Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge recently announced a $200,000 judgment against a photographer who failed to deliver images to clients.
The judgment was levied by Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox against Jonathan Funk Photography, LLC and consists of $98,625 in restitution, $100,000 in civil penalties, and $1,135 in filing fees and miscellaneous costs, bringing the total to just a shade under $200,000. In addition, Funk was ordered to hand over undelivered photos to the clients who had paid for his services. Rutledge said:
Photographs of some of life’s most precious events will finally be given to their rightful owners, where they can be appreciated and shared.
The trouble began after the attorney general's office received 54 complaints from customers who had never received images, ranging from newborns to events. The company had taken out advertisements in several local magazines; however, the lawsuit and several Google reviews describe an experience of high-pressure sales that required upfront payment, often in the amount of $2,000, after which customers would never receive their images, despite months of requests and attempts to get in touch with the business. The state also confiscated two hard drives full of images from the company at the start of the investigation in 2018. Beyond the monetary compensation, hopefully, all of Funk's clients will finally receive their memories.
This is confusing, as is the Arkansas Times article it's based on, so the photog shot these events then just never delivered ANY photos? Or did he only deliver a few photos and the clients felt shorted?
I cannot understand why you would put forth the effort of shooting an event and then not delivering anything. The work is done, deliver some SOOC jpgs and what case would they have? This is just odd.
I was thinking the same thing. This is another article in a series of articles about lawsuits concerning photographers were I'm left scratching my head: "How?".
There's more to the story than this. The company has failed to deliver, either through deception, incompetence or misadventure. Something was going on, impossible to know without digging behind the scenes.
Good.
Am so happy for the judge's decision. My God....what kind of moron does this? If the company took the time and effort to do the photos, why didn't they send them? I mean..hell...it's not like they had to do any editing or anything like that if they didn't want to. Just load the photos up and press send. What the f is so hard about that? I've heard of being lazy, but this is just absolute insanity.
"Beyond the monetary compensation, hopefully, all of Funk's clients will finally receive their memories."
The clients may receive their images but very likely not their money. I have been through this process twice in Texas. A judgment is just that - a judgment. Collecting the money is a whole 'nother thing. In Texas assets need to be in the defendant's name only. No joint property. No residences. This dirtbag photographer will have to have $200K in cash or qualifying assets in order for the clients to collect. Since this guys is an LLC his personal assets are likely not able to be seized. And the court will not assist in the collection. The clients will have to go through the legal process of collecting the judgment on their own. That, or pay a company who specializes in collection to research the photographer's assets and file the paperwork. All for a tidy sum of 50%.
It's enough to turn a law abiding citizen into a vigilante.
I wish them luck.
PS - After thinking about this a bit more, large $ amount may change the equation. If anyone out there has more info I'd love to hear it.
According to the state's motion for summary judgment, Funk showed up and shot the events and then absconded with the money, never delivering the pictures. I doubt very much that the photos he's turned over to the state are going to be of professional quality.
Thus far, the $98K restitution order is against only the LLC, not Funk individually, though the state has submitted a proposed order that would presumably name Funk personally liable for the restitution and thus render him subject to a collection action. Note that the $100K civil penalty is basically a fine and payable to the state only.
As the state AG is the Plaintiff, they are much more likely to collect on this judgment than if this were a lawsuit brought by individual plaintiffs, who would have likely have to resort to a private collection agency to enforce the judgment (of which there have been quite a few based on my search results for Funk).
If this was consistent behavior, I'm surprised the AG didn't look at criminal charges. In a criminal case Funk's LLC wouldn't necessarily provide protection against his personal assets. Sounds more like a scam than a legit photographer.
In a criminal case the burden of proof is far higher. Instead of convincing a jury that the guy didn't fulfill the contractual terms you've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a criminal act. There are all sort of possible reasons why the guy didn't come through that would be a valid basis for a civil suit. Proving a criminal case requires some specific intent, rather than just being a screw up who's better at making promises than fulfilling them.
We had a wedding photographer stiff us. The guy had a good reputation however he got hooked on cocaine and life fell apart for him. He was put in jail and I just wanted the jpg's but the wife wouldn't give them up. They were paid in full so I had a wedding insurance policy. I am in the insurance business also. The policy was through Fireman's Fund and their was coverage for re takes. I convinced the lawyers in claims to bring a lawsuit against the photographer personally as a professional. After the constable showed up at her house with the summons the wife gave me the jpg's and we dropped the suite.
I'm from Arkansas and I've heard of this photographer, but I had no idea all of this was going on.
I know it is a common practice, but for a life of me I don't understand why photographers demand upfront pay for shooting weddings or other events. You don't prepay plumber or barber. Why photographer is any different. Why photographers don't charge on delivery?
A plumber can usually just move on to the next job and a barber can take a walk in customer, but most businesses that schedule projects that keep them from doing other work usually take some kind of deposit. In theory you can take a deposit of $1 and have a valid contract, but just as customers sometimes have trouble getting what they paid for, businesses sometimes have customers who renege on contracts or try to avoid paying the balance. In some cases there's a maximum deposit by law, or money has to go in an escrow account, but in other cases it may be legal, if not ethical or sensible, to collect full payment up front. And of course there are a lot of businesses that are desperate for the next deposit because they need it to pay the bills from a previous job. Regardless of what terms a business asks for the customer is always free to look elsewhere.
My personal opinion is that if I have to do any work after I've gotten all the money then at some point before the job is done I'm working for free. Depending on the contractual terms, simply delivering the pictures in this case may have been as simple as sorting and emailing or uploading, but at an hour for each of 54 clients it might have meant a long work week for no (more) money. That's not a good reason to not provide what you've promised, but rather a good reason to not be paid in full before the job is done.
Can't speak for others, but in my case it's because I'm tired of having to chase people down for money after I've already put my time and work in. Clients will complain about photographers taking money and not delivering the promised work, but I've had more than my fair share of clients who have either completely disappeared or literally taken months to pay me the rest of what I was owed for a job.
Of course it is a two way street. Paying you upfront customer takes a risk that you are going to deliver garbage and as a business you take a risk that you are not going to be paid after delivery. So there could be a reasonable compromise and risk mitigation that is extremely easy with photography. You can charge retainer upfront say 10-20% in case wedding is cancelled. Then you put your final images on Smugmug or something similar and only allow viewing. If customers like what they see they pay you and you deliver full resolution images, prints albums and so on. If they don't they don't get final product and you don't get paid. Simple and fair.
There are companies like Snappr that fit perfectly into your business model.