For Wedding Photo Pros

[xpatUSA]

This tale may be of interest:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/362820...ride-and-groom
.

[Mike Buckley]

There have been more and more stories in the news of this kind of thing happening in virtually every industry and company size. So many people put libelous and slanderous information on the Internet not caring that doing so can strongly affect the lives of the people they're falsely trashing. When they lose a lawsuit, they then realize how their actions can backfire to strongly affect their own lives.

[Digital]

Pardon the cliché: what goes around, comes around.


Bruce

[Mike Buckley]

Good cliché, Bruce!

[William W]

"Two days later, she [the photographer] learned that the Moldovans [the clients] had contacted several local news stations, claiming she was "holding their photos hostage." In just a few days, this narrative went viral and essentially destroyed Polito's 13-year-old business. What's more, the couple gloated about their success online, liked defamatory statements on Yelp and more."

REF: Extract from article in link

It is only a small part of a much bigger picture: the general lack of responsibility that authors and publishers take for what they "report" and/or "publish".

I think that most people don't understand that they are (just about universally) responsible for anything that they "report" and/or "publish", in the same manner that ('professional') Journalists and Editors are held responsible to the Law.

I think most people believe that because they "publish" on "social media", or "report" known falsehoods as facts to mainstream media, then that exempts them from the laws of Deformation - and other laws, too.

*

An historic case seems brewing here, concerning the alleged distribution of allegedly defaming texts and images between teenagers, all students at the same school. However what I understand started as a Civil Case brought by the alleged victim's Father (i.e. for damages), it now appears to have raised the interest of the Police and the ODPP (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions).

In a nutshell, it may be alleged that the 'publications' were transmitting and disseminating material of a sexual nature of a minor - which is punishable by up to ten years in prison; a criminal record and a lifetime listing on the criminal register - those possibilities have apparently brought much distress on the alleged perpetrators their families and the school.

I understand that the two situations are different in substance, but the lack of responsibility taken by the authors for their 'reportage' and their 'publication', is the same in both situations.

WW

[IzzieK]

I am glad the case is a win for photographers...good story, good reporting. Thanks for sharing.

[Mike Buckley]

I've read two other articles about this situation. One of them explains that the first local NBC affiliate's reporter apparently took the defendant's explanation for granted without checking it out that the contract didn't explain the requirement pertaining to the fee about the print album. The photographer explained in the article I read that that detail is actually displayed in a bold font in the contract. The local NBC station then ran a report a few days later that took on a very different position than their first broadcast.

I wonder if the reason the photographer didn't sue the NBC station and its reporter for the faulty initial report is that the station probably has a lot deeper pockets and attorneys well positioned to create delay after delay that add up to more and more expenses for the photographer. Another possibility is that the NBC affiliate made a full-blown public retraction, though I have no idea if that actually happened.