MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Upset model  (Read 7484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2010, 11:06 »
0
I don't know the legality of all this, but does this ad agency claim this is an actual customer as some of these places do?


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Phil,

I had a similar situation with an elderly model of mine.  She became very upset when a picture of her serving coffee was used in a crass television show, where a guy was seen urinating in a coffee pot.  They used the picture of her serving the coffee and superimposed the word "Urinatte' " over the coffee cup.  To make matters worse, it was her family who discovered the usage, and they really got her worked up about it. 

I feel like the model release indemnified me from any legal action, but to pacify the model I hired a lawyer to write a letter to the producers of the show, demanding they stop the "defamatory" usage.  He also requested damages to cover the cost of his fees.  He did not ask for damages for the model because we did not want the model to get the idea that threatening to sue every time she finds herself in use would be a moneymaking scheme.

The company paid the damages and stopped using the picture in exchange for the model and me signing that we would not sue. 

With  all the back and forth, the lawyer ended up costing $1,100.00, and the damages recovered were $700, so I was out of pocket $400.  But the model was happy.

So worse come to worst, it may be worthwhile to get a lawyer to write a letter.   

One other thing - throughout the situation I was very sympathetic to the model and made it clear I was on her side and willing to protect her.  As a result, her anger was directed at the people who (mis)used the image, and not at me. 

ShadySue

« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2010, 12:20 »
0
Of course it's a defamation of his character, going bald might be a fact of life but if he isn't going bald and this image portrays that he is then it's defamation.
Defamation refers to character. This ad is misrepresentation (of truth).

Having worked in law I can tell you 100% that from what the OP has stated it would fall under defamation of character because by legal definition it is, and I can also tell you that if this guy decides to persue the matter he will win, and also that he will sue the photographer because he signed a contract with the photographer (the release) and therefore the legal process begins here, now the photographer will have a legal defence because presumably he has a clause in the release that he uploaded to the agency that excludes any defamatory use of the person in the image, so therefore the process moves onto the agency and then down the line until it reaches the stage whereby somebody is identified as having breached the defamatory clause.

Having worked in law, you should know that laws are different in every country, and having different legislations involved in a case complicates things totally.
At the moment, we've got the OP, who is based in Singapore; a model based ???; an agency based ??? (we don't even know which agency or which model release or Content Use Agreement we're talking about) and an ad for a company based ??? published ???
So you are 100% convinced of what you say based on the above total lack of knowledge?

« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2010, 12:30 »
0
I had a model who was used in an ad to sell treatments for gastro-intestinal ailments. How flattering is that? Good thing the model was me or I'd be in deep s**t. Hahahah get it???

RT


« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2010, 12:54 »
0
Having worked in law, you should know that laws are different in every country, and having different legislations involved in a case complicates things totally.
At the moment, we've got the OP, who is based in Singapore; a model based ???; an agency based ??? (we don't even know which agency or which model release or Content Use Agreement we're talking about) and an ad for a company based ??? published ???
So you are 100% convinced of what you say based on the above total lack of knowledge?

FYI Singapore law is based on UK law, the law applicable here is the one where the contract was made (i.e. the release), as I've tried to point out on numerous occassions it matters not what or where the agency have in their T&C or are based, same goes for the ad company and the publishers.

RT


« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2010, 13:07 »
0
To me, gay and ethnicity are a million miles from baldness. I could understand if this model had had a rash retouched on his face with the headline 'This person is contageous' but the implication that he might be going bald doesn't give him much of a case as far as I'm concerned.

It might not to you or I, but as I said above it clearly does to him which is the salient point.


Okay, if this person walked into your legal practice with the cure for baldness ad, would you advise him to go for broke or gently persuade him to stand down as there's likely to be little in it for him?

I've never said he'd make any money, but like most people as soon as you hear the word 'sue' it's what you think. I see you're based in the UK, no doubt you're aware of the growing number of 'ambulance chaser' type adverts asking people if they've "had an injury that wasn't their fault"  the common sales line is "you keep 100% of the settlement" - why do you think that is?
So in answer to your question (not that I'm involved in law anymore) I'd imagine that the key undermining factor for some law firms would be 'Can we easily win and get our (substantial) costs back' and in this case there is a very strong possibility, even more so because it's a simple case that could be assigned to a junior. Of course each lawyers main objective is to act in the best interest of the client ::)

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2010, 13:49 »
0

I've never said he'd make any money, but like most people as soon as you hear the word 'sue' it's what you think. I see you're based in the UK, no doubt you're aware of the growing number of 'ambulance chaser' type adverts asking people if they've "had an injury that wasn't their fault"  the common sales line is "you keep 100% of the settlement" - why do you think that is?
So in answer to your question (not that I'm involved in law anymore) I'd imagine that the key undermining factor for some law firms would be 'Can we easily win and get our (substantial) costs back' and in this case there is a very strong possibility, even more so because it's a simple case that could be assigned to a junior. Of course each lawyers main objective is to act in the best interest of the client ::)

Wow, really?  In the UK people keep 100% minus costs? 

Here in Florida the attorneys take 33% PLUS their substantial costs.  Injured people are lucky if they see even half the settlement.   Frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing attorneys are rampant.

RT


« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2010, 15:27 »
0
Wow, really?  In the UK people keep 100% minus costs? 

Here in Florida the attorneys take 33% PLUS their substantial costs.  Injured people are lucky if they see even half the settlement.   Frivolous lawsuits and ambulance-chasing attorneys are rampant.

Don't start packing your bags yet Lisa, I pointed that out as an example as to the type of lawyers that'll take a case if they stand to make a quick buck, the claimant gets 100% that's true, but I wouldn't recommend them if you have a serious injury, I get the impression their aim is to settle at the earliest opportunity rather than battle it out to get the most for the client, if the examples in the ad's (where somebody with a decent case sits there smiling with a cheque for a pittance of what they could probably get) is anything to go by.

Just read your post higher up about your legal case, now it's my turn to say Wow, you won and it still cost you personally!

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2010, 17:17 »
0

Don't start packing your bags yet Lisa, I pointed that out as an example as to the type of lawyers that'll take a case if they stand to make a quick buck, the claimant gets 100% that's true, but I wouldn't recommend them if you have a serious injury, I get the impression their aim is to settle at the earliest opportunity rather than battle it out to get the most for the client, if the examples in the ad's (where somebody with a decent case sits there smiling with a cheque for a pittance of what they could probably get) is anything to go by.

Just read your post higher up about your legal case, now it's my turn to say Wow, you won and it still cost you personally!

I guess sleazy lawyers will always find a way to bilk their unfortunate clients... :(

On my issue, I was actually glad to get anything back.  It was supposed to only cost me what he recovered in "damages", but the guy was continually padding his billable time. 

My husband joked that if this guy thought about our case while he was in the bathroom he charged us for the time spent on the toilet, LOL.  ;D  Sad thing is it's probably true! 

IMO, it was worth it to keep the model happy.  She and her husband are dear friends.  They are also (along with my husband) among my most popular models. As a result, they are both happy to continue to work for me because they know I will do what I can to protect them. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2010, 21:46 »
0
On my issue, I was actually glad to get anything back.  It was supposed to only cost me what he recovered in "damages", but the guy was continually padding his billable time. 

My husband joked that if this guy thought about our case while he was in the bathroom he charged us for the time spent on the toilet, LOL.  ;D  Sad thing is it's probably true! 

That is so true Lisa. We are in an estate battle at the moment and every time the lawyer reads our e-mail or listens to the messages that he repeatably gets from us, you get charged a quarter of an hour even though it didn't take him but two minutes to read it or listen to it. Every time we have to have a phone conference and it takes him 30 minutes to get all five parties connected then that's another half hour charged before we ever get started on the conference. At $250.00 bucks an hour....it adds up fast.

« Reply #35 on: November 10, 2010, 17:13 »
0
Personally I don't think this is defamatory. Unflattering, maybe, but not in a way a model should bother about, this is part of their job in the kind of agreement they sign, IMHO.

ShadySue, I remember that case and I didn't image it was related with someone here. I find that case different, because it was also a gross scenario in the final image.

« Reply #36 on: November 10, 2010, 17:26 »
0
nice topic :)

I only have a few pictures with models (all family) but it is interesting to see here all these life experiences.. thanks for that


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
5752 Views
Last post October 12, 2006, 08:01
by mtbcyclist
5 Replies
3089 Views
Last post January 23, 2008, 11:15
by mekarim
16 Replies
6711 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 20:49
by Angel
24 Replies
5590 Views
Last post August 03, 2011, 17:23
by bunhill
37 Replies
4971 Views
Last post August 14, 2018, 12:30
by mj007

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors