Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Conky makes a very astute point...if the girl(s) in question have signed a model release, then they have precious little control over where, when and how said image is used.

---

Not true.

Quote:

---

The models have very little say in usage of their image once they have signed off on the model release....

---

This is only true if the picture was purchased by the party using it. Otherwise, there is a copyright infringement claim as well as a misappropriation of likeness claim.

A quick lesson is that both the photographer and model have claims. The photographer in federal court, IF, they have registered and copyrighted their photo with the copyright office. Mostly likely most photographer's dont do this with every photo. Thus I would rather represent the model on a common law right in state court. Better juries, higher awards/judgements.

The better and easier claim(s) is a misappropriation of likeness/right to publicity for the model. You cant just use someone's image to advertise your goods or services without compensating the model. Its really a slam dunk situation.

Quote:

---

I would think that Michael's issue may not be over the picture per se but the implication that his client, a known celeb, would attend. Maybe using her "celebrity" to gain profit without her benefit

---

100% correct.

Im just wondering when Christian is going to show up and say the only reason why Im doing this is to have sex with the girls in the photo. The over/under is 8 more responses.

Michael
AdultBizLaw.com

---