DIY Photography

Hacking Photography - one Picture at a time

Search

 

Submit A Story

Woman sues photographer for posting indecent photo of her daughter on his website

by 19 Comments

A woman from Cobb County has recently filed a lawsuit against a photographer who covered her daughter’s high school dance. The 15-year-old girl had a wardrobe malfunction which left her exposed. The photographer captured it, and the mother was horrified to discover that the photo ended up on his website for sale. So, she decided to sue, and it’s reported that it will be multi-million dollar lawsuit.

Reportedly, the teenage girl didn’t realize that a part of her dress slid down. And apparently, she wasn’t aware of the fact that it was caught on camera. Channel 2 reports that the dance was in September 2017, but the mother hadn’t realized until January 2018 that the photo was online and for sale.

The girl and her mother’s attorney, L. Chris Stewart, explains that this is “every parent’s nightmare and every high school student’s worst fear.” The mother described the discovery as “devastating and heartbreaking” and the girl said that the photo was reposted a couple of times on Snapchat.

The inappropriate photo was published on the website of Cady Studios. The family’s attorney says that the manager emailed an apology. “I am horrified that this even happened. Please know I am addressing with our team immediately,” a part of the apology reads. The manager added that three people review the photos prior to posting, and they were investigating where the breakdown had happened.

According to Channel 2, the school also immediately contacted the photographer and the photo was reportedly removed from the website. It appears, however, that the business is now closed, and their website can’t be accessed anymore.

As the attorney said, this definitely is every parent’s or high school student’s nightmare. So I’m not surprised that the woman is filing a lawsuit. And if you photograph events, let this be a reminder to always double-check the photos before posting them online.

[via AJC]

Related posts:

No, You Can Not Patent “Sorting And Uploading Photos For Athletes To Download” Justin Bieber’s Defense For Running Over A Paparazzo: “He Refused To Move”, And I Don’t Blame Him The monkey selfie case finally ends in settlement “Filmmakers” stole woman’s video, made fake interview with her – and won an award for it

  • Why were they for sale?

    • Some photographers sell the photos to the grads, they don’t pay ahead of the even but only pay for what they buy if they buy.

  • wouldn’t that qualify as selling child pornography, and shouldn’t the company be held reliable with the laws in the state also?

    • Busch

      No, nudity != porn.

      • Jason A.

        Why do you think there was no nudity? This article, the news report, and the censored photo all strongly imply nudity.

      • Busch

        Jason A, why’d you delete your stupid comment?

    • pincherio

      Yes. Liable. That’s probably why they closed shop.

  • Busch

    No expectation of privacy in a public setting.

    • pincherio

      You can’t sell pictures of other people without their permission. That’s why all photographers are required to get model releases before selling the pics they take. In this case, even if it was a contracted event, the girl is a minor and selling nude pictures of minors is child pornography. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

      • Shannon Der Aldinger

        pincherio, which part makes the photo “child pornography”?

        (8) “child pornography”
        means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video,
        picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether
        made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually
        explicit conduct, where—

        (A)

        the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

        (B)

        such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

        (C)

        such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

        src: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

        Doesn’t seem to meet A, B or C. Not defending the posting of the photo, but saying it is “child pornography” is a stretch.

      • Shannon Der Aldinger

        “You can’t sell pictures of other people without their permission.”

        Then how does street photography, where there are random unknown people in a public setting work?

        • Nicolas Bousquet

          It depend a lot what you are doing, where it is and if you are the main subject of the photo or not.

          Here clearly the girl could be considered as the main subject of the photo as she is in front taking a lot of real estate inside the photo. The same for the girl on the right I think.

          Also it would greatly depends on what are the rules of the venue and if it was made clear or not that by participating to that event you had to agree that photos of you may be taken and made public or sold.

          For street photography, I’d say if a person is clearly the key subject in the photo, as they own their own image, you need their authorisation. Of course if they don’t come complaining and don’t sue you, you don’t care or can pretends you got the approval regardless if this is the truth or not.

      • Busch

        Depends on the situation. I shoot pics at the drag races frequently. I can sell pics with people in the shots without any sort of release. Do you think the media gets a release from everybody that shows up in their news pics and video? Think again!

      • wayward

        “You can’t sell pictures of other people without their permission”
        You might want to go back and re-read what the law has to actually say about that..

        https://alj.orangenius.com/need-model-release/

  • Of course it is multi-million dollar law suite. If anyone ever thought it’s about the “devastating life lasting effect” the photo has on her and her daughter,well, no not really. It’s about making money from nothing.

    Did she asked him to take it off or just filed a lawsuit.

  • Ronnie Cox

    I know we keep talking about the law and such. Shouldn’t the young lady be held responsible for herself. Your going to tell me your exposed and you don’t know it? Was she drinking and that’s why she didn’t notice it I’m just saying let’s let the blame lie upon the person who created the situation rather than trying to make them out like a victim

  • Thanks, Dunja. Really Informational post.

  • batwings

    Streisand effect in action. I don’t want to know how many men google the original photo now after they read about the lawsuit.

  • Mitch

    FYI – the studio’s website is back up

Recent Posts