[rollei_list] Re: What good is a model release now?

  • From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:41:48 -0500

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.


> 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: