Photographer Wins Million Dollar Lawsuit

https://petapixel.com …after-album-cover-fracas/

http://dfw.cbslocal.co​m …against-dishonest-couple/

Some comments: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1484396

The Washington Post has a good article about this.

They trashed their wedding photographer over a $125 fee, so a jury told them to pay her $1 million

I've mixed feelings about this. After charging $6000 for the wedding shoot, I think that adding $150 for an album cover is excessive. Should her business have been ruined over it, no ( and I doubt that it suffered that badly), but then again that judgement is ridiculous.

sjnovakovich wrote in post #18417262
I've mixed feelings about this. After charging $6000 for the wedding shoot, I think that adding $150 for an album cover is excessive. Should her business have been ruined over it, no ( and I doubt that it suffered that badly), but then again that judgement is ridiculous.

If you read through the history, she is very famous and was booked 2 years in advance, making 6 figures a year. Yes her business was hit from this and will continue to do so for a while. Whether her livelihood was hurt for 5 years, who knows, but it is what it is. It is a trend these days for people to be completely disrespectful, and unethical, and think they can get away with it. I don't have an issue with the verdict at all, it has no impact on me anyways, but perhaps these people might mature a bit and get a clue after this?

sjnovakovich wrote in post #18417262
I've mixed feelings about this. After charging $6000 for the wedding shoot, I think that adding $150 for an album cover is excessive. Should her business have been ruined over it, no ( and I doubt that it suffered that badly), but then again that judgement is ridiculous.

It was all in the agreement. If the clients didn't like the $150 surcharge, they could have walked away. I resent being charged $5 for a drink on a plane when I have just paid $500 for a ticket, but it is what it is.

And her business was clearly affected. Her bookings went from 70-100 down to 2 in the next season.

sjnovakovich wrote in post #18417262
I've mixed feelings about this. After charging $6000 for the wedding shoot, I think that adding $150 for an album cover is excessive. Should her business have been ruined over it, no ( and I doubt that it suffered that badly), but then again that judgement is ridiculous.

A write-up on this saga says that the charge for the album cover was $125, and the photographer said that she would absorb the cost as a concession. Consider this...from way back in the 1990's, I have a spreadsheet of wedding album cover retail prices, and 25% of the products were >$100, with $130 the price of 4 of them...in 1990!
I used Art Leather Futura covers, and my cost was almost $50 for the cover with mat for cover photo, and mats and pages all cost extra.

Apparently Bridezilla&G failed to fulfill their end of the wedding contract, in not providing an order form and selection of a cover photo for the album to the photographer, which would allow completion of the album, so it seems maligning the photographer after claiming the photog was "holding their photos hostage," was groundless.

If you were to learn all the facts of this case, you would agree the ruling was fair and reasonable. Many feel one of the local news stations acted irresponsibly as well.

Based solely on a news article and no other information, I wonder if the award was sufficient.