MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Being sued by model in federal court, please read!  (Read 31158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2015, 09:40 »
0
BTW - who signed her model release as a witness?


« Reply #76 on: January 09, 2015, 10:00 »
0
BTW - who signed her model release as a witness?

Doug heater, who was someone was assisting me during the shoot to help with holding lights and stuff. It is right in the model release so anyone can look this up.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 01:44 by bpepz »

« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2015, 10:30 »
+5
My guess is they are suing everyone and hoping for settlement money from the big players. They know they cannot get blood from a stone (i.e. money settlement from photog) but have to sue him to go after the biggies. That is the only way I could see a lawyer taking this case on a contingency basis. Hoping for a decent nuisance settlement to make them go away ( with a non-discolosure). Photog unfortunately is at ground zero for this. What a f-cked situation.

Shelma1


Tror

« Reply #79 on: January 09, 2015, 10:38 »
+3
I think she will lose. She cannot provide hard facts to prove the claims she makes. The opposite. The protoq can provide prove that she is at least "not telling the entire truth" (e.g. paypal transactions). After she lost the case the situation will be clearer for us photoqs.

Nevertheless it shows again that Agencies should give up the "anything goes" mentality and start enforcing their TOS a bit more strictly. They have responsibilities to their suppliers not only in a moral way. They want us to give them our material and produce for them, so they should stand up for us and enforce the rules they outline themselves (their client agreement).

For us photoqs it means to take more care about the wording of the releases, our relationship to Model, with whom we work and as well with which agencies we work. I stopped uploading critical material to Agencies who do not enforce their TOS or limit critical material to RM agencies.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 10:50 by Tror »

« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2015, 10:56 »
0
Is this her lawyer?

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/


lol yes that is her lawyer.


Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 01:44 by bpepz »

Shelma1

« Reply #81 on: January 09, 2015, 11:08 »
0
Is this her lawyer?

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/


Lol yes that is her lawyer.


Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.


Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.

« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2015, 11:11 »
+2
Is this her lawyer?

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/


Lol yes that is her lawyer.


Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.


Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.


I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.

However, that may not even be the case. There could easily be some kind of information I am unaware of that could explain why she is claiming that and some of the other stuff. I can only go off of my personal recollection, the witness, my documentation, and what was said in the the complaint. maybe there was an error in communicating exactly what happened or some sort of over simplification when the complaint was made, who knows. Either way, I am eager to find out what they think happened and why.

I am keeping my mind open
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 01:49 by bpepz »

ShadySue

« Reply #83 on: January 09, 2015, 11:22 »
0
Is this her lawyer?

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/


Lol yes that is her lawyer.


Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.


Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.


I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.

At the very least, he hasn't employed 'due diligence'. I thought these 'no win, no fee' sharks only took on 'dead cert' cases.

« Reply #84 on: January 09, 2015, 14:34 »
+1
Is this her lawyer?

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/investigations/2013/12/03/prosecutor-taxes-yacht-club-boat-debt-liens/3861989/


Lol yes that is her lawyer.


Seems he was a prosecutor and then started doing lawyer stuff like personal injury lawsuits.


Seems like an upstanding guy. HA HA HA.


I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may not be that bad of a guy, I am getting more and more convinced she probably lied or exaggerated many of the details, like her not getting paid and such as a good example. I wonder once he finds out if he will end up suing her because of all the time she made him waste.

At the very least, he hasn't employed 'due diligence'. I thought these 'no win, no fee' sharks only took on 'dead cert' cases.


Well, like I said it seems he truly believes what she says. I keep hoping this is all a big misunderstanding.  I do not know what the model is thinking here, because her version of events are very different then mine. Maybe there is some sort of information gap I am unaware of that explains her behavior that would account for this. I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt and think the best of them before jumping to conclusions. That is why I wish we could of worked something out instead of going straight to a giant lawsuit. Having images misused would be upsetting to anyone, I would be upset too, but I would hope she comes to understand that was not something I wanted to happen to her, and despite this lawsuit I still wish her all the best.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2015, 19:59 by bpepz »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #85 on: January 09, 2015, 16:33 »
+1
That lawyer cant even spell correctly

Quote
COUNT IV
THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY - BEACH OF TOS AGREEMENT
(all Defendants)

« Reply #86 on: January 09, 2015, 17:08 »
+10

Shutterstock, being named in this lawsuit, has a policy of indemnifying their images with protections up to $10,000 should a lawsuit arise out of the use of an image. It's a policy aimed at customers, but I wonder if it also applies to contributors.

I'd contact Shutterstock and speak directly with someone there. That $10k would come in handy in your legal battle. Maybe they're willing to help.

« Reply #87 on: January 09, 2015, 20:37 »
0
It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...


Playboy, Barnes and Noble, Uproxx, Clearchannel, Euclid Media, and the Love Store all have been dismissed from the suit. Did they settle with the model? A recent letter from one of the Shutterstock lawyers makes me think so.

Quote
Forni has settled with and dismissed many Defendants, some of which may need to be repleaded into the case as indispensable (or potentially indispensable) parties.

The letter (which I got on PACER, so I can't link it) also says:

Quote
Forni and Shutterstock have discussed potential settlement, without reaching agreement.

What would it mean if Shutterstock just settles with Forni?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #88 on: January 09, 2015, 20:46 »
0
Maybe those big players just flexed their muscles and laughed it off and told her to scram or she would get crushed in court? However, the links to the books on Amazon are gone. They were taken down. Doesnt mean much by the way. But would these big companies let themselves get bullied by a model who has no case whatsoever?

Shelma1

« Reply #89 on: January 09, 2015, 21:17 »
+1
Well, she does have a case against entities who stole or used the images in violation of TOS, I would think. Playboy and Amazon may have decided to agree not to sell books or place ads that feature images that violate TOS. Possibly SS exerted pressure on them too? Who knows.

« Reply #90 on: January 09, 2015, 22:40 »
+3
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.

« Reply #91 on: January 10, 2015, 00:23 »
+3
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.


« Reply #92 on: January 10, 2015, 02:17 »
+2
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.

Thanks for wanting to donate!

As far as my comments, I am only really saying stuff that was already talked about with the plaintiffs lawyer, stuff that was in the complaint already, or stuff I mention in my crowd funding statement, and lastly some of my own purely personal feelings and theoretical speculations which could very well change as the case goes forward and are not meant to be taken as fact.

I am hoping as the case progresses all the facts will come out and all speculation will be cleared away. 
« Last Edit: January 10, 2015, 11:06 by bpepz »

« Reply #93 on: January 10, 2015, 04:16 »
+2
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. 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #94 on: January 10, 2015, 04:19 »
+3
She says on her Facebook page that : "When I photograph I always think of two words- sexy and classy. It's what defines our femininity as women. I choose to show enough sexy but leave enough mystery for the viewer. I can firmly say I have never been ashamed of any photograph I've taken, and proudly so".

She has never been afraid to show skin and to post her photos to internet. She is a professional glamour model.





The problem is that these photos the photographer took ended up on porn sites and been used for erotic and pornographic books. But that could have been the case with any of her photos posted on Facebook or the internet.

I also have read the court documents from her lawyer, the stuff she says in there is 180 degrees to what the photographer is claiming. If the photographer can proof she is lying, which should not be a problem with a witness, a signed model release and the proof of payment, she has no case against the photographer.

This image probably is fine with her


This image would probably cause "serious emotional distress and humiliation to the Plaintiff"

« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2015, 06:29 »
+9
Lol.

You've pointed out the main issue, that the images that were misused could have come from anywhere.  You need to go after the person misusing them.  Not the person who created them, with your approval.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2015, 11:26 »
+4

ShadySue

« Reply #97 on: January 10, 2015, 11:39 »
+5
Signed model release.
http://ia902500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf

"I hereby release, discharge and agree to save harmless [photographer] ... ... including without limitation any claims for libel or invasion of privacy."

Semmick Photo

« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2015, 12:31 »
+5
Here is my write up. I hope it helps a bit to raise funds

http://semmickphoto.com/2015/01/10/glamour-model-nikkie-forni-sues-photographer-for-500000/

Feel free to copy text etc, for your own blog. A backlink to my blog is appreciated.

« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2015, 12:32 »
+3
A sidenote (after looking at ruxpriencdiam's post) - doesn't it make anyone else uneasy how many private information is available to the public through these court materials? *shutters*


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2813 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 02:00
by Microbius
23 Replies
4008 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 14:45
by ShadySue
6 Replies
3247 Views
Last post March 24, 2013, 17:30
by Batman
3 Replies
2094 Views
Last post February 10, 2017, 10:23
by brookephotostudio
55 Replies
8495 Views
Last post May 02, 2019, 04:41
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results