The judge got this one wrong. VERY WRONG.
I would tend to agree. She appears to have been taken advantage of, signing an agreement in a foreign language that contradicted the clear verbal agreement.
She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions. Letter of the law over its spirit.
I'm also not sure that the photographer's agreeing to a verbal contract that contradicts the written one isn't fraud.
How so?