JessieLeigh wrote:

I wonder if you two missed where the model said she agreed to the hair cut even though she knew it wasn't part of the contract. She is partially responsible for the breaching of the contract.

From the OP: "Upon arriving to the prep day shoot I was asked if I could get my hair "trimmed" and "thinned out." I was told that it would look the same, but only more styled. I agreed to this because I assumed that she was not going to drastically change my hair because she was aware of the styling only agreement."

I do not believe that she agreed to a hair cut. I believe that she agreed to have her hair trimmed and thinned out with no loss of length. Unless you are a judge in CA I don't see how you are capable of deciding whether she was in any way responsible or not. Are you also a Judge or Contract Lawyer in CA? If so are you in Entertainment/Beauty Law?

MC Photo wrote:

All correct except she's not here for legal advise, she's here for personal advice and emotional support.

Asking her how she could have prevented this is really just victim blaming or suggesting the blatantly obvious which she's probably already done.

That would have been good advice if she'd been asking about how to avoid this in the future, but that's not what she asked.

I was in almost this exact situation!!! Only I wasn't doing this for an agency, and I knew my hair would be cut. But I was allowed to choose the hairstyle. But the stylist put me in a room with no windows, took away my glasses, and wouldn't let me get up for four hours. I was expecting a pixie cut, but what I got was a hack job! It was uneven all over and left me with only an inch of hair.

I had scheduled shoots for that week, sending photographers the example cut I had chosen. But when I showed up with that jacked up style both of them refused to shoot with me.

That stylist caused these photographers to question my integrity and honesty, and they both said they would never hire me again.

I feel you girl. I have no advice, but you're making me think I should maybe sue for lost wages.

GRMACK wrote:
I'd forget about the legal compensation since you agreed to it and no one forced you into it.  I could see Judge Judy saying much the same, although maybe with a bit more flair and admonishment too.

For the time being you could get some extensions or wigs and use those while it grows back too.  I've worked with some who went through the same thing and actually liked their wigs and new looks coming from them.  Did add variety and a different look, and some far better than their real hair too (Actually most did.).

Seems like every season of ANTM they do that in one of the first few shows:  Ones with long hair become super short, and short become long with wigs/extensions - or totally bald.  Show drama maybe, or part of their weeding out process too.

If you turned the gig down the agency might put you at the bottom of the pile for future work.  Since you agreed, you might still be in their favorites folder, just you may not like it now, but you do have options for the time being.  Press legal over volunteering to do it and you may get blackballed too which is worse.  There's a lot of formerly agency rep'ed models out there for one reason or another.

So you got a new look now.  Make something positive out of it (Go wig shopping!) and not dwell on perceptions of it hurting your career.  Obviously right now it hasn't.

You know, I think you're part right, and part wrong here. I believe you're right about being able build any legal case against the stylist who Edward Scissor Handed her hair, technically she wasn't forced into it and while it may not have been in the contract that there wouldn't be any significant alterations to her hair, it also could be argued that there WASN'T any guarantee either. She was just dealt a bad hand and may just have to suck up the time in-between while her hair is growing back.

Not doing the gig altogether though? I hope that doesn't wind up hurting her in the long-run, career-wise. This industry is fickle, especially against those who haven't established a "name" for themselves yet. While I agree that if her hair was indeed butchered that the agency should stand behind her, on the same token, if her hair was simply styled in a manner in which SHE was abhorred by, rather than the actual styling itself being viewed as horrendous by agency or print standards or-----hell, by everyone else, then it could be viewed as her being inflexible/adaptive to a very fluid work environment which is full of last minute changes that happen on-the-fly. All of this which resulted in loss of a contract, loss of money for both model and agency, and perhaps a bad stigma as to what it is like working with models FROM that agency.

Either way, it seems like a bad beat for her especially because wig or no wig, she's the one stuck with hair that she hates for the next 6 mo until it grows back. AND no paycheck. Fack. Need the money or not, I'd be pretty upset too.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I'm glad that you and I have the same "positive" attitude of not letting setbacks keep us from doing what we love.  I definitely see it as a set back, but not a total disaster.  I've suffered set backs before, but each incident is different.  Certainly there is a cost to set backs such as the OP's bad hair cutting ordeal, and yours too! 

It's difficult to judge what happened to her that day because we weren't (there) involved, and we didn't see how bad her haircut really was.  If that stylist was one of those few that didn't give a shit about the models future gigs, then perhaps the OP does have legal recourse.  I don't know.  What I have learned in my own experience is that often times if it can't be resolved outside of court, then the rewards of winning a case are often bittersweet.  The time and energy, not to mention money expended on a court case is draining!  I wouldn't sue, and it seems that although it cost you time and money to get your portfolio and career back on track, you didn't sue either, did you?  Each case is different. It's the OP's decision to sue or not. Best wishes to her!

I tend to think suing is a bad option for the model.

But while I think it's bad idea, I hope she succeeds with it. It would be great for some of the people pulling this crap to actually realize how jacked up it is.

Atelier Benson  wrote:
I do not believe that she agreed to a hair cut. I believe that she agreed to have her hair trimmed and thinned out with no loss of length. Unless you are a judge in CA I don't see how you are capable of deciding whether she was in any way responsible or not. Are you also a Judge or Contract Lawyer in CA? If so are you in Entertainment/Beauty Law?

A trim, by definition of the word, IS a hair cut. You do not need to be a judge to know this.

Did the person doing the haircut take off more than agreed upon? I believe they did. That does not change the fact that the model could, and should, have said no when asked about the trim... And doing so would have prevented these problems.

Atelier Benson  wrote:
From the OP: "Upon arriving to the prep day shoot I was asked if I could get my hair "trimmed" and "thinned out." I was told that it would look the same, but only more styled. I agreed to this because I assumed that she was not going to drastically change my hair because she was aware of the styling only agreement."

I do not believe that she agreed to a hair cut. I believe that she agreed to have her hair trimmed and thinned out with no loss of length. Unless you are a judge in CA I don't see how you are capable of deciding whether she was in any way responsible or not. Are you also a Judge or Contract Lawyer in CA? If so are you in Entertainment/Beauty Law?

Trimming by it's very nature denotes that there will be a loss of length. This is simply an understanding of what it is that scissors do. Try this: grab a piece of paper and measure it, now trim off the bottom and measure it again. The paper is shorter. Depending on how much you trimmed it may be imperceptible to the naked eye but I guarantee that there is a shorter sheet of paper there then there was before you took your scissors to it. The OP had a contract for styling only she didn't have to agree to the trim or thinning out at all and if she was truly worried about a loss of length she should have asked precisely how much was going to be removed.

Beyond that, responsibility for proving a case is the burden of the person bringing suit, that's law 101. The OP claims there was a written contract for styling only which she verbally agreed to have altered to include trimming and thinning, unhappy with that decision she's now seeking legal remedy. Are their judges who may prove sympathetic to her poor decision, sure after all there's a judge who determined that a woman spilling hot coffee on herself was entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation but there's also a chance that if this makes it to trial that the OP won't win. You don't need to be a legal professional to understand this, it's probability there's a 50% chance either way.

Finally, (and this is what the OP hasn't seemed to address) if her hair was 1) her brand why in the world agree verbally to have it changed when there was a written agreement in play? and 2) if she was told her hair was meant to look the same only styled why not decline the trimming and thinning altogether and only allow styling?

K I C K H A M wrote:
I tend to think suing is a bad option for the model.

But while I think it's bad idea, I hope she succeeds with it. It would be great for some of the people pulling this crap to actually realize how jacked up it is.

Yeah, I agree it's a bad idea.  I believe that...
...  A civil suit can be 1,000 times more traumatic than a bad hair cut,
...  Her chances of winning in this case are exceedingly slim, and
...  Even if she wins, she will lose more than she wins.

As I've said multiple times, we still haven't heard both sides of the story, and I truly doubt that this situation is as black & white as the OP portrays.  It's a sad story, in any case, and a cautionary trail -- don't be a victim, and don't agree to something that you are likely to regret later.

Christopher Barber wrote:
I'm sorry this happened to you.  Your hair was certainly an important component of your look, by cutting your hair without your consent, the stylist was infringing in somewhat the same way that an artistic director would infringe by taking my camera out of my hands and changing settings I had chosen to get the look I wanted. 

Nothing can protect a person against bad choices of another person, but I wonder your agency can proceed against the person who contracted with them.  The stylist definitely impacted your value to the agency.

No, she gave consent verbally to have her hair cut.  She said so herself.   A "trim" does mean it will be cut ... and therefore shorter.  When I get my haircut, I'm asked "how much off?  An inch or two?"  That is why this could be an issue in court if "consent" if discussed, which it will be!

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Yeah, I agree it's a bad idea.  I believe that...
...  A civil suit can be 1,000 times more traumatic than a bad hair cut,
...  Her chances of winning in this case are exceedingly slim, and
...  Even if she wins, she will lose more than she wins.

As I've said multiple times, we still haven't heard both sides of the story, and I truly doubt that this situation is as black & white as the OP portrays.  It's a sad story, in any case, and a cautionary trail -- don't be a victim, and don't agree to something that you are likely to regret later.

There will be another side to the story brought up in court.  This;  "I chose NOT to do the shoot and potentially lose all forms of compensation because I knew deeply within myself doing the shoot was saying what happened was OK."  could come back to haunt her!   She walked off the job!

In California, depending on how much she is asking, this could be a small claims case filed by her.  If it's in the $10,000 or more range, then it's with the big cases in Superior Court and either way ... it's going to be slower than her hair growing back!  I think she is opening herself up to a counter suit because she didn't do the job after getting the haircut.  The defending party may claim she was a drama queen, hard to work with, etc. etc.  It will be an ugly case! I would not wish to step in the middle of this cat fight!

K I C K H A M wrote:

I tend to think suing is a bad option for the model.

But while I think it's bad idea, I hope she succeeds with it. It would be great for some of the people pulling this crap to actually realize how jacked up it is.

Ummmm, you do realize what's going to happen if she sues a client right?

Other than the whole "no one will book me because I sue clients" thing that will surely come of it, assuming she's with a reputable agency, they'll more likely than not drop her just to avoid the drama.  So now she'll have a jacked up haircut, a bad reputation, and no representation to boot.  Long term that doesn't sound like the pathway to success to me...

Atelier Benson  wrote:
From various beauty sources around the web

"A trim is just that, the hair dresser takes a little off the bottom to get rid of split ends. A cut is a dramatic loss of hair."

"cutting means the hairstylist is going to cut a lot of your hair depending on the hairstyle to be done. On the other hand, trimming means keeping your hairstyle but cutting it more or less only by an inch or a half inch."

"when you trim it you are taking off the split ends.
when you are cutting it you are taking off a little more than split ends"

It is generally accepted in the Beauty Industry that a "trim" means trimming only the ends with no discernible loss of length.

Based on this the stylist shouldn't have had the chance to "reassure" the OP 20+ times that her hair looked the same (which according to the OP in one of her posts is what happens) and unless the OP was asleep or heavily sedated even without a mirror she should have been able to see that was was occurring wasn't just a removal of split ends.

Plus keep in mind that according to the OP a trim wasn't all the stylist requested to do, she also wanted to thin out her hair. I can admit I'd never heard of such a thing so I looked it up (which I realized the OP couldn't do BUT she could have said no).This video basically explains the do's and don'ts of the process and notes how easy it is for something to go really wrong. None of us know the stylist in question (or rather none of us know if we know them) and so maybe the more dramatic look was implemented as a means of covering up a mistake. Why all of the hair loss happened is moot, the OP could have and should have said no since she claims her hair is a huge part of her brand and that she had a contract that specified no cutting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MKQZjzDaX4

Tiffany_B wrote:
Based on this the stylist shouldn't have had the chance to "reassure" the OP 20+ times that her hair looked the same (which according to the OP in one of her posts is what happens) and unless the OP was asleep or heavily sedated even without a mirror she should have been able to see that was was occurring wasn't just a removal of split ends.

Plus keep in mind that according to the OP a trim wasn't all the stylist requested to do, she also wanted to thin out her hair. I can admit I'd never heard of such a thing so I looked it up (which I realized the OP couldn't do BUT she could have said no).This video basically explains the do's and don'ts of the process and notes how easy it is for something to go really wrong. None of us know the stylist in question (or rather none of us know if we know them) and so maybe the more dramatic look was implemented as a means of covering up a mistake. Why all of the hair loss happened is moot, the OP could have and should have said no since she claims her hair is a huge part of her brand and that she had a contract that specified no cutting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MKQZjzDaX4

There are two sides to every story.... The model could be saying one thing and the stylist could be saying, it's not true I told her what I was doing... And the model has the burden of proving that her story is true, no? It's her word against the stylist....

Erlinda wrote:
There are two sides to every story.... The model could be saying one thing and the stylist could be saying, it's not true I told her what I was doing... And the model has the burden of proving that her story is true, no? It's her word against the stylist....

The model walked out of a job!  That is reason to believe that there will be a countersuit filed against her if she does go forward with this in court.   I'm curious to see what Monica's hair looks like now, and also how fast it will grow back.  No, we really don't know what happened.  There are two sides to this and the truth in the middle ... but I'm afraid that Monica will burn bridges and may regret having done so further down the road.

Erlinda wrote:
There are two sides to every story.... The model could be saying one thing and the stylist could be saying, it's not true I told her what I was doing... And the model has the burden of proving that her story is true, no? It's her word against the stylist....

I fully agree with you, the OP definitely has the burden of proof in this case and it doesn't bode well that she admits she verbally altered the contract by agreeing to trimming and thinning when styling was that that was required by her written agreement.

Tiffany_B wrote:
I fully agree with you, the OP definitely has the burden of proof in this case and it doesn't bode well that she admits she verbally altered the contract by agreeing to trimming and thinning when styling was that that was required by her written agreement.

What it boils down to is a communication problem.  Having things in writing is important, and she admits she went along with a verbal change of plans.  I don't know who the shoot was for, so it's difficult to say who, if anyone is at fault.

When we work as a team with a stylist, make up, hair, model, and photographer communicating on the same page as to what is being created, then it can be wonderful.  When people let things slide, that's when problems like this can happen.

T-D-L wrote:

Ummmm, you do realize what's going to happen if she sues a client right?

Other than the whole "no one will book me because I sue clients" thing that will surely come of it, assuming she's with a reputable agency, they'll more likely than not drop her just to avoid the drama.  So now she'll have a jacked up haircut, a bad reputation, and no representation to boot.  Long term that doesn't sound like the pathway to success to me...

I realize full well.

I think it's a terrible idea for her, which I said several times. But, it's a terrible idea with only bad results if she loses, and at least mixed results if she wins.

So, if she's going to sue them, I hope she wins.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Yeah, I agree it's a bad idea.  I believe that...
...  A civil suit can be 1,000 times more traumatic than a bad hair cut,
...  Her chances of winning in this case are exceedingly slim, and
...  Even if she wins, she will lose more than she wins.

As I've said multiple times, we still haven't heard both sides of the story, and I truly doubt that this situation is as black & white as the OP portrays.  It's a sad story, in any case, and a cautionary trail -- don't be a victim, and don't agree to something that you are likely to regret later.

You'd be surprised how simple and "black and white" these situations can be. Maybe it's regional, but I know 4 girls off the top of my head, 5 if you include me, personally who have been through this. We had differing degrees of poor effects, but they were all bad.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
What it boils down to is a communication problem.  Having things in writing is important, and she admits she went along with a verbal change of plans.  I don't know who the shoot was for, so it's difficult to say who, if anyone is at fault.

When we work as a team with a stylist, make up, hair, model, and photographer communicating on the same page as to what is being created, then it can be wonderful.  When people let things slide, that's when problems like this can happen.

I honestly don't think anyone was at fault per se. Things on sets can and do change for a number of reasons and sometimes that includes the direction of the hair and make-up, it doesn't happen all of the time but it does happen. I agree in this case that there was a communication issue, perhaps the OP didn't ask enough questions about what was being done or perhaps the stylist understated what was going to occur. Normally on paid shoots models don't have much leverage in terms of the final look but in this case in particular if the contract was for styling only the model had some different avenues available to her for recourse if (as she claims) her hair was her brand: she could have called her agency to see if the direction had changed, she could have asked to see reference photos, she could have insisted on a mirror or she could have flat out refused to someone coming near her hair with scissors since the stated end goal was for it to "look the same but styled". In not doing any of those things though she opened the door for issues to occur.

K I C K H A M wrote:
So, if she's going to sue them, I hope she wins.

From a purely legal standpoint I hope she doesn't.

This is a frivolous lawsuit and her winning would set precedent for every model who was unhappy with the outcome of their look to go out and sue the client or coordinator or the stylist or whoever they felt was at "fault" and/or had the deepest pockets. How many times have you been on set and been 100% happy with the look? I doubt it was for every shoot. Now multiply that by millions of both working and wannabe models, some of whom are just looking for a quick payday and the possibilities they'll see if she wins. Lawsuits like this are why toilet paper commercials with frolicking puppies have fine print labels like "puppy fantasy" on the bottom, so some idiot won't attempt it with their own dog.

I'm not going to go so far as to say this wasn't a traumatic experience for the OP, I don't know her or her emotional threshold but I am going to say that if there is any blame to be placed in this instance that she should share in it in part since she claims there was a written contract for styling only and that she verbally agreed to "trimming" and "thinning out" of her hair. If her hair was her brand then she shouldn't have let someone near it with scissors when she didn't have to and if the look was supposed to be the same "but styled" then the stylist should have just been able to style it. Period.

A-M-P wrote:
As a professional hair dresser we are taught in school that trimming is just cutting the dead ends and not changing the original style. Straight out of the milady text book. Also from the text book texturizing/thinning is the technique of removing excess bulk or cutting for effect without shortening hair length.


So with these two text book definitions I guess you can bring up in court that the definition of those two terms and neither one is supposed to shorten the hair or change the actual style of the hair. So if your hair looks dramatically different you might have something there.


Is like a client sitting in my chair and asking for a trim and to texturize her hair which texturize means thinning. And me giving them a substantially different look to what they came in through the door with. Us stylists need to know what these terms mean and we do. We cannot just taken upon themselves to do whatever we want without consulting someone.

It cost money to go through a good school of cosmetology.  A hair cut done by a licensed hair stylist is of value.  The model was hired, and paid by the client.  We don't know a whole lot of the details besides the models side of this issue.  Since it is likely that both the model and the hair stylist were there on behalf of the client, then the model "could have" advocated for herself by speaking up about her expectations before letting the stylist "trim" or in this case ... cut her hair.   

There was a communication problem at some point during this episode.  It seems that the model was confident with the hair stylist, although she was not the one hiring the stylist.  The stylist in turn is there on behalf of the client, whom is paying for this work to be done.  If the client is fine with the hair style, then the stylist accomplished his/her task.  Job done!

The model is a part of this team working on this photo project, and should have communicated her limitations clearly.  In general, hair styling can often times mean that some cutting will be done depending on the style.  Yes, there are differences between a trim, a cut and thinning, however it was not clear to the model. 

If I were the client in this case, I would have started out by getting a model who would be accepting of any style that I deemed necessary for my photo shoot to be successful.  There are models who get their hair styled and cut on a regular basis.  I believe that the more often you get your hair trimmed, the faster it grows back. 

So IF I were the client in this case, I would be upset at the agency for not making it clear to the model they sent that her hair might be drastically changed.  The agency wanted to send her so badly, and she (the model) wanted this hair styled photo shoot so badly that she compromised by having the additional promise of not cutting or changing her hair in the agreement, THEN verbally allowed the stylist to go ahead ... without clearly understanding what the stylist was going to do next. 

I've worked with plenty of hair styling models before!  They are quite aware that even with trims, their hair will be shorter ... and the more often trimmed or cut, then the less hair they may have after modeling for that particular hair show or shoot.  They accept that as part of their work, and they deal with it by booking other shoots that will not be so effected by shorter hair.  I shoot models with long, or short hair and many in between.  I would likely hire Monica for a shoot regardless of her hair, but I would never hire her for a shoot requiring her hair to be cut or styled short ... knowing she depended on her long hair as being her "look!"

Same goes for nude models.  Let's say that I hired a model for an implied nude type shoot.  She would not be fully nude, but it will be implied.  She has never done nudes before.  Then I ask her if she'd be alright with doing topless ... she says "yes!"  Then come to find out, she is NOT alright with it!  Whose fault is it?  Mine for asking?  I wouldn't do that in the first place, but just saying.  If you are going to hire a model for a hairstyle shoot ... make sure you hire a model who is flexible and open minded to ANY hair style you might choose to do on her.

I'm sorry for the miscommunication that caused Monica such distress.  She did however sit in that chair and get the hairstyle that the client was paying the stylist to do.  Then she protested ... and did not go through with the shoot.  Is that the right thing to do?  I don't think so ... as there were a few red flags that were blown through by her, the agency and the stylist.  Communicate better in the future!

A-M-P wrote:
As a professional hair dresser we are taught in school that trimming is just cutting the split ends and not changing the original style. Straight out of the milady text book. Also from the text book texturizing/thinning is the technique of removing excess bulk or cutting for effect without shortening hair length.


So with these two cosmetology text book definitions I guess you can bring up in court that the definition of those two terms  as neither one is supposed to significantly shorten the hair or change the original style of the hair. So if your hair looks dramatically different you might have something there.


Is like a client sitting in my chair and asking for a trim and to texturize her hair and me giving them a substantially different look to what they came in through the door with. We are taught  these terms for a reason  so nothing can be left to guess work they have meaning that we stylists should follow. We cannot just take it upon themselves to do whatever we want without consulting someone of exactly what we are doing. So lets say you lost 8-10 inches of hair and she never disclosed  she was cutting any inches off and the client only asked for a trim she would have been in a lot of trouble in a regular salon setting.

You're making assumptions about the situation: namely that the stylist who did this to the OP had professional training, it's just as likely that this wasn't the case and as such the definitions you learned in school would be irrelevant. Heck, even if the stylist went to cosmetology school there's no guarantee that they'd follow what they learned in school outside of it. My point is that this is one instance where hair is involved where your personal experience as a hairdresser is moot since you can't vouch for the education or professional practices of the stylist in question.

Erlinda wrote:
If you had that hair for 23 years and its your livelyhood for getting paid why not insure it? Or have a contract that your agency gives out to the clients to sign when they book you that states your hair can't be cut or trimed.

According to the OP she had a contract one which she verbally altered when she allowed the stylist to "trim" and "thin" her hair...I do agree with you though that she should have been more protective of her hair, especially since she called it her brand.

Tiffany_B wrote:
According to the OP she had a contract one which she verbally altered when she allowed the stylist to "trim" and "thin" her hair...I do agree with you though that she should have been more protective of her hair, especially since she called it her brand.

I thought that was a contract for the job (which was styling hair only) not a personal contract that states her hair is not allowed to be cut.

The way the OP talks about her hair is her life and how she feels about it reminds me of how JLo insured her ass. LMAO.

Erlinda wrote:
I thought that was a contract for the job (which was styling hair only) not a personal contract that states her hair is not allowed to be cut.

The way the OP talks about her hair is her life and how she feels about it reminds me of how JLo insured her ass. LMAO.

Ah you're right, it was a contract for the job and not a personal one...had she just adhered to it though she wouldn't be in this position.

Tiffany_B wrote:
You're making assumptions about the situation: namely that the stylist who did this to the OP had professional training, it's just as likely that this wasn't the case and as such the definitions you learned in school would be irrelevant. Heck, even if the stylist went to cosmetology school there's no guarantee that they'd follow what they learned in school outside of it. My point is that this is one instance where hair is involved where your personal experience as a hairdresser is moot since you can't vouch for the education or professional practices of the stylist in question.

None of us were there, correct?  So we are all making assumptions. The model did not hire the hair stylist, a client did ... at least that much I hope we can assume?  It does not matter to the model how much training the hair stylist has, as she is not the one who hired her.  So I guess this whole point is moot since the only person it "should" matter to is the one paying for this shoot, right?

Back to square one ... the model "could have" been more involved in advocating for herself in this case.  Her agency "could have" been more involved in advocating that her hair will absolutely NOT be touched with scissors!  The model disregarded all that when she gave the "ok" for the stylist to proceed.  IF she did not completely understand what the hair stylist was going to do ... then she needed to be more assertive towards the situation.  Ask questions, don't assume! 

It was poor communication to blame.  I don't know how Monica's hair looks now, but I'd be willing to bet that I would still hire her.  Even if she were bald, I'd still hire her.  But I am the exception ... I'm a photographer who understands how all this hairy stuff works!  We have wigs, and extensions if longer hair is needed.  Short hair and even bald is not unattractive in many situations.  I've known fashion models who wore hats so the length of their hair did not matter.   There is ALWAYS a positive side to this!

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
Shouldn't that be "Making $$$ is not worth..."

Personally, there are a lot of things in this world that can happen to us - violent crime, disease, loss of a loved one, etc. - that would qualify as traumatic.

Once the OP described being "traumatized" by a haircut, regardless of the outcome or any financial loss she may feel resulted, she's coming across as one who may be more than a bit prone to overreaction.

Have people really suggested she sue because she didn't like the end result of a situation she agreed? And was the stylist using some magical shears that didn't reveal what they were doing until the cut was fully complete?

Even if I didn't have a mirror in front of me during a cut, I certainly can feel if it's getting too short or too much is being cut off.

Here's a hint for the next cut (if you decide not to actually look in the mirror). Take a look at the floor. If you see a LOT of your hair cascading down your shoulder, onto the ground, that means the stylist is cutting a LOT of your hair...and you might want to speak up THEN...not after.

I agree!  My gosh, we don't want models to be "traumatized" before they get in front of our camera!

Tiffany_B wrote:
Ah you're right, it was a contract for the job and not a personal one...had she just adhered to it though she wouldn't be in this position.

That is why I don't believe she has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this as a court case.  But then I'm making assumptions based on what she has told us about the situation.  I would love to see a picture of what she looks like now so that I can see what "traumatized" her.

Tiffany_B wrote:

I honestly don't think anyone was at fault per se. Things on sets can and do change for a number of reasons and sometimes that includes the direction of the hair and make-up, it doesn't happen all of the time but it does happen. I agree in this case that there was a communication issue, perhaps the OP didn't ask enough questions about what was being done or perhaps the stylist understated what was going to occur. Normally on paid shoots models don't have much leverage in terms of the final look but in this case in particular if the contract was for styling only the model had some different avenues available to her for recourse if (as she claims) her hair was her brand: she could have called her agency to see if the direction had changed, she could have asked to see reference photos, she could have insisted on a mirror or she could have flat out refused to someone coming near her hair with scissors since the stated end goal was for it to "look the same but styled". In not doing any of those things though she opened the door for issues to occur.

Yeah, sure...

I mean, what you guys are saying all sounds great IN THEORY.

But if we're talking about ever actually being booked for jobs, you CAN'T do things like call your agency every 5 minutes or demand a mirror and to see every little thing.

If what the OP says is true, it IS the fault of the stylist. If we took the advice you're all giving, we'd be dismissed as divas/snobs and never book work.

K I C K H A M wrote:

Yeah, sure...

I mean, what you guys are saying all sounds great IN THEORY.

But if we're talking about ever actually being booked for jobs, you CAN'T do things like call your agency every 5 minutes or demand a mirror and to see every little thing.

If what the OP says is true, it IS the fault of the stylist. If we took the advice you're all giving, we'd be dismissed as divas/snobs and never book work.

If what the OP said was true and the stylist kept reassuring her at least 20 times... I wouldn't of trusted to stylist, I would of asked for a mirror, someone reassuring me that many times would of been a huge RED flag for me