Comments on: Having A Model Release Might Still Get You A Lawsuit

By: Thomas Litobro Dang

Thomas Litobro Dang — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:17:00 +0000

I feel the need to agree with Chris and the guy in pink here. Does anybody else think that the waiver probably has a clause that specifies the image can be modified in non-degrading manner? I know all of my waivers do, and I don’t even sell my shots! I just shoot for fun on my blog! This professional ad agency would VERY LIKELY have a clause for allowing them to modify the image and photo that is not in violation of the constitution and anything blatantly trying to slander him.

By: Andreas Dalum Sahl

Andreas Dalum Sahl — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:40:00 +0000

If they had kept the helmet and kept the print as it is, everyone of his co workers would still ask if he was there or think that he took credit for it.. The frame does not make any difference in my opinion. To bad he ended up as a fireman, if he had been a pilot now, he would’t have a problem..

By: Mike Pierce

Mike Pierce — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 17:02:00 +0000

I think the model liked “playing” a firefighter so much, he became one. And the ironic thing is he faked it til he made it. Now he can’t fake the fact that he wasn’t a firefighter when 911 happened. I think he lost all his firefighter cool points for playing fireman before actually becoming one. I can’t wait to hear the news that he has a firefighter calendar coming out! LMAO……

By: Jacopo Tarantino

Jacopo Tarantino — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 03:41:00 +0000

Legally he can’t sue and win. Sadly, it doesn’t matter what they do with the photo as long as he’s waived any right to the image and what’s done with it. I agree that they should have done everything to correct the situation once they heard that they had damaged his reputation but i still believe that he doesn’t have the right to protest. He did sign a binding agreement that he has no right to that photo and what’s done with it. Period. Regardless of the present controversy, can we just agree that Kelly is a poser and emotionally unstable?

By: 'Sa Jamil Hogan

'Sa Jamil Hogan — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:52:00 +0000

I see no case here. The model is angry because his old job came back to bit him in his ass.

He signed a waiver for stock photography which (from the releases I’ve seen) allows the photo to be edited and shown in anyway as long as that way isn’t pornographic or demeaning. If he’s so upset about being misrepresented then he should of never posed as firefighter.

There is no defamation of character anywhere in this ad.

By: Robert Zembrzycki

Robert Zembrzycki — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:09:00 +0000

He was a tiny bit douchey, agreed – it’s the slicky-sly-kind-of-a-lawyer-guy which suggests he might actually be a good one. The point, however, is that he is right in my opinion.

There’s nothing wrong in taking a stock photography and altering it for AD purposes – this is exactly what these are for! (Plus, it’s not cheaping out, because full size good stock pics are often just as expensive as shooting the whole shoot, if you already have a studio (which I bet the ad agency has))

There’s nothing wrong in using a stock photo for an advertisement utilizing EVEN such a sensitive topic as 9/11…

The model/firefighter guy now has a problem, because of an unfortunate coincidence but this is in no way intended by the company and both on moral and legal grounds, they shouldn’t even be concerned about it.

And removing his pic, withdrawing all the printed materials etc – that would cost them a fortune, and would be a punishment for a crime they didn’t commit. Something that firefighter probably can’t comprehend….

By: Robert Zembrzycki

Robert Zembrzycki — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 09:09:00 +0000

He was a tiny bit douchey, agreed – it’s the slicky-sly-kind-of-a-lawyer-guy which suggests he might actually be a good one. The point, however, is that he is right in my opinion.

There’s nothing wrong in using a stock photo for an advertisement utilizing EVEN such a sensitive topic as 9/11…

By: Serhan Mehmet

Serhan Mehmet — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 06:00:00 +0000

Both Lawyers were on the Fox payroll, do you think they would sit there and bark at eachother for 7+ min without billing Fox ???

By: junyang chen

junyang chen — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:56:00 +0000

I dont think the issue is the photograph. He signed a waiver for that.

The issue is that the text suggests that he endorsed the use of his face as a representation of the heros of the fire department at 9/11. which isn’t true

Its an identity theft. The ad firm stole the identity of the heros and placed it on the model without his consent

By: Ghislain Leduc

Ghislain Leduc — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:46:00 +0000

Honestly, the problem is not with the release here, it’s with the sensative way his pictures was used. The release is fine, and legaly, I don’t think he has a case BUT the company who did the add is really in my hubble opinion quite stupid. you do not make an add with such a title on such a sensitive subject as 9/11 with an actor.. Plain and simple and that’s what the problem is. Fire Fighter have bigger Ego than Policemen… don’t mess with those guys, it’s worst than the army I think :)

that’s where the problem is… not with the release.