Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
A bride is suing a wedding photographer for allegedly taking semi-nude pictures of her on her wedding day and posting them on the internet — despite her objections. Bride Sara Bostwick filed suit in Manhattan Supreme Court against photographer Carolyn Monastra and the Christian Oth Studio for causing her to "suffer severe emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder," the Post reports.
Even though the Bostwick "forbade" the photographer from taking any pictures of her while she was undressed, "Monastra took photographs of plaintiff's person in her underwear and in various stages of undress anyway," according to a Daily News article on the suit. The studio had apparently already agreed to remove the photos, but then just made them private, so only web visitors with a special password could access them. In September, a Bronx teen filed suit against a catering hall and a bridal shop that used a photographer of her and her uncle at her Sweet 16 to advertise their wedding services.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
TINWOP
Word. Tits or GTFO.
pics or it didn't happen
I'm afraid I must agree, we need further evidence of the alleged transgression if we are to render comments.
"The studio has apparently already agreed to make the photos private, so only web visitors with a special password can access them."
Reading comprehension fail. That's not what the article says. You're implying that the studio and the bride agreed that it would be OK for them to be in a protected location. In fact, the article says that the studio agreed to remove them, but instead simply moved them to password-protected section, where some people could still view them:
"The suit says the studio agreed to take down the pictures - only to leave them where those with an access code could peek."
she needs to learn how to party.
How do you not know the photographer is taking pictures? The guy standing there watching you get dressed...the huge flash going off...were these not clues? I think a firm "get the hell out while I'm naked" would've put a stop to it.
That said, I had a co-worker who had something similar happen, she must've known about the pics but she forgot when she decided to show us her wedding pics at a party...in some of them, she was completely naked above the waist. She was mortified, particularly as she'd already sent it out to her family. Up until then (and actually, from then until now) I'd never heard of such a thing. Why on earth pay someone to take pictures like this...you never know what they are going to do with them.
And never sign anything a photographer ask you to sign without first reading it. Most photogs protect themselves with release & waiver forms.
Absolutely right. The photographer for my wedding had a standard contract that said the negatives were his property. I said no way and he crossed that part out and I kept the negatives. No way I'm paying for the film, paying for the developing, paying for him to take pictures, and then allowing him to keep the negatives I paid for so I have to go to him every time I want a print.
And that's not something to keep in mind only if you're getting married and hiring a photographer.
Whoever write a contract is likely to write the terms to be in their favor. It's important that you read everything to see how far that is going. If the vendor wants your business, though, most of what's there should be negotiable. Don't think that prices and fees are the only things that can be negotiated.
Ask for the terms you want; if you're not given a satisfactory response consider shopping elsewhere.
I call bullshit on this story.
Well I think its just right that she sued her cause that's a violation she knows that she can't take pictures she still did
At least that photog kept the triple-penetration shots to himself.