Discussion in 'General Shop Talk' started by KmH, Jul 16, 2010.
Here's one worth following:
Model sues Vampire Weekend over 'Contra' cover - MSN Music News
Odd...I wonder what kind of model release would give a model the right to veto potential uses for the photos from a session when the end use is not porn or something like that????
If I read the story correctly she claims she never signed a model release back in 1983 when the image was made.
Ouch that might be hard to prove (on both sides) as that is cutting the clock back quite a way. However unless she can prove that it is beyond doubt a forgery I doubt she will win the case.
I'm not sure what it is you are trying to do but if you post enough threads about photogs getting sued, yes, you will create the illusion that it is a dangerous profession.
It is not. You make me think of the government that tries so hard to rule us through fear.
I'm not trying to do anything beyond sharing what I thought was an interesting, and related to the General Shop Talk forum section, news item.
Very interesting read that one, thanks Keith for sharing
Would really like to know, how this case ends - i.e. who wins in the end. Guess both sides really will have quite a hard time proving anything...
Actually the legal standard is much less than that. In civil cases it's what's called a "preponderance of the evidence," which is basically more likely than not. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the higher, criminal standard.
Regardless of how it ends, the lawyers will always win
man that is going to be tough to prove in her favor or against her favor... who would keep a model release that old...
A professional photographer.
That's what they get for trying to go cheap.
Actually paying someone for an image would have cost far less than spending $100 or whatever on a stock photo.
not a bad band though.
Separate names with a comma.