Joeys Angels wrote:

WOW, you still have an answering machine???  J/k--That guy does sound pretty creepy.  I would suggest taking out a restraining order just to show that you mean business.  Plus, if he violates the restraining order, you'll have a solid legal foundation for taking further action against him (i.e., calling the police!).

one problem with everyone continuing to suggest this.  A restraining order can seriously damage a mans life.  It goes on record with the police.  If you get pulled over it's there on the screen.......suddenly this situation that is likely finished follows this guy for years.  I'd be willing to bet that big company background checks can even pull up this kind of information.  Would you hire someone who has a restraining order against them?

If the behavior continues I would bet that the threat alone would be enough to stop him.  Tell him first and then follow up if he continues.

Ian DeBow wrote:

one problem with everyone continuing to suggest this.  A restraining order can seriously damage a mans life.  It goes on record with the police.  If you get pulled over it's there on the screen.......suddenly this situation that is likely finished follows this guy for years.  I'd be willing to bet that big company background checks can even pull up this kind of information.  Would you hire someone who has a restraining order against them?

If the behavior continues I would bet that the threat alone would be enough to stop him.  Tell him first and then follow up if he continues.

you dont watch cops do you???

JM Dean wrote:
So what did you do to him so he acted this way? Always two sides to a story...

I think someone asked the Son of Sam victims the same question......

Freaks don't really need a reason to be freaks.

Mary wrote:

well if its a requirement to show your address and you can not cover it up....I would just not do this type of shoot.  It's honestly not worth the money.

It's a requirement as proof of age. You can block out the address as long as you can see the age.

Ron B Blake wrote:
I never require specific details such as home address with models.
For example with a college students a school photo ID , a valid e mail address and cell phone number is more then sufficient and im told legal  or work address.
If legal matters required further  details, this can easily be obtained from an employer.
Why? I would prefer not to get involved  with personal information in a business were the model will most likley be working with a variety of people as he or she builds there portfolio in net working.

Sincerely
Ron Blake

Plan ahead, expect the worst prepare for the best

DeBoer Photography wrote:
Doh!  You mean Mary's not the mysterious masked lady on her Avatar???!!!

Hehehe! Nope, that would be Katerina, a pretty little model from Moscow. Here's my version of the same model:

DeBoer Photography wrote:
Doh!  You mean Mary's not the mysterious masked lady on her Avatar???!!!

Oh, and (even though Mary will shoot this down), I like to take credit for helping her get the catalog cover in her avatar. Here's the mask she did on one of our shoots - I still contend that one of these shots is what got her that other job.


Makeup, hair and styling all by Mary. What the hell was I there for??  Oh, yeah, to be the GWC... 

pamela mars wrote:

trust me-this story is not fabricated

pamela mars wrote:

\


no he doesn't-but he tried to get them.
he's a crreeep and has been removed from my profile entirely.

Are you going to use the photos he took of you?

DCartist wrote:

Are you going to use the photos he took of you?

no-they're all taken down.
they were the worst in my port anyway.
the problem is-i work promotions through an agency-and if he shows up he will most likely be _____ ___ __ ___ ____ and bug me.
i am letting everyone i know in the public eye to not work with him or anyone he's assosiated with. they all think he's a freak anyway.
i'm not the only one who has issues with him.  he needs to find another habit-for example-he was trying to get somewhat softcore porn out of my friend while she was drunk at a club while he was taking pix for ____ __________. he did one shot of her with a view right up her skirt-clear shot of her crotch-and posted it on the site without her consent. she had to talk to the owner of the site to have it removed cause he refused to take it down himself.
see why i questioned his professionalism?
would any of you guys do this?

DeBoer Photography wrote:
Seriously, I would let this one go.  If you go around saying "bad" things about someone and do not have solid proof to back up your claims, you can find yourself being sued for slander.  Your own character and background will also become under scruitiny.

By continually "spreading the word" to everyone you meet, you sound like you are fixated on this guy...

Just let it go and move on...

If he shows up and acts like a creep towards you, make sure the witnesses remain while you call the cops on him for assault.  In most places, even verbal abuse constitutes an assault.

I wish you the best of luck and know that when you are in the middle of stuff like this...it's hard to "let it go," but seriously...you should.

Regards,

Denoy

i have every single email he's sent saved in my email, i also have all the times he called in that short period of time logged into my phone.
i do know a lot about abuse, i've experienced a lot and this isn't abuse, it's calling him for what he truely is.

pamela mars wrote:
i am letting everyone i know in the public eye to not work with him or anyone he's assosiated with.

I think that's taking it a bit too far and could be interpreted as slander/libel.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right (and could potentially land you in trouble, too.)

pamela mars wrote:
i'm not the only one who has issues with him.  he needs to find another habit-for example-he was trying to get somewhat softcore porn out of my friend while she was drunk at a club while he was taking pix for ____ __________. he did one shot of her with a view right up her skirt-clear shot of her crotch-and posted it on the site without her consent. she had to talk to the owner of the site to have it removed cause he refused to take it down himself.

Why was your friend drunk and letting someone take photographs?  Why did she let him get into a position where he could take a shot like that?  If he was harrasing her in the club, she should have said something to management and had his ass escorted out of the building.

William Kious wrote:

pamela mars wrote:
i am letting everyone i know in the public eye to not work with him or anyone he's assosiated with.

I think that's taking it a bit too far and could be interpreted as slander/libel.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right (and could potentially land you in trouble, too.)


Why was your friend drunk and letting someone take photographs?  Why did she let him get into a position where he could take a shot like that?  If he was harrasing her in the club, she should have said something to management and had his ass escorted out of the building.

when you go out to a club to drink and have fun with your friends and the "photographers" come up to you to take your pix-do you always refuse when you're drunk and thought it was funny at the time?
if you accidently flashed the camera-would the club put that up on their site? no-they wouldn't. this guy did.
for example-search republik nightclub in toronto-go to the underworld evolution party pictures. notice that i am not aware that my picture was being taken in some of them.
this guy does the same thing for a site.  he goes around nightclubs and takes pix of people. he took advantage of his position. any professional would not have done that.

EMB wrote:
Lots of times, people want to hear "both sides" of stories and start to berate models for these kind of posts.

I just want to publicly say that I have had the pleasure of shooting images of Pamela and she is a fun and enjoyable model to spend an afternoon with and I would gladly vouch for her as a decent person anytime. I like Pamela. I had a crush on her in about 2 minutes. Usually, it takes 5 minutes or so.



If she never had any problems with a untalented, perverted hack like me, then there must be something to it when she complains about someone.

o hush!
you're awesome!!!!!!!
muah's dahlink!

pamela mars wrote:
when you go out to a club to drink and have fun with your friends and the "photographers" come up to you to take your pix-do you always refuse when you're drunk and thought it was funny at the time?
if you accidently flashed the camera-would the club put that up on their site? no-they wouldn't. this guy did.

What expectation of privacy do you have when you're in a crowded club?  If women are behaving in a fashion that leads to that kind of "exposure", don't you think the women themselves contribute to the problem?

If someone can't control their behavior at the club, maybe he/she needs to cut back on the drinking.  Just a thought.

BCG wrote:
that is a bit too extreme in this instance.

Depends on what was shot. If there was nudity or anything deamed sexually related, even fetish fashion in some cases, what I say is true, not extreme. One of the most important purposes of a model release is to provide information on the model should the prudes decide to investigate and make sure the model is of legal age to do what she is doing. With the new changes, if the model provides anything other than an actual home address both she and the photographer can get in trouble. One charge they can and have already trumped up on someone is"obstruction of justice" because the fake address the model gave on her model release prevented them from locating her with ease to question her. Crazy, yes, but true. I wish I still had the link to the article.

Sara Green wrote:

A PO Box is an ACTUAL address.

Actual address as in address of where the model lives.

Sara Green wrote:

A PO Box is an ACTUAL address. You can't get a USPS PO Box without showing an ID and the name on the ID is what goes on the box. No mail is delivered unless it has that name on it. If you're trying to make sure something reaches a person (and their real name) a USPS PO Box is the best address to use.

Do you mean this 2257?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html

I don't speak legal (yet ) maybe we're reading different 2257...for example could you point out where this applies to all non-porn models? And also where it says a home address of the model is required? I see address stated only once and it is preceded by the word business not home

A model is actually a business in a way, many models conduct their business(ie recieve calls/emails for shoots, arrange shoots from their home phone,etc. therefore their home is considered a place of business. as for it applying to non porn...anything involving nudity and even most fetish modeling no matter how tame it may appear it is still considered a sexually related form of modeling legally.You even now have to have a section in your release forms asking the models alias`s . The one section where address is mentioned pertains to the custodian of records, not the model.

Ron B Blake wrote:
I never require specific details such as home address with models.
For example with a college students a school photo ID , a valid e mail address and cell phone number is more then sufficient and im told legal  or work address.

Do you at least shoot a pic or or make a photo copy of the ID? Who told you that just an ID, email and phone number were fine?Do you have a lawyer on retainer? You might want to.

William Kious wrote:

What expectation of privacy do you have when you're in a crowded club?  If women are behaving in a fashion that leads to that kind of "exposure", don't you think the women themselves contribute to the problem?

If someone can't control their behavior at the club, maybe he/she needs to cut back on the drinking.  Just a thought.

well-maybe the photographer needs to respect the fact that they were friends and that maybe she felt that she could've trusted him at the time.
maybe he shouldn't have taken advantage of the situation
it's called being professional.

Elektro_Kandy wrote:
I like how she's telling everyone not to work with said person, yet not telling us who the person is. Just pointing out something that hasn't been pointed out yet.

not publicly.