DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Stock Photography >> Farmer, Goose, State Fair, and no model release!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 48, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/21/2007 09:51:02 AM · #1
An interesting story to read ==> "Embarrassed" Poultry Farmer Sues Photo Agencies

Noticed this in our local paper yesterday, and searched today to find the above related link.

Enjoy. :D
09/21/2007 09:58:53 AM · #2
Originally posted by article:

It seeks a combined $23,200,000 in damages.


wow!!!!
09/21/2007 10:05:20 AM · #3
Whilst serious, VERY VERY funny
09/21/2007 10:08:00 AM · #4
So, I'm thinking, produce the signed release and be done with it already?
09/21/2007 10:11:38 AM · #5
The case will be quickly closed once the model release papers are shown. If no model release papers are given then the companies really need to crack down on proof shown before purchase for such large scale distribution.

And actually seeking a combined $23,200,000 in damages. that is just out and out ridiculous! In my book, someone is really greedy.
09/21/2007 10:12:16 AM · #6
Originally posted by karmat:

So, I'm thinking, produce the signed release and be done with it already?


same here.

and, speaking of nonsense:

Originally posted by article:


It claims that goosing is a crime under Virginia's object sexual penetration laws.


wha...? why does the government have to define which orifices are penetratable?

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 10:12:23.
09/21/2007 10:12:25 AM · #7
I hope he wins it all.
09/21/2007 10:19:20 AM · #8
The article says the original image was shot for commercial purposes (to promote the state fair). That means there HAD to be a model release signed for that shoot (in theory). Sounds like a lot of sensationalism because the shot is amusing....

Will he sue the newspapers for their use of the image as well?
09/21/2007 10:21:34 AM · #9
Originally posted by idnic:

Will he sue the newspapers for their use of the image as well?


that's editorial use, so it wouldn't need a model release.

in theory there was a model release at the beginning, but in theory it would have also specified what the intent of the shot was for and who owned it.

if the dude just signed a generic release form that says the photographer owns it, he's out of luck. but if the photographer verbally represented what the photo was for (the state fair) then had the model sign a generic release, then i would consider that a breach of verbal contract and the farmer has a leg to stand on.
09/21/2007 10:26:02 AM · #10
Originally posted by idnic:

The article says the original image was shot for commercial purposes (to promote the state fair). That means there HAD to be a model release signed for that shoot (in theory). ...

The fair is a paid attraction. Any release would be a contract between the fair and the photographer, yes? Unless by buying a ticket to the fair waives your (any individual) rights, I don't see how the farmer's photo could be used without an individual model release.

Actually, the farmer was a fair participant (exhibitor) I think, hmmm...does that change anything?
09/21/2007 11:32:47 AM · #11
Here's a similar case about a girl's image being used for a cell phone ad, only there's no mention of a release.
09/21/2007 11:38:57 AM · #12
If he wins, this will really be the goose that lid the golden egg. And it will also set a presidence that will be used in other cases. The more cases that win like this, the worse it will be for any photographer that does stock photography or sells their work to be used commercially. Just like suits have ruined the insurance and medical industry.

I lived in Virginia for 8 years... they have some very odd laws on the books that go back a long time. Many people don't realize that once you get away from the corner that is near Wash. DC the state is a totally different state.

Mike
09/21/2007 11:39:41 AM · #13
It is rather ironic to think that by bringing the lawsuit up, the guy had to realize that the exposure of the shot was only going to be ratcheted up exponentially. This is another case of some doofus thinking that they've been wronged, someone has to pay, and this is his winning lottery ticket.
09/21/2007 11:53:57 AM · #14
Originally posted by alanfreed:

It is rather ironic to think that by bringing the lawsuit up, the guy had to realize that the exposure of the shot was only going to be ratcheted up exponentially. This is another case of some doofus thinking that they've been wronged, someone has to pay, and this is his winning lottery ticket.

If there isn't a model release, don't you think he should have been compensated for the use of the photo on the birthday card? Not $22mil of course, but still...
09/21/2007 12:20:42 PM · #15
I would agree that the model release is definitely an issue in the case, but as soon as someone decides that their feelings were hurt to the tune of $22 million, they're a nutcase in my book.

I mean, if someone had taken out a full-page ad in the paper and put in big print, "ANRED E. MARSINKO IS A WEIRD-LOOKING DUDE WHO ENJOYS HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX WITH VARIOUS FORMS OF POULTRY!" -- Then I'd say he should get a hefty sum... but still nowhere in the neighborhood of $22 million. He needs to get over himself.

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

It is rather ironic to think that by bringing the lawsuit up, the guy had to realize that the exposure of the shot was only going to be ratcheted up exponentially. This is another case of some doofus thinking that they've been wronged, someone has to pay, and this is his winning lottery ticket.

If there isn't a model release, don't you think he should have been compensated for the use of the photo on the birthday card? Not $22mil of course, but still...
09/21/2007 12:24:59 PM · #16
Originally posted by glad2badad:

If there isn't a model release, don't you think he should have been compensated for the use of the photo on the birthday card? Not $22mil of course, but still...


This kind of begs the question. If there IS a model release, it's almost certainly a generic one for promotion of the State Fair. If it's an individual model release, it should have specified the intended use of the image.

So, does the photographer have the RIGHT to release the license of this image for stock?

The fact of the matter is that the actual use of the image has humiliated the man, and I can't say I blame him. It's a fairly nasty card, from the model's perspective. You can be sure he would not have "approved" the card if given the option.

So do WE, as photographers or as companies using images as part of our products, have the right to mock people who are recognizable in our images, just because we have a model release? We probably do, yes, but I can see why he is upset.

R.
09/21/2007 12:31:06 PM · #17
Originally posted by MikeJ:

...Just like suits have ruined the insurance and medical industry....

Mike


So doctors who have left patients dismembered or disfigured or disabled or in permanent pain or just simply dead...had nothing to do with this?
09/21/2007 12:36:53 PM · #18
Originally posted by pekesty:

Originally posted by MikeJ:

...Just like suits have ruined the insurance and medical industry....

Mike


So doctors who have left patients dismembered or disfigured or disabled or in permanent pain or just simply dead...had nothing to do with this?


That's correct. NOBODY believes there should be no compensation for gross negligence/malpractice on the part of doctors. But the legal system in the USA, at least, is absolutely choked with ridiculous cases demanding grotesque amounts of compensation for things that do not, IMO, warrant it. The medical establishment is especially vulnerable to this, and the cost of malpractice insurance has gotten so high that the system is in danger of collapsing.

R.
09/21/2007 12:41:50 PM · #19
Originally posted by alanfreed:

...but as soon as someone decides that their feelings were hurt to the tune of $22 million, they're a nutcase in my book....


It's not strictly about the value you put on his hurt feelings. For the sake of argument let's say he has a legitimate case, do you think if he sued for two grand it would really make much of an impression on the large companies that are involved. Yeah, it would put a serious dent in our wallets, but that's not going to make those companies think twice about wronging someone else again.
09/21/2007 12:42:12 PM · #20
Sure, but people who decide to sue a doctor for $22 million because their baby was born with a birth defect despite the fact that the mother had spent her entire pregnancy on crack... those are the kinds of people who have had a LOT more to do with this.

Originally posted by pekesty:

So doctors who have left patients dismembered or disfigured or disabled or in permanent pain or just simply dead...had nothing to do with this?
09/21/2007 12:44:21 PM · #21
Originally posted by MikeJ:

If he wins, this will really be the goose that lid the golden egg. And it will also set a presidence that will be used in other cases. The more cases that win like this, the worse it will be for any photographer that does stock photography or sells their work to be used commercially. Just like suits have ruined the insurance and medical industry.

I lived in Virginia for 8 years... they have some very odd laws on the books that go back a long time. Many people don't realize that once you get away from the corner that is near Wash. DC the state is a totally different state.

Mike


So, if I sign a release to use my likeness to promote one thing, in this case a fair, that somehow should give the photographer the right to use my likeness in any way possible, no matter the effect on my life?

09/21/2007 12:46:51 PM · #22
You can change the picture subject to point out the issue more easily. (The goose is sorta silly so gets in the way).

Farmer John signs a release that says his image can be used for promoting the fair. The image gets put on Getty and gets sold for a pharma ad promoting the latest herpes drug.

Would you say Farmer John has any recompense or say about whether his face can be used to sell Valtrex?

Message edited by author 2007-09-21 12:47:24.
09/21/2007 12:51:01 PM · #23
Originally posted by alanfreed:

Sure, but people who decide to sue a doctor for $22 million because their baby was born with a birth defect despite the fact that the mother had spent her entire pregnancy on crack... those are the kinds of people who have had a LOT more to do with this.

Originally posted by pekesty:

So doctors who have left patients dismembered or disfigured or disabled or in permanent pain or just simply dead...had nothing to do with this?


My point was simply that not every single lawsuit out there is frivolous. You guys have implied that every person that sues is some sort of greedy crackpot.
09/21/2007 12:52:52 PM · #24
Originally posted by pekesty:

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Sure, but people who decide to sue a doctor for $22 million because their baby was born with a birth defect despite the fact that the mother had spent her entire pregnancy on crack... those are the kinds of people who have had a LOT more to do with this.

Originally posted by pekesty:

So doctors who have left patients dismembered or disfigured or disabled or in permanent pain or just simply dead...had nothing to do with this?


My point was simply that not every single lawsuit out there is frivolous. You guys have implied that every person that sues is some sort of greedy crackpot.


I don't see that implication anywhere, sorry.

R.
09/21/2007 01:00:08 PM · #25
uh funny but....who cares.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/06/2019 04:05:58 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/06/2019 04:05:58 AM EST.