However, the verdict doesn't actually have any say, it's just the judges opinion and it doesn't have any power. The "real" court's verdict has the final say.
So in a way, judge shows are real, but the final verdict is not.
Not
quite correct. You're right that these judge shows aren't actual courts of law. However, the litigants in each case basically "settle" their actual court case by agreeing to a binding arbitration session, which happens to take the form of the show.
So, the verdicts are binding because both sides entered into a legal contract in advance to submit to arbitration. That's the what these shows are, just dressed up with courtroom-ish sets. The verdicts are real in the sense that the "photographers" in this case indeed had to pay the bride $2,500, because they agreed in advance that the Joe Brown's decision would carry legal force.
Anyway, yeah.... pretty silly for a someone to claim to be a "professional" and basically using a Rebel XTi kit, complete with kit lens. And not even using the "
good" IS version of the 18-55mm kit lens. And then to meet your client with the photos at a Walmart parking lot? They likely bought the camera at that same Walmart, too.
I've shot weddings with better equipment, did a better job than that, and
still never claimed to be "professional."
Yes, you can get some very good shots with a Canon Rebel Series camera. I carry a T2i, and the T1i I had before that was apparently good enough for a thief to steal. However, I think the Judge was still right on this one. He
did mention that the Rebel XTi used isn't bad, and that "they've improved recently." But he's also right that you don't go into a wedding with just a slow kit lens, especially one known for not being very good, and come out of it with photos worth $1,300. And while the talk was tech-heavy, it served to established that the "photographers" didn't know what they were talking about and likely lacked the knowledge or competence to pass themselves off as professionals and charge pro rates. If they did - and I would expect any wedding photographer to know what they're talking about - they would've been able to answer his questions, and the case could've moved on to the facts at hand.
But they didn't do that... they fumbled, they pretty much made it clear they were a bunch of noobs who likely were shooting in greenbox mode, and then ultimately got flustered and told the judge to "just get on with the verdict." And so, he did: they lost and their attitude compelled the judge to award the plaintiif more than they even asked for.
BTW, Walmart typically uses the same printing machines as most online photography print shops.
Granted, but that still doesn't mean they should've met their client at the
parking lot of that same Walmart where they printed the photos. The client hired a professional and expects professionalism. I wouldn't do the "meet at the Walmart" routine even I was volunteering to shoot the wedding for free!