, lied about footage and now won't release my refund.

Seems terribly unfair and I just wont stand for it - can't treat people like this when they've paid for a service!

unholyangel

EstrellaOscura wrote: »

Can I send an LPA given he is a sole trader?
Thanks for the feedback - I'm just coming to terms that this company filmed my wedding, lied about footage and now won't release my refund.

Seems terribly unfair and I just wont stand for it - can't treat people like this when they've paid for a service!

Who is "he"? The party you entered the contract with or the photographer who actually carried out the service?

The only way a sole trader or company affects procedure is in who the claim should be made against and the extent of their liability (with limited companies/partnerships claims are limited to assets of the company, with sole traders you can go after them personally). So if it was "Wedding Videos ltd" and they are indeed a registered company, then you'd write your LBA to them and (if it needs to go that far) file proceedings against them. If they are "Bob Smith trading as Wedding Videos" then you'd write the LBA/file against Bob Smith.