[rollei_list] Re: What good is a model release now?
- From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:12:48 +0000
It is a long time since a sensible level of damages were awarded for
-anything-. What can be done about this absurdity?
Frank
On 9 Feb, 2005, at 14:41, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts: