Do I have a right to photograph's taken by a photographer, no matter who hired the photographer if I was photographed?

Do you write questions for the Texas Board of Law Examiners in your spare time? I'm joking, but congratulations on asking what is probably the most interesting question of contract law that I've come across on the forums. Your stepson's Mom contracted with a photographer to photograph members of your stepson's family at his wedding. You were not a party to the contract but you were one of the guests at the wedding. You had your photograph taken at the invitation of the photographer and were told you could purchase a copy. Now, when you tried to purchase the photographs, the photographer declined to sell you the pictures because he is afraid that stepson's Mom will sue him. Do you have a right to purchase the pictures? Whether you have a right to purchase the pictures depends on third party beneficiary law. Presumably, stepson's Mom entered into a contract that stipulated that photograph would take pictures of wedding guests and then offer those pictures for sale to the wedding guests at a specified prices. If that's the case, whether you can enforce the contract to purchase the pictures despite not being a direct party to the contract depends on whether you are incidental or intended beneficiary. If you are an intended beneficiary, then you do have a right to enforce the contract. You could also argue that photographer entered into an agreement to sell you the pictures at fair market value when you spoke to him at the wedding. But he would counter that it was an invitation to contract rather than a contract itself. I think you have some decent arguments that you are an intended beneficiary. But is this really worth going to Court over? Why don't you find another guest at the wedding and arrange for that guest to purchase the pictures that you wanted for you? That might be the simplest way to get the pictures that you want.