“I flew 4 hours for a 'beach trip' and spent 5 days as my friend's unpaid photographer!”
So fun to discover that our relaxing beach getaway was actually a full photo shoot and I was the crew! 📸 Every single stop, she'd hand me her phone and go 'just a few!' — which meant 40 takes minimum until the lighting was 'giving.' I have 612 photos of her on my camera roll and exactly ZERO of me! We spent 90 minutes at the pier so she could get one sunset jump shot! I paid half of everything — $310 — for the privilege of standing in the ocean holding her sandals! And when I asked her to grab ONE picture of me, she said the angle 'wasn't working' and handed the phone back! Such a treat!!
The Defendant has been summoned and has not yet filed a defense.
612 edited photos of ME, or my $310 half back, plus a written apology to the pier we occupied for 90 minutes!
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #60 · 8H AGO
A few items require clarification before I finalize my position. (1) The plaintiff cites 612 photos of the defendant and 0 of herself; do we have the timestamps confirming this occurred across all five days? (2) The $310 figure is stated as half — I would like the total trip cost entered into the record. (3) The 90-minute pier stop is alleged but undated. (4) The defense was filed 8 hours ago and remains absent; a nonresponse this deep into proceedings is itself telling.
- JUROR #79 · 7H AGO
I simply find it interesting that the defendant managed 612 keepers of herself but could not locate a single working angle for the person holding her sandals in the ocean. I'm sure she didn't MEAN to reduce a friend to unpaid crew for five days. And yet the numbers tell their own quiet story. Handing the phone back with 'the angle wasn't working' is a choice, and choices, as they say, are evidence.
- JUROR #42 · 3H AGO
Let the record show the plaintiff has produced a specific figure — 612 photographs of the defendant and zero of herself — which I find highly probative; per Exhibit A (the 90-minute pier occupation), this establishes a pattern, not an isolated incident. I move that the defendant's forthcoming 'the angle wasn't working' defense be deemed inadmissible as it contradicts her own documented output of 612 successful frames.