Show Posts
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: model might try to sue me
« on: December 10, 2014, 19:36 »
Some people have already touched back on this but if you refer to Resnick's very first post he says this,
He doesn't specifically say himself that he promised her anything other than stating that Shutterstock has TOS in place for such uses that she expressed concern about. I assume she read the release before signing it and there is a witness as well. If she had any real concern at all that the photos would be misused then she should have amended the release before signing it. So she's obviously aware that there could be misuse if she specifically asked if they could end up on a porn site. Here is a link to a copy of the release>> http://ia802500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf
It's also obvious that she loved the photos. Immediately after the NY Post article she changed her profile picture to a picture taken by Mr. Resnick. Check it out >> https://www.facebook.com/nikkie.nicole.18
It's apparent she wanted the added publicity if you look at her comments. Having the article released itself is a direct contributor to her image being portrayed negatively. Here is a bit from the NY Post article, She was mortified, her lawyer, Michael OShea, told The Post." If she had any concern about her public image before, just go look at the comments people are leaving on the posting of the article on NY Post's Facebook page and other places like Daily Mail>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864439/Glamour-model-sues-photographer-lingerie-pictures-used-advertise-porn-Swiss-call-girls-Horny-Housewives-Dubai-erotica.html
If Ms. Forni was "mortified" before then she just made it a whole lot worse. I suppose all the added negative attention is Mr. Resnicks fault as well. It's ridiculous to make a claim of embarrassment then become the catalyst of something that embarrasses you further.
Here is bit directly from the court document submitted by Ms. Forni's lawyer,
30. This case involves the fraudulent inducement and subsequent fraudulent and illegal use of the Plaintiffs photographic images for profit, without the consent or compensation to the Plaintiff, and all of which has caused and will continue to cause vocational and/or professional damage to the current and future modeling prospects of the Plaintiff.
31. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC 1331 and 15 USC 1121.
32. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC 1332, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, and this Court has jurisdiction over all of the state law claims pursuant to 28 USC 1367(a).
33. Plaintiff is a professional model who has been paid and
continues to be paid for professional modeling work.
34. On or about January 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant Resnick to see if the Plaintiff would be willing to work for what is called a Trade for Portfolio (TP), which is a modeling industry arrangement where the model does a photo shoot with a photographer on a service exchange compensation basis wherein the photographer gets to add photos to his/her portfolio and the model gets to add photos to his/her portfolio.
35. Plaintiff agreed to and did travel to the Defendant Resnicks photography studio in Columbus, Ohio to take the
photographs for the TP.
36. Prior to the commencement of the TP session, Plaintiff conditioned her involvement in the TP session with an oral and unconditional promise from Defendant Resnick that none of the photos Defendant Resnick was going to take of the Plaintiff would be used, directly or indirectly, in any adult-oriented pornographic, or obscene manner, and Plaintiff expressly conditioned her involvement in the photo shoot and with Defendant
Resnick on this basis.
37. After the completion of the TP session but prior to the departure from Defendant Resnicks studio, Plaintiff signed a Universal Adult Model Release for All Agencies written document (the Resnick Document) which did not memorialize the oral agreement Plaintiff had with Defendant Resnick and did contain an integration and/or merger clause. A copy of the Resnick Document is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.
38. Because of the lack of a integration and/or merger clause, all of the oral statements, representations and/or promises made by Defendant Resnick, are part of the complete contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Resnick (the Resnick Contract).
39. Almost immediately after the completion of the photo shoot, Defendant Resnick, in complete violation of the Resnick Contract, began to sell the photos of the Plaintiff on the internet to various purchasers for adult-oriented and/or sexual purposes, including but not limited to Defendant Shutterstock, Defendant Playboy, Defendant Emma Nichols, Defendant Hunt, Defendant Griffin, Defendant Ray, Defendant Avery, Defendant Madison, Defendant
Armstrong, Defendant Lothario, Defendant BradP, Defendant Blush Pittsburgh, Defendant Blush Portland, Defendant Vegas Cabaret, Defendant Love Store, Defendant Red Radio, Defendant Clear Channel, Defendant MUZU, Defendant FVE, Defendant UPROXX, Defendant Model Mayhem.com, Defendant Clover, all of the John Doe Internet
Photograph Company defendants, the US Porn Companies and the Non-Us Porn Companies (all of these defendants being hereinafter collectively referred to as the Adult Photo Companies).
Lets tackle the first problem I have with this. I've read all the posts on this forum and Mr. Resnick wrote this,
Well that is definitely not "trade for portfolio" as her lawyer claims in the doc. She was clearly compensated plus he mentioned they would be used for Stock photography directly to her. Her lawyer goes on to mention the release and how the oral agreement was not added to the release by an amendment but is then considered part of a complete contract. The backbone of this entire lawsuit is based on "he said" "she said". The next problem I see is that her lawyer goes on to imply the he sold the images directly to the defendants that misused her images, rather than specifying that Shutterstock was the agency in control of all sales. This is severe misinformation. The outcome of this could affect any photographer who uses models for stock. Better reverse image search your portfolio for misuse because a model could make "baseless" claims of oral agreement, as Mr. Resnick's lawyer puts it, and sue you over the usage of the images. We assume the universal adult model release for all agencies would protect him. Better hope so.
I shot a model last year for some glamour shots to use for stock. I told her it would be used for stock, and she signed a model release. She expressed concern about her images ending up on a porn site, I told her shutterstock does not allow images to be used for pornographic purposes, which she seemed relieved about. All well and good right?
He doesn't specifically say himself that he promised her anything other than stating that Shutterstock has TOS in place for such uses that she expressed concern about. I assume she read the release before signing it and there is a witness as well. If she had any real concern at all that the photos would be misused then she should have amended the release before signing it. So she's obviously aware that there could be misuse if she specifically asked if they could end up on a porn site. Here is a link to a copy of the release>> http://ia802500.us.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347/gov.uscourts.ohnd.209347.2.1.pdf
It's also obvious that she loved the photos. Immediately after the NY Post article she changed her profile picture to a picture taken by Mr. Resnick. Check it out >> https://www.facebook.com/nikkie.nicole.18
It's apparent she wanted the added publicity if you look at her comments. Having the article released itself is a direct contributor to her image being portrayed negatively. Here is a bit from the NY Post article, She was mortified, her lawyer, Michael OShea, told The Post." If she had any concern about her public image before, just go look at the comments people are leaving on the posting of the article on NY Post's Facebook page and other places like Daily Mail>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2864439/Glamour-model-sues-photographer-lingerie-pictures-used-advertise-porn-Swiss-call-girls-Horny-Housewives-Dubai-erotica.html
If Ms. Forni was "mortified" before then she just made it a whole lot worse. I suppose all the added negative attention is Mr. Resnicks fault as well. It's ridiculous to make a claim of embarrassment then become the catalyst of something that embarrasses you further.
Here is bit directly from the court document submitted by Ms. Forni's lawyer,
30. This case involves the fraudulent inducement and subsequent fraudulent and illegal use of the Plaintiffs photographic images for profit, without the consent or compensation to the Plaintiff, and all of which has caused and will continue to cause vocational and/or professional damage to the current and future modeling prospects of the Plaintiff.
31. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC 1331 and 15 USC 1121.
32. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC 1332, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, and this Court has jurisdiction over all of the state law claims pursuant to 28 USC 1367(a).
33. Plaintiff is a professional model who has been paid and
continues to be paid for professional modeling work.
34. On or about January 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant Resnick to see if the Plaintiff would be willing to work for what is called a Trade for Portfolio (TP), which is a modeling industry arrangement where the model does a photo shoot with a photographer on a service exchange compensation basis wherein the photographer gets to add photos to his/her portfolio and the model gets to add photos to his/her portfolio.
35. Plaintiff agreed to and did travel to the Defendant Resnicks photography studio in Columbus, Ohio to take the
photographs for the TP.
36. Prior to the commencement of the TP session, Plaintiff conditioned her involvement in the TP session with an oral and unconditional promise from Defendant Resnick that none of the photos Defendant Resnick was going to take of the Plaintiff would be used, directly or indirectly, in any adult-oriented pornographic, or obscene manner, and Plaintiff expressly conditioned her involvement in the photo shoot and with Defendant
Resnick on this basis.
37. After the completion of the TP session but prior to the departure from Defendant Resnicks studio, Plaintiff signed a Universal Adult Model Release for All Agencies written document (the Resnick Document) which did not memorialize the oral agreement Plaintiff had with Defendant Resnick and did contain an integration and/or merger clause. A copy of the Resnick Document is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A.
38. Because of the lack of a integration and/or merger clause, all of the oral statements, representations and/or promises made by Defendant Resnick, are part of the complete contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Resnick (the Resnick Contract).
39. Almost immediately after the completion of the photo shoot, Defendant Resnick, in complete violation of the Resnick Contract, began to sell the photos of the Plaintiff on the internet to various purchasers for adult-oriented and/or sexual purposes, including but not limited to Defendant Shutterstock, Defendant Playboy, Defendant Emma Nichols, Defendant Hunt, Defendant Griffin, Defendant Ray, Defendant Avery, Defendant Madison, Defendant
Armstrong, Defendant Lothario, Defendant BradP, Defendant Blush Pittsburgh, Defendant Blush Portland, Defendant Vegas Cabaret, Defendant Love Store, Defendant Red Radio, Defendant Clear Channel, Defendant MUZU, Defendant FVE, Defendant UPROXX, Defendant Model Mayhem.com, Defendant Clover, all of the John Doe Internet
Photograph Company defendants, the US Porn Companies and the Non-Us Porn Companies (all of these defendants being hereinafter collectively referred to as the Adult Photo Companies).
Lets tackle the first problem I have with this. I've read all the posts on this forum and Mr. Resnick wrote this,
I have texts, and paypal records proving I paid her. I actually paid her through her old agency, she even confirmed she got the payment via text and email.
Well that is definitely not "trade for portfolio" as her lawyer claims in the doc. She was clearly compensated plus he mentioned they would be used for Stock photography directly to her. Her lawyer goes on to mention the release and how the oral agreement was not added to the release by an amendment but is then considered part of a complete contract. The backbone of this entire lawsuit is based on "he said" "she said". The next problem I see is that her lawyer goes on to imply the he sold the images directly to the defendants that misused her images, rather than specifying that Shutterstock was the agency in control of all sales. This is severe misinformation. The outcome of this could affect any photographer who uses models for stock. Better reverse image search your portfolio for misuse because a model could make "baseless" claims of oral agreement, as Mr. Resnick's lawyer puts it, and sue you over the usage of the images. We assume the universal adult model release for all agencies would protect him. Better hope so.
