« Unboxing II | Main | Vertical Cameras »

Wednesday, 02 August 2017

Comments

The story is even more disturbing once you compare the blogs of the bride and of the wedding photographer.

On one side, there is Mrs. Moldovans beauty/lifestyle blog. I never really got the hang of those. They just exist to make money by advertising things that nobody needs. There's no creativity, no originality, no information, it's just advertising... I've looked at a few lifestyle blogs, and each one is more cringeworthy than the next. For someone who has blogged since before there was even a term for it, I find it almost offensive to call this kind of advertising "blogging".

On the other side, there's Andrea Polito's wedding photography blog. Ok, wedding photography is not my forte, but it's plain to see that lots and lots of thought, effort, creativity, craftmanship and time went into the creation of those photographs (and the blog). Polito is creating something, and it's obvious that she knows her craft extremely well.

Keeping these two fundamentally different approaches to creating revenue in mind, Isn't it even more sad that the beauty blogger had the power to end the photographer's business?

Hi Stephan,
Unfortunately, we as humanity tend to not value creativity per se. On the global scale, that is. It is something nice to see when someone else pays for it [usually, public funds]. Yes, I know that valued pieces are investment pieces. But care, thought and creativity are no longer that valued.

Helping others to sell is[<---------- insert sad face].

If the defendants are actually made to pay (and there is a long road ahead on that), this case could establish important precedents about things like online character assassination, a key factor in our current national emergency/circus/embarrassment.

As to "Andrea might never collect ..." I am curious as to what enforcement rights she may actually have. I suppose there could be a sequence of appeals and counter appeals, but in most jurisdictions once you have been found to have merit in the case, you should generally have the upper hand going forward. Of course, if the Moldovans don't have the assets, the decision may not be worth much. Just wondering. I am not a lawyer!

If the defendants are actually made to pay

It's a pointless judgement as they are very unlikely to be able to pay.

Neither party sound very ethical - seems like the photographer tried to squeeze every last dollar out of the client, even holding up delivery of (already paid for) hi-res images until "extras" were paid for. What was the point of this exercise? The high profile clients will probably divorce in a couple of years, & all the photographer had to do was yield & show a little commonsense.
At least Uncle Charlie's iphone snaps would have been better quality images than the web-res pix that seem to have been all that were provided. And he wouldn't have held them over a barrel until they coughed up as she seems to have done.

The comments to this entry are closed.