Blushing Bride Loses Underwear Photos Lawsuit
A Manhattan judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Christian Oth Studio over photos on a password-protected Web site that showed a bride in her underwear.
Sarah Bostwick, who got married in September 2008, claimed that her wedding photographer, Carolyn Monastra (a photographer with the Christian Oth Studio in New York City), took pictures of her while she was getting into her dress even though she says she forbade Monastra from doing so. Those pictures later showed up in Bostwick’s password-protected online portfolio and were accessible to friends and family to whom Bostwick had given the password in order to view other images from the wedding day. Bostwick sued both Monastra and the studio for fraud, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Justice Judith Gische ruled that the wedding photography studio had not committed fraud or put Bostwick in any danger by posting images of her in her underwear. “Even accepting that the publication of the photos may have been upsetting and embarrassing to her, there is nothing that would cause her to fear that she was exposed to physical harm,” the judge wrote. As for the photos, the judge ordered them sealed.
In a press release issued today by the photo studio, Oth said “The privacy of our clients is of utmost importance to everyone at our studio, and we feel that the judge’s decision in this case serves to validate our extensive efforts to protect our clients’ privacy. All of our photo proofing sites are strictly password protected and accessible only to the bride and groom, and it is up to their discretion to distribute the password to friends and family members.”
When reached by phone earlier today Oth added that the judgment is a victory for wedding photographers who may have frivolous lawsuits levied against them. “Of course if someone asks us to not take certain types of pictures, we simply won’t,” he said. “I always respect my client’s wishes and go to great lengths to fulfill them.”
Bostwick plans to appeal.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Seems to me that the photographer agreed NOT to take those photos and they should have respected the clients wishes and directives. Even though the photos were password protected, it was an all or nothing situation and the bride may not have been aware her wishes were violated when she distributed the password. If the client said not to take certain photos, then those photos should not have been taken or at the very least, should have been shown to the client for approval before posting.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:24 am
He said, she said, basically (or in this case, she said, she said) unless there were other impartial witnesses to the conversation such as another vendor such as the hairstylist or makeup artist. As such, we don’t really know whether the photographer was actually expressly forbidden from taking pictures or if the bride had some other issues with the services rendered and saw an opportunity to get even.
Regardless, there are two issues I am at odds with here:
1) There is absolutely no reason why a photographer would ever give first access and password to anyone other than whomever signed the contract, so if (“if” being the operative word here) the password was first given to the bride, then the suit is frivolous since she is the one who in turn gave access to everyone else.
2) This cannot and should not be considered a “huge victory” for anyone. A photographer is in service to the client. If a client adamantly refuses Getting Ready shots, then you don’t take them. Period, end of story. To do otherwise would be poor customer service at best, and criminal invasion of privacy at worst.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:26 am
To Lee,
do you know the client, the photographer….
“It seems”…. what do you know…. nothing.
You’re telling me she’s given out her password without looking at her own wedding pictures. And if she did give out the password without looking, well, than she just plain …. stupid… (and malicious in trying to make some else pay for her , how can say, euhh….. stupidity)
PS: three cheers for the judge!
October 7th, 2010 at 10:14 am
I believe the studio lost here. If you were a Potential client would you hire them to shoot your wedding?
I don’t agree with the brides law suit but this seems to me this should never have gotten this far.
Again we only know what is in the article which might not be the whole story. But embarrassing your clients is bad business and shows poor judgement.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:15 am
It’s true the bride should have seen the photos before sending out the password. Dumb move! I STRESS that to my brides in case of situations like this. But the photographer also should have used better judgement too. I can imagine that most brides don’t want to share underwear pics with the world. It would have been better to remove those photos from the gallery altogether and offer them on a cd or book at an additional cost. Even giving away the photos is better than having to have dealt with this mess.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:23 am
“underwear” has many meanings. Without actually seeing the photos in question, nobody can pass judgment. As a wedding photographer, I actually had a bride ask me to take photos when she was in just a bra and panties. OTOH, I’ve had brides who don’t let me back into the dressing room until she is sealed into her wedding dress. The key is knowing what your client wants.
Next, the bride has filed a frivolous lawsuit. She could have and should have reviewed her photos before SHE gave out her password. After that it becomes her responsibility. Had she reviewed the gallery, she could have asked to have the offending photos removed. But once again, without seeing the photos, there is no way of knowing how exposed she was.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
That quote from Oth was stupid. Doing your job means making the client happy. Chefs don’t deliver lobster if the customer wants steak.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The situation is just unfortunate. Christian Oth Studio has an excellent reputation for providing amazing photography and top notch service for countless couples. It is easy to say each party involved should have done something different, but the bottom line is we can all learn from the situation, and be reminded how important it is, especially when there are multiple people involved in shooting, editing, posting, and client interactions to communicate any potential issues.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
excuse me, where are the previous comments….???
October 8th, 2010 at 5:15 am
[...] PDN Pulse reports that the lawsuit against Christian Oth Studio photographer Carolyn Monastra has been dismissed. While it might seem a victory I fear this is one of those situations where nobody really wins due to the nature of the case. The bride Sarah Bostwick plans on appealing. [...]
October 8th, 2010 at 10:36 am
An unfortunate case. But why did a bride getting dressed have a photographer in the room with her? I’ve shot many, many weddings. If the bride doesn’t want boudoir (and most don’t)the most I ever see is a bridesmaid zipping up the dress. I even have to prompt mom or a bridesmaid to replicate last minute touches for photo ops.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:59 am
[...] Photographers: If you don’t want to get sued you have to be [...]
October 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Oth said “The privacy of our clients is of utmost importance to everyone at our studio..” Um, then you would have just taken those pictures down instead of trying to prove who was “right”.
Christian Oth Studio, you lose.
October 11th, 2010 at 6:06 am
This is a tough situation. On the one hand, the studio can’t let clients take advantage of them. On the other hand, the wedding business is a reputation-based business. I have several observations.
1. I don’t believe a word the bride says. What? She didn’t see the photographer in the room taking pictures of her in her underwear? If she “forbade” those pictures why let the photographer in the room to take them in the first place? Her story simply doesn’t ring true.
2. I’ve dealt with brides who after the wedding wanted free stuff, and when they didn’t get it threatened this sort of action. I learned quickly how to get better at screening the clients. If the photographer was at fault here for any reason, it was for taking on this client in the first place. I’d have screened her out and sent her to my least-favorite competitor. Let THAT studio deal with her.
3. We don’t know the whole story. Perhaps the studio made some attempt to satisfy the bride and she rejected it…leaving the studio with no choice but to cave or defend itself. That’s always a hard call, but with more and more young people (brides) thinking they can bully the studio thanks to the Internet, it’s getting to the point where I think the studios have to eventually defend themselves. But I’d advise trying to work it out short of court first if at all possible.