Model Wins Lawsuit Against French Playboy For Publishing 'Unauthorized' Naked Photos

from the publicity-rights? dept

Erik sent over the the news that Dutch model Lara Stone has apparently won damages against French Playboy for publishing what were referred to as "unauthorized" photos of her in their June issue. Tragically, much of the reporting on this doesn't explain what kind of photos we're talking about (from the description, it almost sounded like photos taken while she was unaware). However, in the interest of understanding the legal implications only (of course), I (ahem) found the photos in question (oh so very NSFW). The photos all appear to be professional studio shots, most likely from a single photoshoot. Stone claims that her main complaint was just that "no woman wants photos of them to be published in Playboy without permission." However, I'm wondering how French Playboy got the photos in the first place, and if it wouldn't have a claim against the photographer, if he had claimed the rights to the photos (and produced a signed model release form). Obviously, the photos themselves were initially taken with permission, since it's clearly a professional photoshoot. So, where in the process did the photos become "unauthorized"?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 3:49pm

    The face of that woman reminds me of zombies.

    Anyways I'm curious to know where it became unauthorized.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 3:51pm

    Re:

    The moment she found out that the legal system allowed for "damages".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

    France is a funny country.

    I wonder what they will do about the threats that Bin Laden made to them. They probably surrender and sue anybody reporting on the surrender for copyright infringement LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Lar Fleet, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:25pm

    Re:

    Yeah, it's too bad George Bush wasn't interested in capturing Bin Laden, he would have done the whole world a big favor. Just another failure of his liberal administration to add to the list, I guess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:45pm

    The judge will need a 15 minute recess to study the evidence in the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:56pm

    Re:

    I laughed when I saw your post.

    On to the article itself. I am betting that she had a thing where on a CASE BY CASE BASIS, she had to give permission to use her photographs.

    If the photographer included photos that the woman said "No, I don't want those to be put in the magazine!" because they were too explicit or something similar?
    THEN the photographer should be in trouble, not Playboy France.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Christopher (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:57pm

    Re:

    Probably because she had, as I pointed out, a case-by-case (photo-by-photo) approval thing in her contract with the photographer and Playboy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    wordsworm (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:59pm

    America is a funny country.

    It thought that it could show the world how great of a military it had by showing up France in Vietnam. We all know how that turned out. We also know that starting with Regan, Bin Laden got his arms and funding from the US government.

    I don't think it's the nude photos that bother Lara Stone so much as where they were published. It's too bad that the author didn't do a bit more digging. Looking around myself, it would appear that the agency Icon ought to have borne most of the blame since they did not verify that the buyer was a tasteful publisher. In other words, she doesn't want to be associated with porn. I can understand how she might be upset and how that could have a seriously negative impact on her career.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Paul`, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 5:00pm

    Didn't sign a release?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Vigo, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 5:47pm

    I'm sure she was unaware

    Naw, I'm sure those are just from hidden cameras in her very empty, "studio" apartment. She's not crouched seductively, she's just looking for her contact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 6:22pm

    Italy is a funny country.

    I mean, it kinda looks like a boot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 6:46pm

    Re: Re:

    "On to the article itself. I am betting that she had a thing where on a CASE BY CASE BASIS, she had to give permission to use her photographs."

    Odd that's not mentioned.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:13pm

    I've had better

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 4:42am

    She never posed for Playboy!

    Actually, while Lara did pose nude for some photographer, the pictures were never meant to be used in Playboy magazine. She posed for the Pirelli calendar and several similar artistic photo collections but Playboy is a (softcore) porn magazine. And she doesn't want to be associated with such magazines simply because it hurts her career in the modelling world.
    These photo's were made by Greg Lotus (http://greglotus.com) and were probably meant to be published in Vogue magazine. The pictures were made somewhen in november or december of 2009.
    And apparently she can dictate the conditions of when and where they can be published.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Bill G, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 4:52am

    Well she broke a very simple rule

    Never do something on film that you do not want anyone to see. Once taken and you are not in control, it will get out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Vigo, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 5:42am

    Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    And she doesn't want to be associated with such magazines simply because it hurts her career in the modelling world.

    It doesn't hurt her career as much as suing companies that want to use her photos. I don't think anyone would want to deal with her now.

    And apparently she can dictate the conditions of when and where they can be published.
    That's probably the core of her argument. I am guessing they told her the photos were solely for the calendar, but if the studio followed contract standards, then they probably had her sign away the rights to the photos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 5:45am

    Re: America is a funny country.

    Wait a sec, playboy is porn?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 5:50am

    Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    Interesting, you are saying that had these pics been published in Vogue, they would not be considered porn, however since they appear in playboy they are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 5:59am

    Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    It's not my opinion. It's her argument! Vogue is a fashion magazine, mostly meant for women. Playboy is about all things that men are interested in and is more an erotic/softcore magazine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 6:02am

    Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    Actually, it does harm her career, since some modelling agencies won't want to hire models who've appeared nude in playboy magazine or similar magazines. The reputation of a model is very important in the modelling world. The playboy-article just destroyed her reputation as the "innocent girl next door" image, because Playboy is associated with erotics, not fashion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Any Mouse, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 8:29am

    Re: Re:

    And this makes Playboy liable how, exactly? Such an agreement would have been with the photographer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 9:26am

    wow... shes uh...
    ...kinda fugly for a model...


    but more on topic, its not like this is the first time playboy has paid money for images they really did not have the rights to and published them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    AnonCow, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 10:24am

    That chick is the definition of a butterface.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Joshy, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Playboy has done this so many times over the years. This reminds me of the Jessica Alba lawsuit. She flat out refused and was the "Most gorgeous Women in America at the time So they went round and round trying to figure out how to get her or pictures of her from elsewhere she was upset because she didn't want anything to do with or to promote PB and then one month she is suddenly on the cover.

    This link doesn't do justice to the full story. "http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/alba-threatens-playboy-over-cover-pic

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

    However, in the interest of understanding the legal implications only (of course), I (ahem) found the photos in question (oh so very NSFW).

    NSFW, unless you work at Techdirt...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    But they don't mind hiring ones who have appeared nude in a calendar? That's bizzarre.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Oct 29th, 2010 @ 3:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    I know it's bizarre. But it's the context of the nudity. If it's artistically done then less people will object. But Playboy is an erotic magazine, even though some guys consider the pictorials to be artistic...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 29th, 2010 @ 6:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    But Playboy is an erotic magazine

    Sure, I just don't get how a nude calendar is different. Magazine with erotic photos of naked women vs. calendar with erotic photos of naked women. It's not like one of them's hardcore. I just don't get the difference.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    tax cpe, Oct 31st, 2010 @ 8:21pm

    Which one

    Which one of those pictures was she complaining about? They all look the same to me. She was nude/almost nude on those so what's her fuss about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    JTChicago, Jan 19th, 2011 @ 4:35pm

    Greg Lotus is a pretty respected photographer and done some exceptional work. So this is somewhat baffling. French Playboy is more about 'art' and taste as opposed to US-PB which is more about low-brow, and appealing to the lowest common denominator. And as far as Lara Stone is concerned, why is she concerned? It is not like this appeared in Penthouse or Hustler. It makes no sense other then she was having a beef with Greg Lotus. In the final anaylsis, Lara makes millions and probably had other ideas for these pics like selling them to Max, Purple, or some other artsy magazine rather then Playboy-France. Since Lotus knows his stuff, I am fair certain he HAD a consent signed. It just proves that releases mean nothing and the model [will always] have final say on where her pics are published.

    One thing is certain, Lotus will most likely not want to shoot her again, and Lara should marry a 'baller' and retire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    JTchicago (profile), Jan 19th, 2011 @ 4:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!

    My guess is [as with most models] they demand a higher amount of pay to bear their bods. I am pretty sure she received a heafty sum for her 2009 and 2011 Pirelli Cals. But then look who took the shots for the 2011; Karl Lagerfeld; Head designer and creative director for the fashion house Chanel. Lagerfeld helms his own label fashion house, as well as the Italian house Fendi.

    Do the Math.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This