f16sunshine
Moderator
It seems technology is causing many people to become meaner and dumber.
How stupid for this couple to think their actions would go unpunished.
How stupid for this couple to think their actions would go unpunished.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
A bridezilla is a scary thing. The mother of a bridezilla is pure blood-curdling terror! Trust me.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Relative to the cost of her business being "ruined" for not doing so, it may have been a wise choice.
Right then.
Remember that portrait photographer a year back that had a client demand a refund, or he was going "ruin" his career by posting bad reviews online? He gave the refund, then wrote an article (which went up on petapixel and got far more views than a bunch of hoax yelp reviews ever would have) exposing the client's scam. I don't think anybody has pulled it on him since.
But beyond that, having read older articles it seems the photographer paints herself as being much more patient and kind than she was in reality. I'm not going to dredge up old articles, but I think passive aggression is a running theme. If her business is "ruined" because somebody wrote some mean things on the internet (How is Ford still in business!?) it's not like a lawsuit is going to win future prospective customers over.
Scrambler
Well-known
I don't know anything bar the basics off the net. But remember the headline is an attention grabber rather than the full story. It reads like they booked and paid for certain features then complained that they didn't get more. They wanted full rez images of everything and weren't going to get them. Do you or don't you give all the images is a live debate in the field and not giving them is the longstanding tradition. Certainly negs were not given out in the film era.
They bought a Cadillac but wanted a full custom limosine for their money.
Don't forget that whatever they got out of the photog becomes what everyone else demands. And from the article it appears that was a LOT more than a free cover photo.
Jurys take a long time to consider unless its absolutely clear to them. This one came back so fast I wonder if they even got a beverage. It was, in all their eyes, completely obvious.
They bought a Cadillac but wanted a full custom limosine for their money.
Don't forget that whatever they got out of the photog becomes what everyone else demands. And from the article it appears that was a LOT more than a free cover photo.
Jurys take a long time to consider unless its absolutely clear to them. This one came back so fast I wonder if they even got a beverage. It was, in all their eyes, completely obvious.
bhop73
Well-known
She mentioned in the letter on her own website (the photographer http://www.blogpolito.com/ ) that she did in fact offer to eat the cost of the cover, and release the images to them in order to make the bride happy, but they went forward with their nbc interview anyway.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
She wouldn't be predisposed towards any sort of bias would she? :angel:
Not really. They were being unreasonable, of course, as people often are. But the photog also took the risk of ruining her business over $125. And look what happened. Then they spent who knows how much money and time to make up for what should have been a pretty basic and straightforward decision to make. If you're raking in $800,000 a year, as she claims to be, risking all that business over $125, well, It takes a certain kind of person to do that.
Of course it wouldn't have been an issue at all if she had been dealing with reasonable people in the first place. But when you run a business, you run into unreasonable people. Edit: to clarify, I'm in no way suggesting that the couple were in the right with their actions smearing the photographer online. Which they did, and the court agrees they did. I've just found it hard throughout this story to muster any sort of sympathy for the photographer, based on the facts which have been reported. It seems a silly situation that could have easily been avoided, or at least deescalated, neutralized, then put behind them. I feel like most any reasonable person would have been able to handle it.
Paul T.
Veteran
INteresting, whenever you have something dodgy, someone somewhere always tries victim-blaming. Is this jealousy of an apparently successful photographer I wonder?
The photog is a professional. She had a contract that laid out terms of the deal. Someone wanted a product that had a specific price, didnt' want to pay for it, and weren't given it... then tried to defame the seller. They are the guilty party. Don't blame the professional, the victim in this situation.
There's no debate. That's why the dodgy new-weds got $1m settlement awarded against them.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
You are victim blaming, plain and simple.
zuiko85
Veteran
For our wedding, 29 years ago, the wedding album was made up of snapshots donated by friends and family who attended. Quite a mishmash but treasured regardless. In fact the missus and I (two people each with little kids of our own and broke) just wanted a very small wedding but our friends wouldn't hear of it and put on a pot luck wedding, also an excuse for a party, everything donated, not fancy but a way for our friends to show they cared.
Scrambler
Well-known
I am about to head to work where about 20 people today will ask my opinion. The same tomorrow, the same last week. My past client base would be nearer 6000 than 600. I think that I may have some experience.
As has already been said above this is a matter that after hearing both sides in detail a jury of 12 quite quickly reached a decision.
This size of the payment may be debatable but really who was right and who wrong is not really open to debate.
As has already been said above this is a matter that after hearing both sides in detail a jury of 12 quite quickly reached a decision.
This size of the payment may be debatable but really who was right and who wrong is not really open to debate.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
My cousin..had her wedding as a pot luck..at 1st..I thought..this is the ultimate bs cheapskate move...
But I was dead wrong...everyone brought incredible food and gifts and participated..and I never felt that kind of unity at a wedding before..amazing actually..and I'm not into weddings at all...having played enough of them back in the day with different bands..
I took the photos in B&W with M6 and flash and slow Pan F..and got the prints back to them asap before they left for the UK..
All had a blast..
Best wedding I ever attended..!
But I was dead wrong...everyone brought incredible food and gifts and participated..and I never felt that kind of unity at a wedding before..amazing actually..and I'm not into weddings at all...having played enough of them back in the day with different bands..
I took the photos in B&W with M6 and flash and slow Pan F..and got the prints back to them asap before they left for the UK..
All had a blast..
Best wedding I ever attended..!
bhop73
Well-known
uh yeah.. the last post that I mentioned that you discarded was pretty much her attempt to neutralize and put behind everything, which the couple rejected. And just because she's the one that wrote it doesn't mean it's not valid. I'm sure if it were, then she wouldn't have won the court case with such a short jury deliberation
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I read about the case from two different sources and it was essentially the same thing: the couple was bent on ruining the photographer because they didn't want to pay the album fee. To me, that's a malicious and deliberate act and, as such, punishable. They were incredibly petty, mean and destructive.
Contarama
Well-known
This married couple has marred their own sacred day. Why would anyone do such a thing over something so petty? I think that reveals a whole lot...
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Nope. If I were, I would be saying it is the photog's fault that this couple went online and created a smear campaign. And I'm not saying that. However, reality doesn't work on dichotomies, just because one has been wronged, doesn't mean they're automatically perfect in every way because of it.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Lighten up Francis.
But for fun, how old are the Found On Road Dead, or Fixed Or Repaired Daily jokes? I'm pretty sure they pre-date the internet.
The court found that the smear campaign was malicious. Not that Polito's own story about how great her customer service was is unbiased.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
My father founded our family business in 1976 after dumping a lazy partner he'd had since 1971. Dad always told me this: "5% of your customers cause 95% of your problems."
With the internet, now 1/2 of a per cent can cause 99% of your problems.
With the internet, now 1/2 of a per cent can cause 99% of your problems.
Chris101
summicronia
Unlikely. At least in my experience. I gave in and reprocessed a few key images. This lead to a demand that I reprocess more images or "give [the client] all my exposures". The original agreement was for a certain number of images, which I had slightly exceeded in order to better tell the story. No amount of working with this person would satisfy her.
This headache ended after 6 months, when she separated from her husband, and didn't want any more pictures.
Tejasican
Well-known
It doesn't seem hard to decide if the couple was maliciously out to ruin the photographer's business since they announced it from the get go.
Scrambler
Well-known
Most people (99%?) follow rules of social engagement - either because they want to or because they are pretty confident they won't get what they want by disobeying them.
Occasionally there's the person who will push regardless, even if they lose. Letting them win a little does not help (though it may with the 80+% with a conscience).