Lens N Light wrote:
Does this tell us anything about the power of a model release? Apparently the agency who took the pictures had a relesae giving them rights to the pictures and they then sold them to Playboy.
Right or no?

There are certain types of releases that specifically outline when and how to use certain pictures. If she took pictures to go with a story on, let's say, a charity event, then those photos ought not be used as a cover as if to suggest that Playboy has nude photos of her which is the certain implication.

Think about it. If indeed they did agree to a layout like I described and NOTHING more, it would stand to reason that she was not paid for the shoot -which is fine by her because - in her mind - she's not doing it for a sexual layout. At the same time however, Playboy is using those very same photos to sell magazines by putting her on the cover - THE NERVE

Her biggest dumb move in this whole thing is she didn't stop to think .....
Duh, IT's PLAYBOY.

What was she looking for in the first place?

TheModelPhotographer wrote:
Well, if she signed the release after fully going over it and reading and understanding that they had the rights to do as they wished with the photos, then there is not much she can do.

That isn't necessarily true.  A Model Release will allow the consideration to release imaging, but if the release of that imaging is deemed to cause harm or damage then that will take precedence over the release itself. 

Additionally, if the stated intention of the release didn't disclose potential to any and all possibility where damage or harm could be caused, then that might open the door to fraud.

A release is pretty ironclad for imaging used within discretion.  It is not when the imaging is used that may cause damage and harm to one's reputation or does not fully disclose purpose and intent.

The above is one of the primary reasons models should never sign a Model Release granting full rights without specificity (read TFP).  The easiest explanation to the photographer is that without knowing exactly where the imaging will land, not signing the release is in the best interest of the photographer as it will eliminate any future damages potential.  The best response...if the imaging is worth releasing, come see see me then and we'll talk about it.

glenn usdin wrote:
Celebrities don't need or sign releases for editorial work. I sell some celebrity images to stock agencies and never get a release. Editorial usage is not an issue. Do you think the folks who are in the National Enquirer sign releases for those images of them pumping gas?

I agree, Glenn, to an extent.  My comments went to Releases in general and not this particular case.  However, there is a line of demarcation in editorial use as well and if a case goes before the bench, release or not, it will likely be viewed not from a release aspect, but whether there is harm to reputation or personal character/image in the use of the photos. 

Pumping gas is one thing, but there have been many unsuspecting celebrity nudes published that were caught by paparazzi and once the cat is out of the bag (published images), damages have silently been paid rather than increasing public awareness through trial.

Regardless of whether this will provide notoriety / publicity, that won't be the case consideration.  "Any pub is good pub" will not be the factor, it will be viewed as the kind of pub and exploitation that might cause harm and damage.

This will be an interesting case.  Alba is a hot property right now and the use of her likeness is more about commercial exploitation for sales of the magazine issue without due consideration in support of accompaning articles that may show relevance to her likeness use.  The pretinence will be whether or not her image was used for the sole purpose of misleading the buyer as she did not give consent to the use of the image for that purpose.

Others, including Donald Trump have appeared on the cover of Playboy, but the difference being full awareness of the spirit and intent in the imaging used.  Alba's contention is that disclosure and awareness was not provided for associating her likeness in support of creating magazine sales.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I couldn't imagine Playboy and its attorneys not knowing the laws and how they
would apply to something like this.  My best guess is that either a judge would
dismiss it right away or Playboy which has always been pretty classy would just
not send the magazine out with her on the cover.  Strange in my view that she
would really care.  She's not nude in the magazine but this has generated lots of
buzz.

But not as much as a trialould.
I would be interesting to watch the law-dogs haggle over this one. Informative too.

Diana Moffitt wrote:
there is no such think as bad publicity

It depends...

"...journalism governs for ever and ever."
--Oscar Wilde

jeffart wrote:
...I really wish i hadnt turned down her offer of casual sex now!

I've only witnessed a few first-posts while I've been here at Mayhem.  But out of those I've seen this is the best...

Lens N Light wrote:
Does this tell us anything about the power of a model release? Apparently the agency who took the pictures had a relesae giving them rights to the pictures and they then sold them to Playboy.
Right or no?

I would have to say no. As mentioned by others, it's not the release, it's the usage that Sony provided. Did Playboy obtain directly from Sony? Was it in good faith (did they state for cover usage)? Who knows...

Here is something that is most likely - this will be the biggest BOOST to her career by being on that cover. Had she done a layout in the magazine, it might not give her such a boost. But people (read men and boys) will now be watching her career more closely to see when she'll do a nude scene.

Another 2 cents. With all the others, maybe we can get a Grande Cappucino now.

Marc Stevenson
UCPhotog

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I couldn't imagine Playboy and its attorneys not knowing the laws and how they
would apply to something like this.  My best guess is that either a judge would
dismiss it right away or Playboy which has always been pretty classy would just
not send the magazine out with her on the cover.  Strange in my view that she
would really care.  She's not nude in the magazine but this has generated lots of
buzz.

It's wierd. In general I write my releases to allow to do almost anything I want, I dont resell images, but I could. You have legal issues the courts will work out (in theory) but than that there are moral issues. She doesnt want to be in Play Boy, play boy is showing her. This may be legal but it is low. I though play boy was suppose to be classy. Didnt hef once reply to a girl who asked  what would my mother think, "we'll show them to her if she doesnt like them, we wont print them". I think play boy's classy rep is the only thing at stake here.