RSS
Vampire Weekend Sued Because Photographer Might Have Falsified Model Release
from the how-is-that-their-fault? dept
Brendan was the first to alert us to the story of how the "girl" who is in the image used on the cover of the last Vampire Weekend album is now suing the band.
She claims the photographer who licensed the image to the band for $5,000 didn't take the photograph and forged a model release. If true, those are serious charges... but should be entirely focused on the photographer. She is suing the photographer, but also claims that the band is responsible for not checking into it, which seems pretty far fetched. Even more ridiculous? She claims that her image is one of the main reasons the album sold so well, so she wants $2 million. Does she really think that if the band had put a different image of a girl staring off into space on the cover, there would have been noticeably different sales?
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for research...
The Growing App Market
Innovate More. Code Less: Optimizing Open-Source Utilization
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Nospam@nospam.com
:-p
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nospam@nospam.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you freakin' kidding me???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you freakin' kidding me???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you freakin' kidding me???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you freakin' kidding me???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nospam@nospam.com
; P
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nospam@nospam.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nospam@nospam.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nospam@nospam.com
Yes. Because the CD is circular. And it has a hole in the middle.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There was another case from the 1990s involving the band Tad and the album "8-Way Santa", where the band had found an old polaroid of a partially-nude man grabbing the breast of a woman. From what I can find on the web, the label immediately pulled the cover; I don't know if any case made it to trial.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the band should have checked into it?!
This "photographer" has probably been doing the lying thief routine for a while. I wonder how many counts of fraud he might be looking at.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
regarding the charges against the band... I wonder if she'll be able to duck fast enough when the judge's gavel flies from his hand toward her face!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an agent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kirsten Kennis -- who claims she took the original photo way back in 1983
From Wikipedia:
Vampire Weekend is an American indie rock band from New York City, formed in 2006
They did not "authorize" the photographer to take the photo on their behalf because they didn't exist then. They paid a guy for something.
This is more like you go into a store and buy a nice picture for your wall and get sued cause you bought the picture from a guy who had no right to sell it. It's "buyer beware" not "buyer be-held liable for anything and everything that could have possibly come before or happened before the buyer bought the item or service"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IANAL, but it would seem to me that band, having hired the photographer with the expectation that he would produce for them original work, is not liable for the infringement.
Rather, the photographer did not stick to the agreement of producing an original work to which he had full rights. Unless the band was aware that the photographer did not have rights to the photograph, I don't see how they can be liable.
In fact, I think the band should sue the photographer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The band will be arguing just that, I'm sure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
AKA: You were wrong...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AKA: You were wrong...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that this picture was taken in 1983, long before the photographer could have possibly acted as the agent of the nonexistent Vampire Weekend.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If anything, the printers/advertisers/etc. were acting as the band's agents when printing up the CD covers, posters, etc.
There's really no need to involve the photographer's alleged acts for a right of publicity claim.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF?
BTW, I wouldn't have paid $500 for her pic much less $5,000. Like most litigation these days, it's all about the money. It don't matter who is being sued for what...it's all about the money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
and this is why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I bought it because of the cover
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
$2m?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $2m?
Answer: 2 million dollars!
Also, I would like to personally thank her for proving that you don't have to be male to be a tool.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Pictures of Girls. Meh.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If people will punish everybody involved lawyers should check their clients also.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
SUE THE PLANET!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
If we make the girl sue the photographer, he bankruptcies out and she sees nothing. This sets the precedent that you need only set up a dummy corporation to hold any infringement liability. If anyone sues, you let it fall on it's sword and get away with it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you use someone else's stuff to make money, they should get a cut. Though I guess that's a foreign concept to record labels.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what? Unless it can be proven that the band and/or their management knew that the photographer was lying (and even that needs to be proven first), they are as much victims of fraud as she was. That's why you should sue the people who actually committed the fraud, not everybody along the line who may or may not have benefited.
"I don't think it's unreasonable to say that if you use someone else's stuff to make money, they should get a cut."
I agree, to a point. In this case, the band were probably under the impression that the $5,000 paid for the image *was* the cut. I'm not sure why they should be sued for more just because the album sold well and they were defrauded. To be sure, it sucks if this is all true but the band have done nothing wrong.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a recent case in New York where a person sat for photographs for personal publicity use. Later she learned that one of the photographs had appeared on a book cover. She brought suit in New York under a state statute and was granted a permanent injunction against the publisher of the book. The tip offered with this was that there was a need for the publisher to do due diligence to make sure the rights were clear. The full decision with some discussion is posted at http://tushnet.blogspot.com/2010/05/book-cover-not-artwork-subject-to-right.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact remain however that the band used a photo they apparently didn't have have the rights to. That being the case, the band are liable to be sued. $2 million isn't that big a deal in todays money for a successful band. They should pay up and reissue the album with new artwork they do have the rights to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The band should not have to pay a dollar for this. They just happen to be the deepest pocket she could find.
Take this example: You run a landscaping business. You bought a lawn mower and that lawn mower used a patented electric starter. After you bought it and used it for two seasons, you find out that the mower manufacturer did not properly license the starter technology.
Should you have to pay 50% of your earnings to the company that patented the starter technology? Of course not. How would it be your fault in any way? Should you have a lawyer look at the technology in everything you purchased to make sure it was all licensed correctly?
There should be heavy penalties for bringing lawsuits with inappropriate applications of liability. The band should not even have to pay legal fees to defend this.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yea whatever
That got me thinking about the current culture. My music was purchase legit and the cover in the download world means less and less. I appreciate a good album cover, I thought this one was really good, but I purchase the music and download it. Back when you bought a physical CD I think it mattered a bit more, but now...I don't think it matters much at all. 2 Mil way to much.
So we shall see. I don't think it will get very far.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know that she has any legal grounds, but I can understand that she might be upset. It's her likeness and it was used without her permission. She's not famous, she never relinquished her public image the way that it could be argued that someone like Madonna has. And besides, maybe it's personal: maybe she thinks Vampire Weekend sucks; a lot of other people do, too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment