glamour pics wrote:
Well, what IS the "relevant British law?" Is there any sort of Right of Publicity analogous to laws like California Civil Code 3344?

No! None at all. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada.

There are no statutory rights, and very little that applies as to common law rights, in the areas of privacy, image, personality or publicity. That's exactly why we can, but do not of necessity have to, use model releases. Because there is nothing to release.

That's why I said in an earlier post that there is no [legal] traction in trying to make the point, in the OP's case vis a vis the website, that there is no release.

Studio36

glamour pics wrote:
My prediction is that the alleged crook will eventually gyp a girlfriend of a Manchester United player, and a couple of midfielders will nut him and then put the old studded boot to the crook.  Or perhaps he'll wrong the wrong girl and a different sort of gentlemen will treat him to Doc Marten's leather.

As previously noted. Brit style dispute resolution... with prejudice.

It's like that old rub: "What burns a gallon of gas and doesn't go anywhere?"

Can you guess the answer?

Studio36

EDIT: NOT that I, personally, would advocate or encourage such a course of action. Oh, no, no no!

studio36uk wrote:

Chips with everything!

Studio36

While living in Cheltenham, I once ordered a baked potato and was asked if I'd like chips with that.

Justin Foto wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Chips with everything!

Studio36

While living in Cheltenham, I once ordered a baked potato and was asked if I'd like chips with that.

Yup... exactly. Pizza with chips; curry with chips; chips with chips. LOL

Studio36

glamour pics wrote:
Yep! Fish and chips...with enough oil to soak through the Sunday London Times.

But seriously, is there an actual solicitor or barrister who'll comment on the OP's situation?

My prediction is that the alleged crook will eventually gyp a girlfriend of a Manchester United player, and a couple of midfielders will nut him and then put the old studded boot to the crook.  Or perhaps he'll wrong the wrong girl and a different sort of gentlemen will treat him to Doc Marten's leather.

I think you managed to get everything you know about the UK into one reply!

By the way, barristers don't comment on anything unless there's a large amount of money available and a court case looming.  Solicitors deal with this stuff.

Ray Holyer wrote:
I think you managed to get everything you know about the UK into one reply!

By the way, barristers don't comment on anything unless there's a large amount of money available and a court case looming.  Solicitors deal with this stuff.

And they're known to use really expensive terminology like "Your Honour..."

Ray Holyer wrote:
I think you managed to get everything you know about the UK into one reply!

By the way, barristers don't comment on anything unless there's a large amount of money available and a court case looming.  Solicitors deal with this stuff.

And they won't comment speculatively either... until they are retained.

Studio36

Marie gordon wrote:
Next time, get your payment and a signed release form first.

Very few people will pay a model upfront.

Plus, this was a test session.

And what kind of release form are you referring to?

Greg Kolack wrote:

Very few people will pay a model upfront.

Plus, this was a test session.

And what kind of release form are you referring to?

Apparently it WASN'T a test session, that's the problem. The photographer scammed the OP.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Apparently it WASN'T a test session, that's the problem. The photographer scammed the OP.

True - but it was under the guise of a test session, so the OP wasn't expcting to be paid.

glamour pics wrote:
Well, what IS the "relevant British law?" Is there any sort of Right of Publicity analogous to laws like California Civil Code 3344?

studio36uk wrote:
No! None at all. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada.

I understand the lack of privacy rights or the right to publicity, but the model does have the right to be paid.  So, while I agree that no release may be required in the UK, that doesn't relieve the photographer of the obligation to fulfill his contractual obligations.

If he promised to pay the model if the images are used, he is bound by that agreement, whether a release is required or not.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I understand the lack of privacy rights or the right to publicity, but the model does have the right to be paid.  So, while I agree that no release may be required in the UK, that doesn't relieve the photographer of the obligation to fulfill his contractual obligations.

If he promised to pay the model if the images are used, he is bound by that agreement, whether a release is required or not.

It's a bit more complex than that. The only promise apparently made was that the images were a "test" and would be submitted to the client for assessment; and, if they liked the model/images then she would, THEREAFTER, be hired to do a production shoot. NOT that she would be paid if the images from the test were used.

Instead, it appears [in the circumstances I can see from the number of images I've seen and what they include] he was shooting the actual production shoot under that pretence, and the client used the delivered images on their website.

Now, it resolves to a matter of who knew what and when they knew it... and, an important element will be if money or any other thing(s) of value changed hands between photographer and client. Though, as the model's personality/image/publicity are not "property" in law, here, it is highly doubtful the fraud statute can be applied, because by the terms of that statute it is contingent on wrongfully dealing in the property of another with the objective of depriving them of the value of it.

She was clearly deprived of the value of her time; but not her "property". There may indeed be a breach of contract case here but not quite in the way you envision it.

Studio36

Sophie Thornton wrote:
Basically, I was asked to attend a test shoot in January for a bag company and was told by the photographer that if the owner of the company liked the pictures another shoot would be organised. I contacted the photographer several times to ask whether I had been successful or not, but he has never replied.

I found out today my pictures have been used on the bag company's website, and I have not signed a release form. Infact I'm pretty sure the photographer is a con-artist and has with held a payment to me.

I'm pretty sure this isn't legal, as my pictures have been used commericially to advertise the company's merchandise on their online store and I have not been compensated.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can resolve this issue?

That's illegal, but all I can say is get a lawyer. Or perhaps inform them that you -intend- on getting a lawyer and perhaps that won't be necessary. No one wants to be sued! Let them know that without a release form that they have no legal claim to your pictures and that they cannot use them. They may remove them from the site, pay you, or speak to your lawyer. Just be prepared to follow through if they don't listen.

Even if it was just for a portfolio, and not for their site they would still need your permission for the pictures.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I understand the lack of privacy rights or the right to publicity, but the model does have the right to be paid.  So, while I agree that no release may be required in the UK, that doesn't relieve the photographer of the obligation to fulfill his contractual obligations.

If he promised to pay the model if the images are used, he is bound by that agreement, whether a release is required or not.

studio36uk wrote:
It's a bit more complex than that. The only promise apparently made was that the images were a "test" and would be submitted to the client for assessment; and, if they liked the model/images then she would, THEREAFTER, be hired to do a production shoot. NOT that she would be paid if the images from the test were used.

Instead, it appears [in the circumstances I can see from the number of images I've seen and what they include] he was shooting the actual production shoot under that pretence, and the client used the delivered images on their website.

Now, it resolves to a matter of who knew what and when they knew it... and, an important element will be if money or any other thing(s) of value changed hands between photographer and client. Though, as the model's personality/image/publicity are not "property" in law, here, it is highly doubtful the fraud statute can be applied, because by the terms of that statute it is contingent on wrongfully dealing in the property of another with the objective of depriving them of the value of it.

She was clearly deprived of the value of her time; but not her "property". There may indeed be a breach of contract case here but not quite in the way you envision it.

Studio36

I totally disagree with that.  It was a test, on the premise that she would be booked, re-shot and then paid if they wanted to use the images.  There was clearly a contract.  The consideration was the promise of the re-shoot and payment if they wanted to use it.

You are trying to separate it and turn it into a property issue.  I'm sorry, I totally disagree.  She would have never agreed to provide her services without consideration.  There is clearly a contractual obligation there.

There are a number of theories involved.   There is "unjust enrichment" which comes from English law.  There is breach of contract, and potentially there could be fraud.  All of that having been said, the Brits are much less litigious than the Americans.  That doesn't change the simple facts though.  She was induced to provide her time in return for consideration.  There is a contract and there is clearly a breach.

Other than agreeing that a model release is probably not requried in the UK, we are otherwise going to ahve to agree to disagree.  I think there are substantial issues here and I don't think they are anywhere near as complex as you are making them out to be.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I totally disagree with that.  It was a test, on the premise that she would be booked, re-shot and then paid if they wanted to use the images.  There was clearly a contract.  The consideration was the promise of the re-shoot and payment if they wanted to use it.

Oh, yes, there was clearly a contract. If anything a claim in this instance would lie under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where proving fraud is not a necessary element but damages can still be claimed based solely on the OP's reliance on the misrepresented term of the contract. This statute concerns itself with the contract per se.

I cite the issue of property, above, because the fraud statute concerns itself with property not with contracts per se. But in this instance even where the Fraud Act 2006 deals with fraudulently obtaining services one of the NECESSARY elements according to the Crown Prosecution Service - guidance on the Fraud Act 2006 - in respect of services - is that "...The service must be provided on the basis that it will be paid for...."  Clearly not the case here. She provided the service at no cost, and without any anticipation of payment, but solely on the assertion that it MIGHT, but would not necessarily, produce FUTURE payment for ADDITIONAL services; NOT that she would be paid for the test shoot.

I'm not arguing the facts, or merits, only how the facts, as I know them, fit the available and relevant law. In light of the CPS guidance they do not fit the requirements of the Fraud Act; but they do broadly fit the requirements of the Misrepresentation Act.

Studio36

ei Total Productions wrote:
I totally disagree with that.  It was a test, on the premise that she would be booked, re-shot and then paid if they wanted to use the images.  There was clearly a contract.  The consideration was the promise of the re-shoot and payment if they wanted to use it.

studio36uk wrote:
Oh, yes, there was clearly a contract. If anything a claim in this instance would lie under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where proving fraud is not a necessary element but damages can still be claimed based solely on the OP's reliance on the misrepresented term of the contract. This statute concerns itself with the contract per se.

I cite the issue of property, above, because the fraud statute concerns itself with property not with contracts per se. But in this instance even where the Fraud Act 2006 deals with fraudulently obtaining services one of the NECESSARY elements according to the Crown Prosecution Service - guidance on the Fraud Act 2006 - in respect of services - is that "...The service must be provided on the basis that it will be paid for...."  Clearly not the case here. She provided the service at no cost, and without any anticipation of payment, but solely on the assertion that it MIGHT, but would not necessarily, produce FUTURE payment for ADDITIONAL services; NOT that she would be paid for the test shoot.

I'm not arguing the facts, or merits, only how the facts, as I know them, fit the available and relevant law. In light of the CPS guidance they do not fit the requirements of the Fraud Act; but they do broadly fit the requirements of the Misrepresentation Act.

Studio36

That's fine, we don't have to debate the nuances of the various statues.  That can be the subject of another debate, or perhaps no debate at all.

studio36uk wrote:

Davepit wrote:

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

What do you think the chances of her contacting a lawyer are? Really?

This is the UK. We are not quite as sue/lawyer happy as you colonials. We're more likely to just send Vinnie and his cousin Vito around.

Studio36

unfortunately, the Vinnie/Vito option doesn't work so well over here (unless you live in Chicago or NYC), it just elicits more lawyers and lawsuit happy folks.