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

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:28:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

Compensation in this instance is completely dependent upon use; that is the 
convention of the industry. If the use was not as agreed, then the payment was 
not appropriate.

In terms of whether the mistake was honest or not, based on what I have 
read/heard there is a legitamate claim here. Many honest mistakes/accidents 
happen which cause people and entities loss or harm, and they are entitled to 

Eric Goldstein

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 9, 2005 12:17 PM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: What good is a model release now?

Hi Richard,

>    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.

The story I read, said he WAS in fact paid.  Again, without having copies of
the documentation or being privy to the actual agreement made (which
typically, is open to interpretation), it's hard to know what is or isn't

> One function of the civil court is to attempt
> to stop undesirable behavior by means of punitive damages.

Well, if something is done by an honest mistake...then how is this a
deterrent?  Accidents are called accidents because they happen by accident.
If they were done on purpose, they would be called unpurposes.

> Many businesses indulge in
> behavior which is unethical because they find it profitable
> and think they are untouchable.

I do not believe that is the case here.  There was no mention (or
accusation) of any intentional violation of ethics in the articles I read.

> The size of the award here
> has more to do with stopping the behavior than with actual
> damages to the model.

How do you believe this stops anything?  I think the results will be less
work and less pay for models.  From what I can tell, when he brought this
issue to their attention, they made what was IMO a fair and reasonable offer
to him ($100k).  On this alone, if there was no proof of maliciousness (and
there was no mention of that from what I read), the courts should have
thrown it out and told him and his lawyer to take the money and be glad.

IF you have a URL of an article that has more pertinent details of this
case, I'd appreciate seeing it.



Other related posts: