Donated, hope it will help you!

I believe the photographer is not the only defendant.

Quote from: bpepz on January 07, 2015, 22:44

[youtube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEkr9F4ms6w
[/youtube]

Hello fellow stock photographers. I wanted to let you guys know about a lawsuit going on that many of you seem to be vaguely aware of.  I think the whole industry could be at risk if things don�t go well. 

I am being sued in federal court for hundreds of thousands of dollars by a model I worked with in January 2013.  This is a model that I paid, and who signed a release allowing me to sell her images through stock photo agencies. Why I am I being sued? It revolves around images that got misused or were just outright stolen and the model is blaming me for it. My case has unfortunately received national attention in the New York Post, the daily mail and Fox News, none of which have bothered to explain my side of the story.

If they had not ignored my side of the story, here is what they would have reported. She was an experienced lingerie and implied nude model, appearing on a magazine cover in such apparel.  I told her agent before the shoot it would be used for stock photography.  During the shoot I also told the model that the images would be for sale for stock photography and explained how stock photography works.  I explained to her that these agencies prohibit pornographic use in their terms of service..  Another person who often helped me from time to time was present during the shoot and witnessed everything.

I said nothing more and I didn't lie.  I did NOT promise her that her images would not be misused - it is impossible in our right-click-save-as days. She saw the images before signing the model release, was happy with them and posted them herself on her Facebook page.

Another misconception is that our arrangement was TFP or Trade for Portfolio use.  I paid her via her agent through Paypal and have all the records of it, even providing her gas money to travel to Columbus.

If the court rules in her favor, it could create a dangerous incentive for other models to do the same  and try to hold photographers liable for things that are out of our control. 

That's why I need your help. The case is in New York now and I�m facing a huge financial burden to protect myself and our industry in general. Knowledgeable copyright lawyers cost are incredibly expensive. I want to defend myself to the extent I can given my funding to discourage models in the future from bringing forth similar actions. I'll be grateful for any amount you can spare, and promise I'll make a good use of it and keep you all updated on how it goes as much as I am allowed.

To donate, please follow the link below to my gofundme page

http://www.gofundme.com/resnicklegalfund

However they do take out 7.9% in fees and a additional 30 cents per donation, so
alternatively, you can also donate directly via paypal to [email protected]

Below is a link to the case number and the original complaint so you can verify this on your own.

1:2014cv01070 Forni vs Resnick

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=158088341&z=4ce11824

Here is my question. Most lawsuits like this will only go after deep pockets. Do you the photographer have lots of wealth. If not this lawsuit is a big question mark. It is almost impossible to find a lawyer to take a case from a model unless the photographer has deep pockets or some kind of outside funds. You the photographer can lose but if you have no money they can't put you in jail for this. As my grandma said you can't get blood out of a turnip.  Good luck, it sounds like a big waste of everyone's time.

I tihnk the plaintiff's lawyer needs me to lose so he can go after the people with big pockets, or atleast that seems to make the most sense in my opinion. However, it is possible they still try to get everything they can from me anyway.  I am very very far from being wealthy, but they can always garnish my income, sort of like paying child support or something.

This would still hold true even in this situation, but I am starting to get a little worried the plaintiff's lawyer truly believes I made millions or some large figure like that from the images and I am hiding it or something.  I think he will be extremely disappointed to find out that was not the case.

Maybe PetePixel or PDN

It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...

Hey Joshua, we spoke a little in your other topic. I'm also being sued on very similar grounds in Holland.

I donated what I could, and the PayPal window wouldn't let me finish my message, so here again: I wish you much strength and luck and good wise people around you, and I'm pretty confident you and I will win. She cannot prove you personally sold images to adult sites. She cannot prove you're a millionaire (how ridiculous, you have all sales statements don't you!). She only has to lose, I'm afraid. Our model was warned and didn't listen. She went after our house, but only managed to get my bank account blocked. While I have 2 little children and mortgage.

Our cases on both sides of the ocean are very important for the industry and even for overall justice in creative world where people (even most professional and experienced) do many things based on trust and common sense. Let's see what those are worth. I believe your model is wrong: YOU trusted her when going into professional relationship. She signed a clear paper stating you MAY sell images, and she was very okay with getting nice publications from stock and getting jobs thanks to your labor. She broke your trust and she is the one fraud. She caused you emotional suffering and huge financial impact. I personally got heart and sight problems after our case began... Well, it is still to be seen if we may continue this "hazardous jobs" as photographers )))) , what they seem to be...  but for now we should keep fighting against the ridiculousness of the situation.

I'll keep you posted when we hear from our judge. It shouldn't be long now.

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on places I can contact who can hopefully get my story more attention? Maybe I should go post on the forum on shutterstock?

I will put something on my blog tonight, not that it gets much attention but a lot of small bits could mount up to something bigger.

It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...

So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew they didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.

So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?

That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.

My guess is that she's suing the photog because he's the only person she has an agreement with. It may be baseless, but it doesn't stop someone from suing you anyway, and then you're stuck paying lawyers to defend yourself.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 09, 2015, 07:43

Quote from: melastmohican on January 08, 2015, 23:26

It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...

So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew thay didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.

So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?

That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.

So far, as far as I know she has no proof anything even came from shutterstock. Everything they have is in the complaint, and the only evidence they presented was the model release she signed I think.

As far as sensitive use, the sensitive use TOS specifically mentions you cannot use the images for pornographic or defamatory purposes. The old TOS even mentions escort sites and such, but now it is even broader, so that was not a problem.

That's even more insane.
That would be like, in my pencil example, they went after any random shop which sold pencils.
I don't understand US Law, I can't see why that is getting any credence whatsoever.
(But sometimes cases come up here which are bizarre and the ruling goes a surprising way).
Best wishes.

Quote from: bpepz on January 09, 2015, 08:11

Quote from: ShadySue on January 09, 2015, 07:43

Quote from: melastmohican on January 08, 2015, 23:26

It looks like Shutterstock is one of defendants. They can afford big lawyers. Also Playboy, Amazon and Barnes and Noble...

So she has established the the photos definitely orginated from Shutterstock? Presumably by contacting the misusers?
I was wondering how she knew thay didn't just lift the pics from her Fb profile.

So if the end users have confirmed they used photos from Shutterstock, presumably they used them outwith SS's TOS, if they were not tagged for sensitive use (and maybe even then?)?
That being the case, how can SS or the OP be responsible?

That's like saying if someone bought a pencil and stabbed it into someone's jugular, the shop and the pencil manufacturer would be responsible.

So far, as far as I know she has no proof anything even came from shutterstock. Everything they have is in the complaint, and the only evidence they presented was the model release she signed I think.

As far as sensitive use, the sensitive use TOS specifically mentions you cannot use the images for pornographic or defamatory purposes. The old TOS even mentions escort sites and such, but now it is even broader, so that was not a problem.

That's even more insane.
That would be like, in my pencil example, they went after any random shop which sold pencils.
I don't understand US Law, I can't see why that is getting any credence whatsoever.
(But sometimes cases come up here which are bizarre and the ruling goes a surprising way).
Best wishes.

I think the problem is, as far as the judge knows, the only facts out there are what is in the plaintiffs complaint. Otherwise I am not sure how they are supposed to make a ruling unless they see ample information from both sides. however, getting to the point of presenting my side of the story could potentially be a long and extremely expensive process.

Hopefully the case will be dismissed, since there's no way she can prove where the images came from, and indeed they could have been stolen off her own Facebook page. She herself made them available for free on the internet (from my understanding of the situation).

Unfortunately it takes a long time and a lot of legal fees answering and disproving baseless accusations.