----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 5:40 AM Subject: [rollei_list] What good is a model release now? > 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 > -------------------------------------- > Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com > Technical Graphics & Media > Its worth finding the news story and reading it. The fellow's picture was used on Taster's Choice lables for years without permission or payment. This wasn't a single violation or a small one. While the award may seem very large it probably isn't in light of the size of Nestle or its revenue. One function of the civil court is to attempt to stop undesirable behavior by means of punitive damages. Since all businesses ultimately aim to maximise return on investment anything which is damaging to that goal will get attention and be changed. Many businesses indulge in behavior which is unethical because they find it profitable and think they are untouchable. The size of the award here has more to do with stopping the behavior than with actual damages to the model. Of course Nestle will appeal and continue litigating. Very often civil cases are won by the side that can out litigate the other rather than on merit. Criminal trials aren't immune to this either as the O.J.Simpson and Kobe Bryant cases demonstrate. --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx