BENGALURU: A Bengaluru suede bridegroom wedding photographer who posted pics and videos from the big day on social media platforms without consent. A city consumer court that heard his case recently ruled that the lensman must pay the aggrieved person a compensation of Rs 25,000 for violating the terms of the agreement the parties had arrived at and for posting some select shots and videos on social media.
December 2019 was a special month for Roshan Christy Joseph, 29, from Horamavu, Agara, as he was preparing for his wedding day. To capture photos and videos of this special event, Joseph approached Kerala’s Kottayam-based Xavier Joseph Pawvathil, who runs Framechasers and Photolooms, which specializes in weddings.
The two worked out an agreement for Rs 55,000, on the condition that the agency or the lensman would not publish any of the photos or videos online. But much to the Bengalurean’s shock, some of his wedding clicks and clips were spotted on six platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, a few months after the event. Joseph contacted Pawvathil and raised objection, stating that it was in breach of the agreement, and demanded that all the posted content be taken down. The photographer, however, failed to comply.
Following this, Joseph sent Pawvathil a legal notice on October 9, 2020, and two months later approached the Bengaluru Urban first additional district consumer disputes redressal commission in Shantinagar with a complaint against the photographer and his agency for service deficiency.
34-month litigation
Joseph’s lawyer presented his case, stating that the photographer, apart from promising not to publish the wedding day contents online, had also pledged to — and failed to — do a complimentary pre-wedding and post-wedding shoot. Further, Pawvathil also failed to provide some of the crucial photos and videos of the wedding to the complainant, she added.
In response, the photographer’s counsel stated that the complaint was false and Pawvathil, on behalf of Framechasers and Photolooms, had fulfilled all his commitment towards the assignment by giving the client over 1,000 photographs and videos from the wedding. The complimentary offer from the lensman was, however, a figment of the complainant’s imagination, counsel added. However, the photographer was admitted to having posted a few candid clicks and shots on social media in order to boost his business during the pandemic, as work was hard to come by.
In proceedings that lasted 34 months, the judges of the city consumer court ruled that the photographer’s act indeed amounted to service deficiency. In its verdict pronounced in October 30, 2023, the court ruled that the lensman must pay Joseph Rs 20,000 with interest as damages for posting the images online despite his objection, aside from Rs 5,000 towards his court expenses. The judges ordered that the entire sum be paid within two months from the date of verdict.
December 2019 was a special month for Roshan Christy Joseph, 29, from Horamavu, Agara, as he was preparing for his wedding day. To capture photos and videos of this special event, Joseph approached Kerala’s Kottayam-based Xavier Joseph Pawvathil, who runs Framechasers and Photolooms, which specializes in weddings.
The two worked out an agreement for Rs 55,000, on the condition that the agency or the lensman would not publish any of the photos or videos online. But much to the Bengalurean’s shock, some of his wedding clicks and clips were spotted on six platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, a few months after the event. Joseph contacted Pawvathil and raised objection, stating that it was in breach of the agreement, and demanded that all the posted content be taken down. The photographer, however, failed to comply.
Following this, Joseph sent Pawvathil a legal notice on October 9, 2020, and two months later approached the Bengaluru Urban first additional district consumer disputes redressal commission in Shantinagar with a complaint against the photographer and his agency for service deficiency.
34-month litigation
Joseph’s lawyer presented his case, stating that the photographer, apart from promising not to publish the wedding day contents online, had also pledged to — and failed to — do a complimentary pre-wedding and post-wedding shoot. Further, Pawvathil also failed to provide some of the crucial photos and videos of the wedding to the complainant, she added.
In response, the photographer’s counsel stated that the complaint was false and Pawvathil, on behalf of Framechasers and Photolooms, had fulfilled all his commitment towards the assignment by giving the client over 1,000 photographs and videos from the wedding. The complimentary offer from the lensman was, however, a figment of the complainant’s imagination, counsel added. However, the photographer was admitted to having posted a few candid clicks and shots on social media in order to boost his business during the pandemic, as work was hard to come by.
In proceedings that lasted 34 months, the judges of the city consumer court ruled that the photographer’s act indeed amounted to service deficiency. In its verdict pronounced in October 30, 2023, the court ruled that the lensman must pay Joseph Rs 20,000 with interest as damages for posting the images online despite his objection, aside from Rs 5,000 towards his court expenses. The judges ordered that the entire sum be paid within two months from the date of verdict.