babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Teen Marries Uncle in Shady Catering Hall Ad
As if it wasn’t enough that they grabbed a shot of an underage kid at her sweet sixteen. A catering hall is in trouble for using the picture to promote its wedding availability.
And the picture? It shows the girl with her uncle – as though the kid is marrying a blood relative.
Can anyone say icky here?
Uncle and niece are part of a lawsuit against The Sanz in the Bronx, a spot both say they’ve never visited. Which is why they’re trying to figure out how a photo taken of them at her sweet sixteen (at another venue) was taken, cropped and superimposed over a scene at the Bronx catering hall, then thrown onto a pamphlet over top a bridal ad.
The girl’s claims of undue hardship from in-school teasing seem a little bogus. Do people in her school really think she married her uncle? But the news that the family’s photographer might have been associated with The Sanz does lead to a legitimate suit against a shady photog. When you’re paying a photographer to take pictures of your kids, you want to know they’re not selling the photos elsewhere.
Shooting family portraits on the side, I make it a point to check in with parents even if I’m going to use the pics in an ad for my own business. And forget supplying them to someone else – they belong to the person who paid me for them. It’s my intellectual property, but their physical property.
Who would you be suing in this case?
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
PlumbLucky commented on Sep 17 09 at 12:15 pmI am not going to discount the teasing as being an undue hardship…can you imagine being sixteen and having this in an ad? I know where I grew up, it would have been hell on earth!
I hope they checked their contract; my wedding photographer had an opt-out (of uses such as this) clause that we had to initial.
Bec commented on Sep 17 09 at 12:32 pmWaitaminnit. She is pictured in a red dress in the photo… so, is it unlikely that at first glance anyone would assume it was a wedding shot – or at least a Bride pic and not a bridesmaid, plenty of whom are 16. Also, unless it states that she is with her uncle, how would anyone know? Is she telling them all (ie “OMG I am so embarrased that is MY UNCLE!!! EW!”)
There was definitely some shadiness going on, what with the photo being sold to a different venue altogether, and without their knowledge and ok. I just don’t buy the trauma of the ‘incestous marriage implication’ angle.
Lauren commented on Sep 17 09 at 9:45 pmFrom what I remember of my artist law seminar in art school, in NYS you need the subject’s permission to use their photo to sell something. You can sell the photo itself, but not use it for advertising.
Lorraine commented on Sep 18 09 at 12:45 pmLauren is right. You need written permission and in some states, an exchange of money needs to be involved.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0