Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wedding and Portrait photography is dominated by women at least in my area by a very heavy margin. Same with dental hygienists and daycare workers. There's a very heavy bias by women who prefer women despite skill level. For example a friend of mine (male) shot newborn portraits using a variety of lenses and flash lighting. Lots of props.....the works. He was supposed to shoot a series of photos at different stages during the first year of the baby's life but the client cancelled after the first session despite stunning results. No reason was given but he was paid for the session. I saw them on facebook and the feedback was extremely limited. My guess is everyone was turned off that a male with an Arabic sounding name was the author of these incredible images. That mother (whom my wife is friends with on facebook) hired another young mother to shoot the rest of the series and published them on facebook. Her pictures were far less impressive. Same DOF for every exposure, same cheesy filters, flat lighting, baby always in the center, poor cropping, etc. Predictably all the female friends were oooooohing and aaaaaahhing and requesting the contact info of the photographer. Females that commented tagged other females to direct business her way. Complete sham
That's precisely what I'm talking about. What did we use to hear all of the time years ago, if a woman can do a man's job as good as a man she should be given that chance. That was RIGHT. The same goes here, if that guy's images were superior HE should get business it shouldn't matter that he's a man and not part of the gal's network just as women shouldn't have been kept outside years ago due to the "good old boy's network." It was sexism then and this is sexism and I think people should start calling it out.
Yes it has gone a bit off-topic, with people talking about how much or how little they'll bother spending on wedding photography and me bringing up (and others joining in) on our observations of changes in "taste" and those providing their services for that "taste."
It has NOTHING to do with any "sexism" and EVERYTHING to do with a dumbing and watering down of the art form, somewhat strongly brought on by what many of us see as HORRIBLE changes in "taste" (there is a reason I put that in quotation marks) and by the proliferation of a "gal's network" very similar to what you used to see (and may sometimes STILL see) with the "good ol' boy's network."
The one person told his story & I've seen this too. He spoke of how a male friend of his took some baby shots and they were great shots but then his female client cancelled and took up with yet another AMWIC (another mom with a camera) type and this AMWIC camera operator produced what was described as inferior results, including (but not limited to) those cheesy "filters" that people are so stuck on these days and bad lighting but the female client's female friends were all going oh and ah over these inferior results and asking for this "photographer's" contact information.
Meanwhile, the original male photographer, despite superior results which had NOTHING to do with his gender but simply due to better taste and technique, was passed up in preference for someone with inferior skills and horrible taste, and done so because apparently females want to only do business with other females, a notion only further reinforced with how when a male is seen taking photos at a park etc people are suspicious but if a woman does the exact same thing it hardly registers on anyone's curiosity meter.
THAT is what is sexist.
Getting back to the topic of the post--all that being said, I totally support this photographer fighting back against pettiness which was an orchestrated effort to ruin business NOT over what was in fact shoddy results but was instead a customer not getting something they thought they were entitled to but in fact were NOT entitled to, and said customer becoming nasty and vindictive about it. That is totally unacceptable and I totally support any photographer's efforts to rectify that.
Texas Wage Garnishment Law | Nolo.com
And even in other states, federal law has pretty low limits on how much can be garnished. We aren't talking about a few thousand dollars.
Do you really think this couple is going to resign themselves to a life time of poverty paying a million dollar judgment? What would you do?
You appear to be wrong on judgments and bankruptcy as well. Except for a few automatically non-dischargeable debts (the usual suspects - child support, student loans, taxes) judgments may be dischargeable. Will Bankruptcy Get Rid of Lawsuit Judgments? | Nolo.com
now, your turn to show that this judgment is not dischargeable under bankruptcy.
No need to have an attitude. I was simply asking for sources to show what the law is in Texas. It's different than other states. In my state, you CAN be garnished for a judgement. The garnished is a percentage of your paycheck not your entire check. It won't force a person to live in poverty. And even if it did, so what? These people DESTROYED someone's life. She used up her savings and retirement fund to live off of because THEY ruined her business with their lies.
The federal discharge laws have changed since I was in bankruptcy years ago. Back then, you couldn't discharge a judgement against you. This link also only covers Chapter 7. There are other bankruptcies besides Chapter 7. You may not be able to discharge a judgement in the others.
Oh and lookie lookie under Chapter 13 on the link you provided:
Debts Related to Breach of Contract or Negligence
If you have a judgment against you because you breached a contract or committed a negligent act, you can usually discharge it through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. However, be aware that Chapter 13 will not discharge a debt for willful or malicious injury to a person.
So no they wouldn't be able to discharge this judgement if they filed Chapter 13.v
No need to have an attitude. I was simply asking for sources to show what the law is in Texas. It's different than other states. In my state, you CAN be garnished for a judgement. The garnished is a percentage of your paycheck not your entire check. It won't force a person to live in poverty. And even if it did, so what? These people DESTROYED someone's life. She used up her savings and retirement fund to live off of because THEY ruined her business with their lies.
The federal discharge laws have changed since I was in bankruptcy years ago. Back then, you couldn't discharge a judgement against you. This link also only covers Chapter 7. There are other bankruptcies besides Chapter 7. You may not be able to discharge a judgement in the others.
Oh and lookie lookie under Chapter 13 on the link you provided:
Debts Related to Breach of Contract or Negligence
If you have a judgment against you because you breached a contract or committed a negligent act, you can usually discharge it through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. However, be aware that Chapter 13 will not discharge a debt for willful or malicious injury to a person.
So no they wouldn't be able to discharge this judgement if they filed Chapter 13.v
No attitude here. You're the one that declared garnishment as an option, without qualifiers. The parties in this suit do not live in your state. They live in Texas.
The link says "injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault". It is referring to bodily harm.
Once again you make some absolute pronouncement of what is or is not possible. Are you a bankruptcy attorney? I think it's safe to say that the attorneys have more work to do in this case. It could very well be overturned on appeal.
And I will confidently predict that, unless by some unlikely chance the defendant has some kind of insurance covering her blog, the plaintiff is never going to see anywhere close to a million dollars.
No attitude here. You're the one that declared garnishment as an option, without qualifiers. The parties in this suit do not live in your state. They live in Texas.
The link says "injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault". It is referring to bodily harm.
Once again you make some absolute pronouncement of what is or is not possible. Are you a bankruptcy attorney? I think it's safe to say that the attorneys have more work to do in this case. It could very well be overturned on appeal.
And I will confidently predict that, unless by some unlikely chance the defendant has some kind of insurance covering her blog, the plaintiff is never going to see anywhere close to a million dollars.
No doubt the lawyers have more work ahead of them. Saying "injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault" doesn't mean it's only bodily harm. Assault doesn't have to be physical. Battery is when things are physical. No I'm not a lawyer. Sadly, I have far more experience in the legal system than anyone should. Fortunately, none of it was because of something I did.
Yes it has gone a bit off-topic, with people talking about how much or how little they'll bother spending on wedding photography and me bringing up (and others joining in) on our observations of changes in "taste" and those providing their services for that "taste."
It has NOTHING to do with any "sexism" and EVERYTHING to do with a dumbing and watering down of the art form, somewhat strongly brought on by what many of us see as HORRIBLE changes in "taste" (there is a reason I put that in quotation marks) and by the proliferation of a "gal's network" very similar to what you used to see (and may sometimes STILL see) with the "good ol' boy's network."
The one person told his story & I've seen this too. He spoke of how a male friend of his took some baby shots and they were great shots but then his female client cancelled and took up with yet another AMWIC (another mom with a camera) type and this AMWIC camera operator produced what was described as inferior results, including (but not limited to) those cheesy "filters" that people are so stuck on these days and bad lighting but the female client's female friends were all going oh and ah over these inferior results and asking for this "photographer's" contact information.
Meanwhile, the original male photographer, despite superior results which had NOTHING to do with his gender but simply due to better taste and technique, was passed up in preference for someone with inferior skills and horrible taste, and done so because apparently females want to only do business with other females, a notion only further reinforced with how when a male is seen taking photos at a park etc people are suspicious but if a woman does the exact same thing it hardly registers on anyone's curiosity meter.
THAT is what is sexist.
Getting back to the topic of the post--all that being said, I totally support this photographer fighting back against pettiness which was an orchestrated effort to ruin business NOT over what was in fact shoddy results but was instead a customer not getting something they thought they were entitled to but in fact were NOT entitled to, and said customer becoming nasty and vindictive about it. That is totally unacceptable and I totally support any photographer's efforts to rectify that.
AMWAC and "momographer" are both extremely sexist and misogynistic.
Photography was heavily a men's career and there is a lot of anger women are taking up the career and catering to the primary client, a women. Men aren't "doing it right" if the consumer is choosing another aesthetic.
There are such things as 'bad customers'. These people are it. Happy to hear they are getting the notoriety they deserve.
We don't hire too many photographers. Locally, I see a lot more women doing it than men. It's usually as a part time business that is done on the side. I'm not a fan of all the special lenses because I'm not looking for artistic as much as I am a clear picture that people can look at in 100 years from now and know it was me and the family. I think a lot of people are choosing the photos for the art. That's fine. A lot of these part timers charge less than the full timers. I suspect that is a part of their appeal. Basic cameras that take good pictures are pretty cheap these days. We're finding that we do pretty good with just a basic camera and a tripod. If I don't take the shot exactly right, it can be edited on the computer. I sort of see photography as profession in less demand.
Texas Wage Garnishment Law | Nolo.com
And even in other states, federal law has pretty low limits on how much can be garnished. We aren't talking about a few thousand dollars.
Do you really think this couple is going to resign themselves to a life time of poverty paying a million dollar judgment? What would you do?
You appear to be wrong on judgments and bankruptcy as well. Except for a few automatically non-dischargeable debts (the usual suspects - child support, student loans, taxes) judgments may be dischargeable. Will Bankruptcy Get Rid of Lawsuit Judgments? | Nolo.com
now, your turn to show that this judgment is not dischargeable under bankruptcy.
The quotes below are from a few pages back - in a nutshell, there was a finding of malice, and malicious injury is apparently a type of debt that can't be discharged through bankruptcy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
Your last sentence is completely wrong. However, given the jury's specific finding of malice (I know because I actually read the jury charge in the case), the debt should be non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
It's more complicated than it used to be, but just to give a quick answer --
There are certain debts you can't get rid of through a bankruptcy, and child support is one of those. Drunk driving injuries are another. Student loans. Malicious injury. Certain taxes and government penalties. And a few others.
The list -- and it's got a lot of legalese -- is found in section 523:
I'm a strong advocate of free speech and I'm very much against businesses who sue people who post truthful unflattering reviews of those businesses, but this went beyond any of that.
I'm glad the photographer won.
Thoughts?
I support the photographer in this, but I have a feeling she will find it difficult to collect much money from the couple. They are appealing from what I understand, and if they hav a kid, I suspect no judge or jury will force them to pay up, as they will claim they can't.
It is a darn shame this even happened, simply because they didn't read a contract.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You may not be able to discharge a judgement in the others. 
