>> I do.
>> Judge Judy: You're in the
photography business.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Judge Judy: And you wanted to
do a photography shoot using I'm
assuming small children to
enhance your business.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Judge Judy: That would
clearly be used for advertising
because you weren't going to
take pictures of people's
children and keep them in your
drawer.
You understand that?
You understand that, right?
>> I understand to a point.
>> Judge Judy: And in exchange
for that, what she offered was
she would give you five
pictures?
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> She never was specific on how
many you got.
>> Judge Judy: Okay.
>> And she --
>> Judge Judy: So how many did
she give you?
>> She never gave me any.
She posted them to Facebook on
her business page without my
permission and without me even
seeing them.
>> Judge Judy: Listen to me.
You never received the
photographs that you had agreed
to take...
>> Correct.
>> Judge Judy: ...in exchange
for using your 5-year-old for a
photo shoot for her business.
That's what the deal was.
You may want to spin it any
other way you want, but she
wasn't doing it as a favor to
you to take a picture of your
kid.
She said, "I want to do this for
advertising purposes."
>> No.
>> Judge Judy: "If I use you" --
Ms. Mahalko, I've been at this
business a very long time.
Do you have an angelic-looking
child?
>> Yes.
[ Laughter ]
>> Judge Judy: You think your
child is the most gorgeous child
in the world?
>> Yeah.
>> Judge Judy: Do you?
Do you?
I had 13 of those little
grandchildren.
I think each one of them is
angelic-looking.
But what did you think your son
was doing a photo shoot for?
>> It was --
>> Judge Judy: Dut, dut!
You know, I'm smart.
You can either end this
courtroom session looking
ridiculous or you can be honest
and not try to tailor your
testimony to your case.
Do you understand what I'm
saying?
When your friend approached you
to do a photo shoot, what did
you think the photo shoot was
for?
>> It was to help her to get
clients.
>> Judge Judy: No, help her
what?
>> Get clients leaning towards
the animal community.
>> Judge Judy: Right.
Help her get clients.
I don't care in what community.
If she posed with your son and a
dog, whatever it is, you knew
that the pictures would be used
for advertising!
>> I thought that it was --
>> Judge Judy: Whether it was --
You can try to tailor the
testimony, but it's so crystal
clear, common sense, what was
being done.
Your child is 5 years old.
When your son was born, your
friend, who's been a
photographer for how long?
>> Maybe a year.
>> Judge Judy: One year.
So I can't say when he was born.
When he was 4, did she ever take
photographs of your son and just
give them to you?
>> No.
We did a family session in the
past that I paid her for.
>> Judge Judy: So there was a
family session.
>> In the past, yes.
>> Judge Judy: Just a second.
Great.
That you paid her for as a
photographer.
>> Correct.
>> Judge Judy: And she gave you
pictures because you paid for
them.
>> Yes.
>> Judge Judy: Did you pay for
this photo shoot?
>> She didn't want any money.
>> Judge Judy: Just a second.
Don't say what she wanted.
That goes into her head.
The question is, did you pay for
the photo shoot?
>> I didn't have to.
>> Judge Judy: Ms. Mahalko, it's
not gonna go well for you.
>> She said that she wanted a
free session if she could use
models.
She said free session.
I have a screenshot of that.
>> Judge Judy: Models for her
business, not to put in her desk
drawer!
And the only reason I make this
statement to you is because you
and your mother have such a
ridiculous counterclaim that she
posted the pictures that she
took of your child --
>> Without prior approval.
>> Your Honor, Illinois law
states that she has to have
written permission to post a
photograph for the business.
>> Judge Judy: Let me explain
something to you.
Were you there when they had the
discussion?
>> I...
>> Judge Judy: The question
is --
>> ...was not there, Your Honor.
>> Judge Judy: You weren't
there.
Don't speak.
That was their understanding.
And maybe the fact that they
were friends for a long time,
they didn't think any more than
that.
But the understanding was she
was gonna take pictures of your
grandson and use them for
advertising.
And now you're complaining that
she used them for advertising on
her webpage and didn't get
permission.
>> Because she -- Last time we
had it, she allowed me to see
the pictures prior.
She never allowed me to see
pictures prior to her posting
them on --
>> Judge Judy: Just a second.
Let's go through it.
So, now the question is, you
didn't like the pictures.
Shh!
You have to be very careful of
where you're going, because
that's her claim.
Her claim is that you posted
your own activism in a subtext
on a picture that she took
without her permission --
>> She didn't have a right to
the photo.
>> Judge Judy: Just a second.
I'm telling you what her
complaint is, and I'm bringing
it back to your answer, because
if you didn't like the pictures,
which is what you said to me --
you said, "She always showed me
the pictures first before she
used them."
That's what you said.
Well, that would suggest to a
dumber person that you didn't
like the pictures that she
posted.
But that's not true because you
and your mother republished
them, so you must have liked
them, unless you're stupid and
published pictures of your child
that you didn't like.
You didn't do that, did you?
>> I liked the photo.
>> Judge Judy: Right!