Another wedding photog sued...

[RobNYC]

This time for "racy" shots posted on the Internet.
I would assume his contract allowed for use of the photos, but this time the bride claims he was told not to take photos of the her getting ready.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_bride_says_i_sue_over_panty_pics.html

[Robert16]

Hmmm... post traumatic stress disorder eh?:rolleyes:

[Red Tie Photography]

Yeah...i think that may be a bit much...

[TheHoff]

He is a famous one, this time.

The defence is that the gallery was posted as password-protected and given only to the bride so if anyone saw them, it was her doing.

[mattantonino]

I think I've been kicked out of the room almost everytime someone didn't want these photos. It's easy "you need to step out for a minute - we'll call you right back" done. *shrug*

[Dennis_Hammer]

This is a part of the wedding that I always get detailed instructions from the bride about. I even offer to get a 2nd (a female) to photograph this part of the wedding day. Never has anyone ever taken me up on the offer. And never have I ever used (even though I have a very thorough model release) one of these pictures in my portfolio without a second explicit release for that photo from the bride after she has seen it. But that said I find it hard to believe that discussions about the 'getting ready' photos did not happen now its up to someone to figure out who's not telling the whole story.

[tim]

Americans. Suing's each other's a national sport.

[RobNYC]

As is the English language.

[tfizzle]

My guess is it will be thrown out. Why: They had ample time to tell the photog to leave. If any of the photos show her smiling/looking at the camera that's a problem for her. It was in a password protected client gallery so there is no "public" display. And I'm sure if it's a higher profile wedding photog there are things in the contract (or maybe things not in there) that won't fly for the plaintiff.

[RobNYC]

It doesn't really read that they were originally password protected. It sounds more like they were unprotected at first and it seems that they were moved to a protected gallery later. Unless you guys are reading something from a different article?

[bnlearle]

Americans. Suing's each other's a national sport.
Yep. God bless trial lawyers.

[TheHoff]

It doesn't really read that they were originally password protected. It sounds more like they were unprotected at first and it seems that they were moved to a protected gallery later. Unless you guys are reading something from a different article?

I can't find where I originally read it but his response was that it was in a private gallery. You'd think a high profile studio like that would indeed put the proofs in a protected client area.

I think the story is being hyped with the line "and then he uploaded the images to the internet!" when really it was in a private space.

[RobNYC]

This is from the article:
"Two months after the wedding, Bostwick's husband found the pictures on the Web site of Christian Oth Studio.
The suit says the studio agreed to take down the pictures - only to leave them where those with an access code could peek."

[TheHoff]

Ah I sit corrected!

[tfizzle]

This is reported to be in the press release on the website:

"We are surprised and disappointed to learn that Mrs. Bostwick has filed a lawsuit against us in which she claims that we intentionally violated her privacy. We have never posted any images of Mrs. Bostwick on our public website or any other public venue. Client images, such as Mrs. Bostwick's, are posted on our proofing website and are always password protected. Our clients' privacy is a foremost priority. Therefore, the log-in and password to our proofing website are provided only to the client.


It was in the comments and in this article:

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/11/17/bride-sues-over-racy-photos-posted-online/

[Chris215]

Americans. Suing's each other's a national sport.

this lol

[shaggymatt]

Wow. I attended a lighting seminar earlier this year and the instructor who had done 1800 weddings was talking to me in private. He said he shot one wedding where the couple actually asked for pictures of them consummating the marriage. Now how do you write that one into the contract to protect yourself? ;)

I've done one shoot where the bride asked for boudoir photos before the getting ready pictures. She was very comfortable running around in her lingerie as were her bridesmaids. I think it was more uncomfortable for us, and thereby limiting the pictures we were taking since all the girls were in their underwear almost the entire time. All of her pictures showing anything more than a bra strap were put into a separate password protected gallery that only she got the password to, even though she said I could use them. Only makes sense to me.

[cdifoto]

That's funny (not haha funny but pathetic funny). I had a bride specifically request photos of her panties. They said "bride" right where the tramp stamp would be.

[RT McAllister]

I'm not a prude by any means but these photos should have never left the photographer's hard drive. (password protected or not). They were for the couple's eyes only.

But that's just me.

[cdifoto]

I'm not a prude by any means but these photos should have never left the photographer's hard drive. (password protected or not). They were for the couple's eyes only.

But that's just me.
How does the couple see them if they never leave the photographer's hard drive? ;)

[RT McAllister]

How does the couple see them if they never leave the photographer's hard drive? ;)Figure of speech.

I would've emailed them or asked the client how she wanted to proceed. Even at that AND depending on what you read it looks like the images were in plain public view first, then put into a private password protected area:

The suit says the studio agreed to take down the pictures - only to leave them where those with an access code could peek.

[sacral]

That's crap. PTSD? Good God. Sounds like an attention grabber to me.

Everyone's out for theirs. This angers me.

[Koyama]

That's crap. PTSD? Good God. Sounds like an attention grabber to me.

Everyone's out for theirs. This angers me.
I don't think they're in it for the attention--just money.

[cdifoto]

Figure of speech.

I would've emailed them or asked the client how she wanted to proceed. Even at that AND depending on what you read it looks like the images were in plain public view first, then put into a private password protected area:

The suit says the studio agreed to take down the pictures - only to leave them where those with an access code could peek.

You'd have been sued for allowing the potential for a nosey mail carrier to intercept and view the images.

When people want to sue, they don't need a legitimate reason; they just need a sleazy lawyer.