Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,985   Posts: 1,523,927   Online: 927
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I've been reading this with more than the usual interest.

    Offhand, I think that the lawyres representing the photographer would have more than a passing interest in the search warrant - those are not usually issued withut "Probable Cause" - and I wonder what was "probable" here.

    An "Invasion of Privacy" - as stated, that would seem to indicate a breach of CIVIL law ... not "criminal" ... and it is one thing to photograph someone without their permission or knowledge ... but unless there is some attempt to make these public, I don't think the idea of "invasion" would hold.

    There is the usual yellow rag syndrome here ... there is not enough information supplied to form any kind of coherent opinion. I can't, for the life of me, imagine any judge issuing a search warrant for simply having nude photographs of someone - anyone - at least if they are over legal age. There has got to be more to the story.

    Hmmm ... a thought. Has Ms. Diaz's popularity been waning lately - and might there be some incentive to GET HER NAME in front of the public...? You think ... maybe...???
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  2. #22
    RAP
    RAP is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    476
    How much money did she get for Charlies Angles 2, I think $20 million? That is as obscene. That is more money then say 10 average Americans make in a lifetime, not to mention Africans, Mexicans and other people in poverty stricken nations. How many movies has she made?
    Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.

  3. #23
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  4. #24
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Her age is 31. I don't believe this is about underage kids, but about extortion.

    I believe a person who uses a photographer for pictures and signs a release then loses all control over the use of the pictures.

    However if these were indeed done by an old boyfriend, and he did call to try to extort money then he's in trouble especially if he forged the model release.

    Without the release even the sleazy tabloids will not publish the pictures.

    I also believe a person, even an actor, has the right to privacy, in their own home (bedroom) and the right to privacy in public restrooms etc.

    If her old boyfriend did take racy pictures of her I believe she still has the right to not expect them published. No publication has the right to make money off of you, without you receiving payment. That is what copyright laws are all about.

    The only recourse for old boyfriends to get back at old relationships would be to distribute them on the internet. This was done by the sleazeball that broke into Pamela Andersons house and stole her honeymoon videotape. After they were on the internet then the tabloids picked them up as being "news" and avoided any payment. She sued but I don't recall what happened because I was too busy watching the tape.


    Michael McBlane

  5. #25
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky
    I believe a person who uses a photographer for pictures and signs a release then loses all control over the use of the pictures.
    Not quite. There was a landmark case where a model posed for what she understood to be "Bedding" - matresses, sheets, etc., advertisements. She was paid, as agreed, signed the usual model release - and found her image on a number of "XXX" rated Video Casette boxes at her local Video Rental Place a few months later.

    She sued, claiming a breach of Good Faith (an essential element in all contracts) and WON BIG, and immediately.

    A model release is a contract allowing the use of one's image within the bounds of legality and "good faith" - not a license for the holder to run roughshod over anyone.

    I'm wondering about this entire deal. Didn't the same thing happen to Madonna ... and that worked out very well for her ... I know that Madonna's PR people had a few discussions about her early nude photos, and their final decision was "So what?".

    BTW ... when I sell a photograph I'll always send a cut of the proceeds to the model... as a token of "good faith".
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    The problem is we don't know what the alleged crime is. It can't be about the release. That would be civil.

  7. #27
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Ed:

    I overstated my case. I agree about the model release part. I've seen a lot of different ones and they do have clauses that govern the totality of the release. Even different lawyers give different opinions on their wording.

    As for the case you quoted, it sounds like her lawyer was better than his. If a model poses for a "bedding ad" and ends up on a video cover either she was underdressed for the bedding ad or was over dressed for the video cover. Either way it sounds like his model release was not up to the quality of his particular speciality.

    Michael McBlane

  8. #28
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  9. #29
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    It's true "public people" don't have to have signed a release because these pictures are considered "news" just as a news photographer doesn't need to get a release. Paparozzi are therefore put into the same legal catagory as news photographers.

    But, you couldn't take a picture of a "public person" and sell it to an advertising agency or stock agency to be used for an ad. That would require a release. Because you are now leaving the "news" arena and entering the "model " arena.

    I think if you were to wander around and take street pictures and not get releases and then at a later date you decided to do a book, that you would then need the releases to be published.

    The only way Cameron Diaz can stop the photographer from making money off these pictures(because of a "reasonable belief of privacy") is by saying there was no release signed. I'll still bet at a later date that they'll show up on the internet or somewhere else because of all the public interest that has been generated. It's just that the photographer won't get anything for is trouble except perhaps a jail sentence for extortion.

    Michael McBlane

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    You know, this thread started to take a nice detour into Canadian bashing, then, for some inexplicable reason, returned to the subject matter. VERY disturbing. So, to get us started in the wrong direction again...

    Remember the Robert Heinlein novel, where in the far distant future the protagonist is explaining Canada to someone who had never heard of it, "Canada was a part of the United States, which somehow managed to avoid paying it fair share of taxes..."

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin