Who's right???

[RockstarPhotography]

Found this on a blog site. Brings up some interesting questions. Who do YOU think is right?

[video]http://youtu.be/27O_jwnpKJU[/video]

 

[xploit]

If his signed a release and if he had some tiny print... I think the model has justice to sew the ad company...

 

[480sparky]

Who's right? Whoever has more money to shovel into a lawyers' pocket.

Edit to add: There's really no way to decide without knowing how the release is written.

 

[KmH]

:er: Who's right will be decided in court based on the facts of the case, not based on a sound bite in a news cast.

Neither of the attorneys in the video seem to be qualified in the applicable specialty of law, publication law. The Defense attorney looked like a model himself. :er:

The case will hinge on the specific language in the particular model release document the model signed.

 

[mikehaugen]

who's to say that the release may not be altered, I know that they can analyze the ink and hire a handwriting specialist to examine to see if he actually signed, but that would be expensive and would be on him to hire these people I imagine. He is especially screwed if he does not have his copy of the original release. It's got to be awfully difficult to try to sue a law firm that may or may not be that ethical to be begin with.

 

[imagemaker46]

It will all come down to the model release that was signed, and there are probably loop holes anyway. This kind of thing happens all the time, but as it seems with pretty much everything, anyone can sue for anything in the States. The MacDonalds spilled coffee years ago where the woman sues for burns because she spills her own coffee in her own lap, and she wins millions for being clumbsy.

The model will settle out of court for enough money to retire.

I went through a lawsuit years ago where a stock photo of mine was sold of an athlete during a competition, without having the model release, however the contract I signed when I sold the photo stated clearly that their was no model release. The multimillion dollar software company I sold it to in turn produced royality free CD's and they used the photo on it, without a model release, the athlete sees himself in an ad for a law firm, problem being is that he was now working for a rival law firm. The cd came with a diclaimer that said they weren't model released. Athlete sures company, company sues me. I talk to the athletes lawyer and explain my side of the story and the contract I had signed, he tells me not to be concerned about it. The company goes bankrupt, athlete gets nothing and case is closed. I just had to go through months of stress even though I had a signed contract. So who is responsible for this one, me for selling it, the software company for putting it on a CD, or the advertising company that used in the ad. I blamed everyone else, and for all the grief, I was paid $100 for the image. I don't sell people stock anymore.

 

[MichiganFarts]

I thought this was already resolved, and they pulled the ad...

here's where I read that http://online.wsj.com/article/AP123a2ce9a16243d9a4d9fabd4d77dea7.html

 

[skieur]

A model release does NOT insulate the photographer or publisher from being sued. It permits the photo to be used for advertising purposes, but photoshoppring the photo and implying a different reality, may be crossing the line.

skieur