From a cursory reading of the details of the case, the award of 15.6 million dollars seems absurd. If it was an honest mistake, I'm *really* surprised that a jury found it necessary to allow such large punitive damages. I can see perhaps %100 to %300 (if any) punitive damages, but the punitive damages were 45 times what the jury concluded the guy would have made from the "shoot" ($330,000, which I think is absurdly high anyway, he said himself he would have made an extra $2000 if his image was used...so I don't know where they got $330k from). But, without having more details of the case, it's hard to draw a conclusion. But, I hope he gets *some* money, but not anywhere near 15 friggin million. Austin > Hi all, > > I have a question for those who have heard of the recent "Taster's Choice" > case in California, where a jury awarded some ungodly sum of money to a > model whose photo was used by Nestle though they had paid him for a shoot > intended for another of their products. What are the implications for a > model release if the purpose is stock photography? Does this make the > concept of stock photography a risky proposition? > > Regards, > > Neil Gould > >