[rollei_list] Re: What good is a model release now?
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:39:28 -0800
Austin,
There is no such thing in law as an honest mistake! Ref: my attorney.
Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE. It is so easy to say; "Well, I
thought I was doing the right thing" The road to hell is paved with
good intentions.
The 15 megabux was 5% of the PROFITS from this product, from the
time of initial misuse of the photo.
Jerry
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:
