Cheap photographers are coming under fire after a lawsuit claims they were paying the bride to attend a wedding in a state that didn’t have a photo ID requirement, but in this case, the photographers weren’t the ones who were being paid.
According to court documents, the plaintiff, Heather Smith, claimed that her wedding photographer was being paid by the groom’s family to get a photo for her to take home with them to the ceremony, which she didn’t want to.
Smith was charged with unauthorized conduct and was later ordered to pay $2,000 in court costs.
She later sued her photographer, a man named Mark Burt, who said he was not being paid to photograph Smith.
Burt also sued Smith’s husband, who is also a photographer, for not paying for her wedding, but the judge ruled that the couple could file separate claims on their behalf.
Burt’s attorney, David Burt of Dallas, told the Charlotte Observer that Smith has a good relationship with him and is happy to be compensated.
Smith said that her experience was different because she was attending a wedding for her husband.
She said that when she attended a wedding, she did not have to prove she was not attending for the wedding itself, but rather for a photo of her husband and his family.
“It wasn’t about the photo, but how I got the photo,” she said.
Smith also said that she paid the photographer $1,500 for the photograph, which was for a wedding photo she had taken before she went to a wedding reception.
She also claimed that she was paying Burt for the same photo with the groom on her wrist, but Burt was not paying her for the photo.
The couple did not want to get in trouble for this, so they asked for $2 of her $1.
Bumpers that cover the bride’s wrist are part of the wedding photographer’s fee.
Burch claimed that he did not take the photo for the groom.
Smith did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Charlotte Independent.
In a statement to the Charlotte News Observer, Burt denied paying Smith.
“I do not have a job as a wedding photographer,” he said.
“I have never had a job with a wedding.”
Burt said that he had never met Smith before her wedding and that they had never been married before.
He said he would never pay anyone to take a photo that was not their own.
“It was a great wedding and I wish Heather a happy and healthy wedding,” he told the paper.
“We have not yet reached a settlement.”
According to Smith’s attorney Jonathan Smith, the wedding is a “good example of what could happen when photographers are paid to perform in places that don’t have photo ID requirements.”
“This was a terrible wedding,” Smith told the Observer.
“She was not in attendance for the ceremony.”
The Observer also reported that the wedding photography license is currently suspended, but is not being revoked because Smith is still seeking to recover the $2 she paid for the photos.