Photography

Wedding Photographer Loses Photos in a Fire, Only Offers 90% Refund


If you lost all of your client’s wedding photos in a house fire, would you give them a full refund? This question has been spreading across the Internet the past few days after a couple complained that their wedding photog only offered them a 90% refund after his house burned down, because of the time he already invested.

The story originally surfaced on the r/AmItheA**hole subreddit, where a disappointed groom asked the Reddit community if he was being unreasonable for expecting a full refund from his wedding photographer.

“My wife and I hired a photographer for our wedding for $2,000, and we were eagerly awaiting our photos,” explains u/LimaBean481. “Fairly recently I was contacted by the photographer, apologizing profusely, and telling me he’s not going to be able to get us the photos due to a fire that ravaged his entire house.”

After doing some Internet research, the groom was able to confirm that the photographer wasn’t lying. He did, indeed, lose everything in a house fire. “Here’s the catch, though,” continued the groom. “He’s only offering us a 90% refund ($1800) instead of the full $2000 one.”

The photographer explained that this was due to the “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.” And the newlyweds don’t know if they’re being jerks for demanding a full refund. Given the situation, u/LimaBean481 put the question to the Internet:

I’ve demanded the full refund, and he’s stood very firm that he’s only giving the 90% one. I am prepared to take him to small claims or request a chargeback if he doesn’t back down. AITA?

The post has received over 5K upvotes on r/AmItheA**hole and another 900+ on r/photography, where the consensus is that the photographer is definitely in the wrong. Most commenters on both threads place the blame on the photographer for three reasons: he didn’t properly back up the images in multiple locations, he doesn’t seem to have any liability insurance to cover this kind of thing, and giving a full refund in order to maintain a positive relationship and reputation seems like the right thing to do.

ALSO READ  Is Sony’s Pace of Innovation Actually Hurting the Photo Industry?

What do you think? Is it reasonable to expect the photographer to offer a full refund, is the client being ridiculous about that $200, or are both parties being jerks? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

(via Reddit)





READ SOURCE

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.