MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Being sued by model in federal court, please read!  (Read 31145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2015, 12:54 »
+2
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29guzro6v/ohio-northern-district-court/forni-v-resnick-et-al/


New case moved to NY


https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/5358914/Forni_v_Resnick,_et_al


She is going after everyone, SS, Amazon, Model Mayhem and more 30 plus altogether.


Signed model release.


http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf


It is all about the Benjamins.
   
m
Reading some of these news stories, it's amazing how totally incorrect they are!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Forni+vs+Resnick&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Forni+vs+Resnick&tbm=nws

Sorry they have such incompetent reporters that they can't take a few minutes to find out how stock works.


Incompetent reporters currently cause much more... like wars. It's new kind of criminals. Luckily, these articles are not really useful as exhibits in court.

The word "he promised" in the times of Internet sounds amazing. My Release with model does exclude pornographic use (what my model's case is built upon btw), although no "promise" was ever in place. Release does not include wording like "photographer guarantees". Who can guarantee what?! Release is in line with License: no defamatory use. Publishers are to  respect it. Photographer is to assure images are sold with correct license. He is not to assure or guarantee end-users respect it. That's what prosecutors are for. A stolen car that's been bona fide locked is not a responsibility of a car's owner, but is a case for police to handle. 


I agree if these photos were shot by the photographer with the model permission both he and the model should know that these are perfect images for the slut industry.  Photographers there is nothing wrong about shooting this type of image but  look at the trouble it might get you into. Not worth it if you ask me..just my opinion.


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2015, 14:29 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 19:30 by ruxpriencdiam »

« Reply #102 on: January 11, 2015, 14:09 »
+5
I just got a guest piece up on petapixel

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/

Thanks petapixel!

« Reply #103 on: January 11, 2015, 15:31 »
+17
Those who focus on the model and whether she was posing in lingerie or not, are missing the point totally.
There is a bigger issue here.
The thing in question here is whether a photographer can be held responsible for what an end user is doing with his/her photos.
If the end user is breaching a TOS, how the h*ll can the photographer be responsible.
If you think that this only concerns photographers who shoots lingerie you are way off.
This concerns everyone who shoots people for stock.
Regular portraits of "regular" girls, grandmothers and even kids are being misused everyday and if the model should win this case, this industry will have to change drastically on many levels.

« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2015, 15:35 »
+20
Those who focus on the model and whether she was posing in lingerie or not, are missing the point totally.
There is a bigger issue here.
The thing in question here is whether a photographer can be held responsible for what an end user is doing with his/her photos.
If the end user is breaching a TOS, how the h*ll can the photographer be responsible.
If you think that this only concerns photographers who shoots lingerie you are way off.
This concerns everyone who shoots people for stock.
Regular portraits of "regular" girls, grandmothers and even kids are being misused everyday and if the model should win this case, this industry will have to change drastically on many levels.

No, this actually concerns anyone who has a camera.

« Reply #105 on: January 11, 2015, 15:36 »
+5
Sorry for both Katje and Josh.  Josh,  I am not a lawyer or expert with US laws, but in general I hear lawyers will tell clients to not comment publicly in a ongoing court case.  I hope you are not causing trouble for yourself posting so many details. Who knows if they can twist your words against you? 
I will donate to you and hope many others do the same.

+10

« Reply #106 on: January 12, 2015, 08:56 »
+6
I have been following this case since I first heard about it. The issues at the core of this case could potentially have ramifications on my work and many here. In support of Seth's cause I have donated to his defense fund.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #107 on: January 12, 2015, 09:32 »
+8
I dont see anyone focussing on the model being dressed or not, some comments are about all the statements she made in the court documents which dont make sense considering her history and actions. Many aspects of the case are being discussed, I dont think that is a problem.

 Its also about allegations that the images were sold to porn sites by Resnick while the images were posted on her Facebook by herself, and still there for everyone to take. She demanded the images would be taken down, why not remove them from your own Facebook then?

« Reply #108 on: January 12, 2015, 10:25 »
0
I have been following this case since I first heard about it. The issues at the core of this case could potentially have ramifications on my work and many here. In support of Seth's cause I have donated to his defense fund.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It means alot to me!

« Reply #109 on: January 12, 2015, 11:34 »
+3
For starters - get screenshots of those Facebook posts and have them notarized before she is counseled to remove.

The lawsuit DOES seem like a big stretch. I wonder if this lawyer is the kind that takes all these cases that are unlikely to be proven in court.  A company as big as Shutterstock certainly has a "nuisance fee" fund, a dollar amount they are willing to settle out-of-court.  All the plaintiff's lawyer has to do is file some papers, make a couple of phone calls and it has the SS legal team in Manhattan quivering.  They don't want bad publicity OR any kind of a precedent set so they settle behind doors.  If the plaintiff's lawyer gets 30% of a $50,000 settlement - 15K isn't bad for filing some documents (in reality, paying his paralegal an hourly wage or a filing fee) and making a couple calls.  Every time he gets his name in the press he gets 10 new clients - so his small investment of time has big dividends.

Are you and (Nancy Wolfe if I remember?) able to have a sit-down meeting with Jon, or a lawyer at SS? 

Edited to add:  Wow, this firm is really stepping out of their comfort zone with this case.  They are known as a "DUI" and "Lead Paint" specialists.  OMG, I have never heard of a law firm accepting credit cards and Paypal.  Is that normal these days?

Quite a list of Defendants they have included!  Whoa.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2015, 11:56 by Pixart »

« Reply #110 on: January 12, 2015, 15:56 »
+6
This is why I don't do people stock photos and I never will.  If I had some people shots, even of friends or family members, I would be removing them from the agencies ASAP.  It's far too easy for internet photos to be stolen and misused, and in our lawsuit-happy society, even if you "win" you still lose.  It's simply not worth the potential or actual aggravation for the paltry percentages we receive.

« Reply #111 on: January 12, 2015, 21:20 »
+7
Just donated...good luck to you. 

I think this case is ridiculous.  To have to worry about litigation when we make pennies off this.  From my own experience, models think we make a lot of money off stock because they see their face on billboards.  In reality, it couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't suggest that Shutterstock use their legal fees to combat all claims...but for a high profile case like this, they really should consider hiring an attorney to send the message that nothing was done wrong here.

 Looks like I need to take out insurance now even with signed model releases.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #112 on: January 12, 2015, 22:51 »
0
Just donated...good luck to you. 

I think this case is ridiculous.  To have to worry about litigation when we make pennies off this.  From my own experience, models think we make a lot of money off stock because they see their face on billboards.  In reality, it couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't suggest that Shutterstock use their legal fees to combat all claims...but for a high profile case like this, they really should consider hiring an attorney to send the message that nothing was done wrong here.

 Looks like I need to take out insurance now even with signed model releases.
Apparently some people dont read the links much less look at them.

Quote
Defendant
Shutterstock Inc

,
   
Represented By
Steven J. Miller
Miller Goler Faeges Lapine
contact info
David A. Kunselman
Miller Goler Faeges Lapine
contact info

« Reply #113 on: January 13, 2015, 01:07 »
+2
I meant to say they should pay for Resnick's legal fees too...stand up for the contributor.  I was under the impression that Shutterstock was going to take the settle route but could not reach  an agreement Forni.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #114 on: January 13, 2015, 04:48 »
+2
Apparently some people dont read the links much less look at them.



Why is that you are only posting these condescending comments when you come here. You really have an OCD attitude of patronizing superiority when someone hasnt read the entire internet.

Sorry, I just cant keep that to myself. Hows the SS forum? Havent been there in like forever. Things must me awesome there with me and Lagereek gone.  ;D

Tror

« Reply #115 on: January 13, 2015, 05:50 »
+11
I agree. We act in harmony with the TOS of the Agency. The Client breaks the TOS of the Agency. The photographer gets sued.

The Agencies should enforce their own TOS on their clients to protect not only their own interests but also the photographers and models involved. If the Artist has to take all the legal risk despite acting lawfully and in accordance with the agreements the business is not worth it.

« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2015, 21:57 »
+1
...I was under the impression that Shutterstock was going to take the settle route but could not reach an agreement Forni.

Which is interesting since she's claimed that she's not after money with the stock agencies. So if they couldn't reach an agreement, what was she asking for, if not money?

Rhetorical question, we all know she's just after money, and lots of it.


« Reply #117 on: January 15, 2015, 00:10 »
+2
This is why I don't do people stock photos and I never will.  If I had some people shots, even of friends or family members, I would be removing them from the agencies ASAP.  It's far too easy for internet photos to be stolen and misused, and in our lawsuit-happy society, even if you "win" you still lose.  It's simply not worth the potential or actual aggravation for the paltry percentages we receive.

If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction.  I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me.  I am very selective about models tho.  I don't do glamour or shoot strangers.  Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy. 

Live in fear if you want.  My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.   

« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2015, 01:32 »
-1

If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction.  I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me.  I am very selective about models tho.  I don't do glamour or shoot strangers.  Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy. 

Live in fear if you want.  My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.   

If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion.  Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them?  If  the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it.  I simply made the statement that for me, it is not.  Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.

« Reply #119 on: January 15, 2015, 12:24 »
+5
After reading all that, I'm really happy to be an european living in Europe, and this for two reasons:
first we don't need this big amount of money to pay a lawyer, an then nobody can accuse you if don't show evidence. At the moment the only evidence is the publication of the picture on a book or so on, and this means that tre is an upside down: the publisher needs to demonstrate his "bona fide" or that you was the seller of the photo. More: if he can demonstrate this, he is not innocent! He share the responsibility with you because have not release by the model for pornography.

Good luck, I will immediately send a donation

« Reply #120 on: January 15, 2015, 21:12 »
0

If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction.  I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me.  I am very selective about models tho.  I don't do glamour or shoot strangers.  Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy. 

Live in fear if you want.  My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.   

If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion.  Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them?  If  the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it.  I simply made the statement that for me, it is not.  Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.

Yes I have been more fortunate than the OP not to be sued.  That's why I made him a good size  donation.  But whether I know the mind of my models, they are all personal friends and relatives.  So yes, I do know them.  And in  a tight social group there would be a stigma to suing another member of the group for something they clearly had no control over.

The model in this case was a stranger to the photographer, so there was no trust between them and no social pressure on either to act ethically toward the other.  Hopefully most of us can trust our family and friends not to sue us.   If not, I would choose different friends.

As for 'pennies', good people shooters can make six figure incomes in stock.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 22:06 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #121 on: January 15, 2015, 22:21 »
-1

If you don't want to shoot people, that is your choice, but your post above seems a huge overreaction.  I've had some misuses and none of my models ever sued me.  I am very selective about models tho.  I don't do glamour or shoot strangers.  Only people I know and can be sure they aren't greedy. 

Live in fear if you want.  My attitude, I could be hit by a taxi crossing the street, but I still cross the street if I need to.   


If your models didn't sue you for misuse, then you were more fortunate than the person who started this discussion.  Do you really ever know the mind of another person and what they might do in a given situation, no matter how selective you are about choosing them?  If  the risk of shooting and selling people photos is worth the pennies that the stock agencies throw to you, then by all means go for it.  I simply made the statement that for me, it is not.  Perhaps the OP could weigh in on the question of whether people photos are worth it, seeing as he has apparently been actually hit by the aforementioned taxi.


Yes I have been more fortunate than the OP not to be sued.  That's why I made him a good size  donation.  But whether I know the mind of my models, they are all personal friends and relatives.  So yes, I do know them.  And in  a tight social group there would be a stigma to suing another member of the group for something they clearly had no control over.

The model in this case was a stranger to the photographer, so there was no trust between them and no social pressure on either to act ethically toward the other.  Hopefully most of us can trust our family and friends not to sue us.   If not, I would choose different friends.

As for 'pennies', good people shooters can make six figure incomes in stock.


The issue is many models thought they  'know' what they are getting themselves into at that point of time. However, they change their mind once the photos come back to haunt them. I'm slightly disturbed by this article here, as it seems this could happen to anyone who signed model release. They are all supportive at the beginning and eventually regret that they sign the release. The photographer is lucky not to be sued, but I can't this is has no impact on their friendship/relationship.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html

« Reply #122 on: January 15, 2015, 22:47 »
+3

The issue is many models thought they  'know' what they are getting themselves into at that point of time. However, they change their mind once the photos come back to haunt them. I'm slightly disturbed by this article here, as it seems this could happen to anyone who signed model release. They are all supportive at the beginning and eventually regret that they sign the release. The photographer is lucky not to be sued, but I can't this is has no impact on their friendship/relationship.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2012/03/stock_photo_mistake_my_boyfriend_s_face_ended_up_on_howaboutwe.html


Your right.  Many models don't understand the release.  Its our job to explain it to them.  Even if you are confident they wont sue, you still need to explain possible misuses.  I already said I have had misuses.  When the models found them,  some did not care.  I just had a friend used in an advert for people working while high on pot.  He didn't smoke pot in 20+ years.  He laughed about it.

  I had another girl used for HPV sexually transmitted disease.  She was upset.   I called the company, explained this was a violation of TOS, and model did not agree to it.  They took it down.   Model still works for me because she knows I will fight for her if images are misused.  Again, these are friends.  I will pursue misuse on their behalf every time.  Trust goes both ways.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 23:37 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #123 on: January 16, 2015, 02:44 »
+3
Most of my models sign without reading the MR, saying "I trust you".  That's not very clever of course, because I am not in control of who buys the images and what is done with them.  But I do explain what can happen, with a few examples.  They always love the story of me appearing on a Trade Union wall poster as a witch, in my own country, and people recognizing me.  Until today, all image uses found by me, my models or their friends were happily welcomed.  I live in a country were people rarely sue, but I do wonder what would happen in case of real misuse.

« Reply #124 on: January 29, 2015, 11:44 »
+49
:)
Hi guys, I know many of you were curious about the similar case in Europe. I'm glad to say that today we got good news from our lawyer: we won the case. The international character of the case did not hinder the Netherlands process being possible.

So here is just briefly on what grounds we won (in my own words):
1. Model failed to prove images were bought from stock agency; judge agrees they could be stolen from her own social/modeling profiles, from her computer or from publications elsewhere.
2. Even if they were licensed, still the agency's license was breached by end-users, which is not photographer's fault. Photographer handled correct selling images through a platform with a clear prohibition of damaging use.

I'm still a bit in shock, in a good way this time! This is a huge relief after 2 years of unfair game, full of peculiar details showing true colors of lawyer practices and some people we let into our life and work.

I sincerely hope that my American colleague will win his case on the same obvious grounds as we did and can continue to be a providing father and a professional.

A digital online record of my case should be available shortly I assume, it's not there yet, but those of you interested can simply send me a private message by that time  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2811 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 02:00
by Microbius
23 Replies
4001 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 14:45
by ShadySue
6 Replies
3242 Views
Last post March 24, 2013, 17:30
by Batman
3 Replies
2090 Views
Last post February 10, 2017, 10:23
by brookephotostudio
55 Replies
8467 Views
Last post May 02, 2019, 04:41
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results