AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #2

[oceanblueeyes]

When you enter into a contract you should know the stipulations. The person with the money dictates that. A photographer will shoot a thousand pictures,(much less costly with digital cameras), and sell as many as they can to the customer. The Romeros had the final decision of what pictures he/she wants. The son was excluded. That says volumes.
A man may have several wives, but blood kin is more important.
When someone is proud of his/her child, from a previous marriage, that child should be a major part of the ceremony.

They would if they set up their own website. They would not have anything to do with a professional photographers website. Two different things all together and I have never seen a photographer in my life turn over their negatives to the other party.

He was not left out. He was in the wedding. I believe in the one photo that is him walking with the little girl down the aisle, that he is later dancing with.

imoo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This was not a high dollar wedding. Are you kidding? The boys photo, posing with his father and 'new mom' should have been prevalent!

On their own website. Absolutely but that doesn't have anything to do with the photographers site. The customer doesn't have a say so in what they choose to display. That is the photographer's call.

imoo

 

[Ms Suzanne]

This was not a high dollar wedding. Are you kidding? The boys photo, posing with his father and 'new mom' should have been prevalent!

I do agree with this.It really should have been and one of the most important photo's.I think different photograhers might do things differently.

 

[Shelby77]

OBE, I think, and I could be wrong here, what Shock is trying to say is it would make sense that if the photographer is to show a sampling of his work of a large loving wedding, that he'd include a minimum of ONE stinkin pic of the new fam, NOT just the bride and groom, but the family, as this wedding should be a celebration of a new family, not JUST a bride and groom...and pics where the kid just happens to appear in the background just don't cut it...it certainly does lead me to believe one is not up there because it doesn't exist...my mother remarried a few times in my childhood and there were slews of us as the "new family" taken, surely if they had websites in those days, ONE of those would have made it as they dominated my mothers weddings photos (as they should have). I think something as minor as this speaks volumes....

 

[Shock]

No. They don't have a right to post your child's, or an adult for that matter, image in any form without your permission. IT'S COPYRIGHT LAW! Unless you are a criminal. Why do you think they blackout faces on TV news reports?

 

[Shock]

OBE, I think, and I could be wrong here, what Shock is trying to say is it would make sense that if the photographer is to show a sampling of his work of a large loving wedding, that he'd include a minimum of ONE stinkin pic of the new fam, NOT just the bride and groom, but the family, as this wedding should be a celebration of a new family, not JUST a bride and groom...and pics where the kid just happens to appear in the background just don't cut it...it certainly does lead me to believe one is not up there because it doesn't exist...my mother remarried a few times in my childhood and there were slews of us as the "new family" taken, surely if they had websites in those days, ONE of those would have made it as they dominated my mothers weddings photos (as they should have). I think something as minor as this speaks volumes....

Thank you! When my youngest daughter (finally) married she had a four year old daughter from a previous, uh, encounter. There are at least a hundred photos with her and her new step-dad, smiling and dancing at the wedding. That was nine years ago and the family is still together.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE, I think, and I could be wrong here, what Shock is trying to say is it would make sense that if the photographer is to show a sampling of his work of a large loving wedding, that he'd include a minimum of ONE stinkin pic of the new fam, NOT just the bride and groom, but the family, as this wedding should be a celebration of a new family, not JUST a bride and groom...and pics where the kid just happens to appear in the background just don't cut it...it certainly does lead me to believe one is not up there because it doesn't exist...my mother remarried a few times in my childhood and there were slews of us as the "new family" taken, surely if they had websites in those days, ONE of those would have made it as they dominated my mothers weddings photos (as they should have). I think something as minor as this speaks volumes....

I do agree that a group family photo should have been shown if I had been the photographer. However it is still up to the photographer, right or a wrong decision to put what they selected to be put on their website. Or maybe they did have them up and decided to remove those due to the circumstances now.

They do have several shots of the boy so he wasn't left out imo.

imoo

 

[Shock]

I realize you have never heard of it. That is obvious.

http://www.adeptweddingphotography.com/choosing-professional-wedding-photographer.htm

20. Who owns copyright to the photos?

The professional wedding photographer is the creator of the images and therefore is the owner of the copyright. Even if the photographer hands over the negatives, the copyrights still vests with the photographer. Ensure that you have the photographer’s permission before making reprints, or submitting your photos to a magazine or newspaper. You may not sell any images without the photographers written permission.

imo

Where's the photo of <redacted>and his dad and new mom hugging?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Shock, doesn't want us to put the boy's name out on the board. He just reminded us of that again in an up post.



Just Plain Obnoxious Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Isle of Lucy
Posts: 9,054

READ AND HEED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...32#post2970232


Quote:
Folks, I'm going back and editing out the boy's name. I just searched through news reports and I could find none in which he has been named, and he is a minor child. Please don't use his name again until it's being used in the news.

We have to strike a balance here, and I know not everyone will be happy with this, but that's how it's going to be right now.

Thank you.

__________________
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can borrow mine.

 

[OrdinaryLife]

~snip~

Then we hear that the step-mom is NOT visiting the child,………..AND that she’s basically MIA………Oh, but wait, I guess she’s just too aggrieved to be seen in public. Or is she?

http://axtonromero.blogspot.com/2008/11/tiffany-romero-in-town.html


So Tiff came to stay with us for 5 days to get away from all the drama that has been going on. While she was here we went to a few parties and went out to eat. We had a good time with her, I am sad that she left. The last day she was here I cut her hair and put a lot of pretty layers in it. So I took some before and after pictures! Nelly her boxer dog came with her. I hate to say this but Oreo is so glad that Nelly is gone cause she can now go to the bathroom in peace.

Yeah, I’m sure the ‘parties’ she went to really helped take her mind off her troubles........FWIW, this is LESS than a month after her new HUSBAND had been brutally murdered.......11/23/08.

Am I the only one who sees a red flag here?

O.M.G. I'm sorry, but this just blows my mind! I'm sorry, but what is wrong with this picture???? Please, I'm not sure I could even stand to hear "everyone grieves differently". This is sooooo wrong on every possible level.

Check this woman out. Her background, her employment history, co-workers, and just herself proper. There is more to this story. This family....

 

[Shock]

Copyright laws. Arizona wedding picture takers. My goodness, we could argue forever, but where are the pictures of dad hugging his son at the wedding celebration? Where are the photos of the new step-mom interacting with her new stepson? Where's the photo of the new family united?
There aren't any! Because no one was interested in Romero's son. He was ostracized. JUst an issue to be dealt with.
The argument that they just weren't posted is weak. And the posters know it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

~snip~


O.M.G. I'm sorry, but this just blows my mind! I'm sorry, but what is wrong with this picture???? Please, I'm not sure I could even stand to hear "everyone grieves differently". This is sooooo wrong on every possible level.

Check this woman out. Her background, her employment history, co-workers, and just herself proper. There is more to this story. This family....

Isn't that what they said about Cindy Sommers?

 

[colette]

The 6th picture down, (the one with 2 pictures) The black and white picture shows the boy at the right. He is the ring bearer, you can see the little white pillow in front of him. The boy on the left is the alter boy. This was a Catholic wedding, dad must have gotten his first marriage annulled in the church.

 

[mostlylurking]

OBE, I think, and I could be wrong here, what Shock is trying to say is it would make sense that if the photographer is to show a sampling of his work of a large loving wedding, that he'd include a minimum of ONE stinkin pic of the new fam, NOT just the bride and groom, but the family, as this wedding should be a celebration of a new family, not JUST a bride and groom...and pics where the kid just happens to appear in the background just don't cut it...it certainly does lead me to believe one is not up there because it doesn't exist...my mother remarried a few times in my childhood and there were slews of us as the "new family" taken, surely if they had websites in those days, ONE of those would have made it as they dominated my mothers weddings photos (as they should have). I think something as minor as this speaks volumes....

I think there is one of the family -- just not posed.
In the first link, 6th or 7th from the bottom. VR & TR are dancing & I believe -- totally imo -- the childeren dancing V's children -- brother and sister. In the pic prior, VR is holding a little girls hand and just behind a boy. I think the child in question.

ETA: Link http://sierrablancophotography.blogs...-johns-az.html

 

[OrdinaryLife]

Isn't that what they said about Cindy Sommers?

Who the heck is Cindy Sommers?

 

[Shock]

Email the photographer. It's their photos, not mine.

imoo

They are not his photos. They belong to whoever paid him.

 

[MeoW333]

Another interesting link from one of Tiffany's coworkers:
http://bethanygentry.blogspot.com/2008/11/tragic.html

Minachica, this is a really awesome find!!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Who the heck is Cindy Sommers?

A woman who was sent to prison for murdering her Marine husband and then found to be innocent when they found out he wasn't murdered at all but died of natural causes.

That is what everyone said about her because she partied shortly after his death and got a boob job.

 

[colette]

The photos are from the photographer's site, advertisement in a way. He picks which ones go on, I'm sure the family had lot's of good pictures of the boy.

 

[mostlylurking]

Fran --
NO!!!! You are not the only one who sees red flags. Thank you for laying it out.

OBE & Shock
I've seen it done both ways. For my step daughter's wedding, we paid for the negatives & they became ours. But, it was an extra cost for us to have ownership -- and it was waaayyyy before the internet days when a photographer would be using their jobs as advertisement for future jobs.
Just my experience.