MicrostockGroup

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. 

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???

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



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

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!

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.

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