Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-01-2017, 09:02 PM   #1
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,886
This, in our news today.

US couple forced to pay wedding photographer $1.35m | Stuff.co.nz

08-01-2017, 09:30 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,368
I'm really glad the photographer won the lawsuit and I hope she gets paid. This attitude of "I've been inconvenienced so I want you to get fired/go out of business" is one of the worst things about modern society.

This situation is also one big thing that gives me serious reservations about trying photography full time.
08-01-2017, 09:38 PM - 2 Likes   #3
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
That is precisely why news agencies should not get in the middle unless they are rather certain they have all the facts from both parties.. it has become gossip infotainment.

If anything, I think maybe the photog should sue the news agency too. Running a second story after the fact doesn't make up for all who only saw the first story.. and then spread that version. The News should be responsible for what they air/print.
08-02-2017, 03:55 AM   #4
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,279
From the article, quoting the bride's Twitter account:

"broke down and chose our wedding album photos... 80 out of 4000 yeah that was like sophies choice."

She compares choosing eighty wedding photos to this? I think that tells me a lot about her.

08-02-2017, 04:58 AM   #5
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,886
Original Poster
As I understand the situation, she would have got the other 3920 photos too - once she had paid for them. But, the photographer does not release the photos to the client until paid in full. Only 80 photos go into the album. Presumably she would receive the others as electronic files.
08-02-2017, 05:32 AM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,227
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
That is precisely why news agencies should not get in the middle unless they are rather certain they have all the facts from both parties.. it has become gossip infotainment.

If anything, I think maybe the photog should sue the news agency too. Running a second story after the fact doesn't make up for all who only saw the first story.. and then spread that version. The News should be responsible for what they air/print.
Reading the article, it seems that the news agency may not have given the photographer sufficient time to respond. That assertion, though, would have to be tested in court, and they'd have much deeper pockets to fight it than the couple who used them.

The most interesting thing in the whole story, for me, was the description of the bride as a "professional social media expert". While that's a messy phrase in itself, it possibly contains one half of the key to understanding how anyone could be so incautious as to think they could say what she said on social media and not have it used against her in court, ie someone so locked into their small field of interest that they ignore or dismiss the presence of other social institutions. The other half is probably some sort of personality disorder that drove her to start the online vendetta over something so petty (a $150 photo album cover) – at the very least, it would have been a severe lack of judgment on her part.
08-02-2017, 07:22 AM   #7
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
QuoteOriginally posted by RobA_Oz Quote
Reading the article, it seems that the news agency may not have given the photographer sufficient time to respond. That assertion, though, would have to be tested in court, and they'd have much deeper pockets to fight it than the couple who used them.

The most interesting thing in the whole story, for me, was the description of the bride as a "professional social media expert". While that's a messy phrase in itself, it possibly contains one half of the key to understanding how anyone could be so incautious as to think they could say what she said on social media and not have it used against her in court, ie someone so locked into their small field of interest that they ignore or dismiss the presence of other social institutions. The other half is probably some sort of personality disorder that drove her to start the online vendetta over something so petty (a $150 photo album cover) – at the very least, it would have been a severe lack of judgment on her part.
"may not have given" ? It seems to me they emphatically did not give the photographer enough time to respond. Instead they just ran the slanted news story without all the details. I find that correct since they ran a followup after the fact (after they had got in touch with the photographer, who provided contrary proof).

A blog/social media "expert" may get thousands of hits, but most of those aren't in your community. Or, at least, a sizable number are not in your community. However, with the 10 o'clock news, the viewers are ALL in your community. Far worse damage can be done... and the couple knew that obviously. Which is why they went to the news in the first place.

But I don't think she inherently has to have a personality disorder, unless her husband does too since they were both caught in the scheme. I think it more goes to human nature... it is broken... and shows more readily in different people in different situations. Definitely a severe lack of judgement though.

If anything, perhaps this will be a warning to other people drafting such schemes in their heads to maybe not partake. From what I've seen (ironically in the news and online social media) it seems rather common today for someone to feel wronged, especially online, and immediately go after the perceived offender's job... attempting to get them fired or sink their business. That is essentially like murder in the West.. kill their finances, "ruin" the person. God, help us.
08-02-2017, 08:04 AM   #8
Pentaxian
E-man's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 540
Yes, it is a sad commentary on our culture. And when the couple divorces in a few years, those wedding photos won't matter one whit to either of them. The only winners in the whole saga are the lawyers.

08-02-2017, 08:56 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: traverse city MI
Posts: 345
It seems certainly on it's face that the photog was most likely in the right and the couple did set out to ruin her. That being said... in response to several posters and from my own personal experience I see it ever so slightly different from others who have posted.
1. first off I have noticed an attitude on this forum from many (not all) that the photog can do no wrong if they have trouble it is always the other guys fault.
2. As it relates to the media - one has to "Prove Malice" or at least gross negligence. In almost all cases this is near impossible to prove, a retraction and apology is about the best you will ever get. And it sounds like the media did attempt to cover themselves by correcting the story.
3. Sure the couple should have known better than to post about how they intended to ruin the photog. Really stupid on their part and it was probably what cost them the law suit.
4. $200+ is not a petty amount at least not to me, so if any of you out there really thinks it's so petty send me a PM and I will give you my address so you can send the check. Also if $200 is such a petty amount why did the photog choose to die on that hill, she will probably never see her money and she is now out of the business. I do agree that if the money was agreed upon she had every right to it.
5. Where I live and where my kids live (one in Raleigh one in Chicago, one in Madison Wi) they do not give all the photos and will never give a large enough file to print from. You get a certain agreed upon number to be printed 80 or whatever is to go into the album and then also send files large enough for using on a computer and this number is never all that were taken. I also realize some photogs may do this. However why would a photog send ALL of them anyway since most of them are going to be bad, pick out the top several hundred that are properly exposed and look good and send those for review unless the customer really wants everything. I certainly wouldn't want my worst stuff out there.
6. Although most wedding photographers are good honest people there is a rather large portion that overcharge and underperform while expecting thousands in payment. I also understand that it is not uncommon for a photog to get stiffed so they must protect themselves.
7. As a father of the bride we had a highly recommended photog who by 9pm had sneaked enough drinks to be quite buzzed, by 10pm a guest who was an artist managed to have her blouse unbuttoned almost to her waist for a portrait session. At which time I told her she was done. Fortunately she took enough good shots prior to this so I wouldn't have to sue her.
08-02-2017, 10:41 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,279
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
it seems rather common today for someone to feel wronged, especially online, and immediately go after the perceived offender's job...
It's easier to win in the court of public opinion than in a court of law. Plus who wins is irrelevant because "the process is the punishment" (the stress of being sued is its own misery even if you win, especially in a court system with drawn-out timelines, your career in the balance and the other side either with deeper pockets or receiving legal aid and having naught to lose).

In the extreme they will publish your name, address, phone number etcetera ("doxxing"), and then (even more) unstable people who follow them will sometimes threaten you and your family. That sort of behaviour deserves automatic prison time, IMO, and arguably a felony strike.
08-02-2017, 01:28 PM   #11
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,886
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
4. $200+ is not a petty amount at least not to me, so if any of you out there really thinks it's so petty send me a PM and I will give you my address so you can send the check. Also if $200 is such a petty amount why did the photog choose to die on that hill, she will probably never see her money and she is now out of the business. I do agree that if the money was agreed upon she had every right to it.
From her blog, I understand that she waived the $200 (or whatever it was) fee to try to reconcile matters.
08-02-2017, 02:34 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,227
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
4. $200+ is not a petty amount at least not to me, so if any of you out there really thinks it's so petty send me a PM and I will give you my address so you can send the check. Also if $200 is such a petty amount why did the photog choose to die on that hill, she will probably never see her money and she is now out of the business. I do agree that if the money was agreed upon she had every right to it.
The total fee was $6,000. Heaven knows what the rest of the wedding cost. In the scheme of things, the cost of the cover is petty, but let's not argue about semantics. In any event, who in their right mind would go to such extremes over something of that magnitude?

According to the photographer's response, she didn't "die on the hill" over it, but offered to waive that part of the fee. Who knows? The court certainly didn't brand her a liar over it.

Finally, anyone who hasn't lived with someone with a personality disorder wouldn't know what it's like to not go along with one of their schemes, which doesn't mean you'd have a disorder yourself, just that you'd be trying not to become their next target.
08-03-2017, 08:07 AM - 1 Like   #13
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
It's easier to win in the court of public opinion than in a court of law. Plus who wins is irrelevant because "the process is the punishment" (the stress of being sued is its own misery even if you win, especially in a court system with drawn-out timelines, your career in the balance and the other side either with deeper pockets or receiving legal aid and having naught to lose).

In the extreme they will publish your name, address, phone number etcetera ("doxxing"), and then (even more) unstable people who follow them will sometimes threaten you and your family. That sort of behaviour deserves automatic prison time, IMO, and arguably a felony strike.
In the court of public opinion one is guilty until proven innocent. Even in the media it worked that way in this case. The loudest person is the correct one. Hearing both sides doesn't matter if you can vilify one side enough.

I'm too somewhat surprised there isn't a law against this if there isn't already.. outside of threats which are illegal, but I would guess (hope!) one would need proof of that to prosecute.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
photo industry, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma bad news, Pentax good news HippyHippo Pentax News and Rumors 189 01-24-2017 06:56 PM
*RUMORS, careful!*Good news and bad news (K5 going, something else coming) masloff Pentax News and Rumors 252 01-07-2012 12:20 PM
Cityscape Good news--bad news-my panorama photo charliezap Post Your Photos! 13 08-17-2011 06:44 AM
Flamewar/News not involving Pentax/Completely Unbased Speculation/Not News Forum nixcamic Site Suggestions and Help 8 12-18-2008 05:56 AM
Great news, bad news, great news! Marc Langille Photographic Technique 49 03-01-2008 08:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top