[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?

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: