I know one National Geographic photographer who had extensive aerial photographs of the Kalihari Desert published. I asked him - he did not consider himself a "photojournalist", nor his photography, "news".
In your scenario, the model has no recourse. She signed away all rights.
About the Release:
Directly from the "Professional Photographer's Survival Guide", by Charles E. Rotkin, ISBN 0-89879-554-0; p284:
... "There has been litigation concerning advertising photographs when the model or photographer has charged that the pictures published were not for the use intended at the time they were made. In one well-publicized incident, a model posed for an advertising photograph while reading a book in bed. The client was a publisher and the picture was intended to stimulate the sale of books. There was no problem or litigation with the ad that was produced.
However, the picture was subsequently sold to a bed sheet manufacturer and with some suggestive overtones added to the copy, was used to promote the sale of sheets. The model objected, sued, and won her case on invasion of privacy grounds, because the second ad portrayed her in a derogatory manner. She won her case even though she had signed a "broad-form" release giving the photographer and agent the right to "use the photograph for any purpose." The court ruled that it was clear that the model did not intend to allow her photograph to be used in this suggestive manner and felt that the ad did cast her in an unfavoravble light."
My example was simplified and intensified.
A Model Release is a contract, not a license to kill. If you exceed certain limits - most noticeable to me, are those of "good faith" - it is no longer a valid contract.
Rotkin wrote a really good book here. I'd suggest that everyone intending to sell their photographs buy one - and read it.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
The fact that you "intensified" your example means little. Based on your example: "...signed a Model Release - the usual "boilerplate" deal - "Any and all uses, no matter how humiliating or degrading ..." I stand by my statement. She'd have no recourse.
If the actually release was less broad, then that's different.
The Geographic shooters I have known are all photojournalists with with newspaper backgrounds. Some people that shoot for the magazine are not journalists. The magazine is journalism and for the most part, the photography in its pages is photojournalism. This is another topic though...
I admire your tenacity.
Originally Posted by jstraw
Charles E. Rotkin has an impressive resume' - one of a Photographer who has been in the "thick of things" - over, under, and THROUGH the hill many times.
Obviously this will NOT be a win-win discussion, so I'll only repeat the advice to BUY THIS BOOK! The material in there - one way or another - has saved a SIGNIFICANT portion of my gluteus maximus a number of times.
It has even saved visits to my Attorneys, by providing a general framework for what is reality concerning Copyright Law, Model and Property Releases, `Work for Hire', Publication ...
I'll only say that this is a COMPLICATED area of the Law. What seems "simple" to the layman, can be extremely convoluted and tangled.
After the dust settles, my advice: Be a good guy; Don't try to hurt anyone, for any reason. Don't try to cheat anyone out of their share of the pie. Act according to the "Golden Rule".
It is a free country ... follow that advice or don't. Your choice.
People being what they are, you will, occasionally be attacked by Cretins mumbling omething about "A jungle out there". Your best defense will be to refuse to be part of the predator group.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
My tenacity tends to win me both admirers and well...non-admirers. ;-)
My only point was that I was responding to what you actually posted, not knowing it had been intensified.
I'm I could stand to know the legal nuances better than I do.