MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Model Released Lawsuit  (Read 3046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 04, 2011, 12:09 »
0
Interesting story via A Photo Editor today where 2 models are suing over their photos being used in a defamatory way.  (I can embed the first one.)  The first of a firefighter - the ad clearly represents him as making a statement.  The second ad is about abortion which should likely fall under the defamation category shouldn't it?  I don't know what kind of releases they signed, but wouldn't both of these ads break the rules of the big 4?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27O_jwnpKJU&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/04/models-turn-on-photographers-after-stock-sales/


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2011, 14:10 »
0
thanks for the video and an interesting discussion. I just wish the guy on the left would quit yelling and have a reasonable debate.  The guy on the right said there were limitations on how the photo could be used but never got that far into his argument because the left guy kept interrupting and yelling.

My guess, is that the ad firm didn't overstep any legal rights in using him in the ad.  You are not allowed to pretend someone in an image is someone else, which I suppose they did here, but they also added the text, the model is an actor which should free them from that clause....

Anyhow, a good reason to NEVER let your models model inside their own profession.

ShadySue

« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2011, 15:04 »
0
That was interesting and gave more information than was on the other post on this subject.
Now we know that the guy was a model, not a fireman, at the time the photo was taken.
I had imagined a totally different scenario, around the lines of that the guy had been an actual fireman who had agreed to pose for a particular purpose, e.g. the firefighter's benevolent fund or something, the 'tog had said, "you'll need to sign this so that we can use it for the advert", then put up the MRd photo to an agency.
Now it seems more like the guy is embarrassed but has less of a case. He was a apparently a model at the time and presumably signed an all-purpose MR. I don't know why the issue about replacing a helmet with the photo - IS MRs and probably most others say that you can photoshop them almost as much as you like. Heck, there was even that bad taste German Getty ad of a bride with a felt-tipped moustache pointing out that that was perfectly OK.
So now I guess it all hinges on how big the disclaimer that it was 'posed by a model' actually is.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 11:24 »
0
If this guy is successful in his lawsuit lots of luck to the rest of us since the precedent set would be that model releases and legal disclaimers do nothing to protect liability. I wonder why so many companies even put disclaimers on their ads if, as buddy on the left suggests, they don't actually do anything.

Of course there's the case of Madonna who posed nude at 18 and could do nothing about it when those shots were published in Penthouse magazine. Maybe model releases do work.

« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 14:22 »
+1
As soon as I read "interrupting and yelling" I knew it would be Fox because that's what they sell.  And how about that bimbo delivering the story, interjecting the occasional "Ok?" and referring to "that guy".    Fox makes us look like a nation of fools.

« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 14:49 »
0
+1


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1885 Views
Last post November 02, 2006, 18:06
by Keefo
13 Replies
6585 Views
Last post April 28, 2011, 20:00
by jbarber873
1 Replies
1068 Views
Last post February 22, 2013, 10:09
by Poncke
3 Replies
900 Views
Last post September 02, 2013, 00:23
by jsfoto
3 Replies
2593 Views
Last post March 15, 2014, 13:40
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results