FFantastique wrote:
Sorry.

This is complicated.  I wasn't there. Hearing only one side of the story.
Haven't read the release.
Other than advice, don't know what you want other than edited images and warn the world.
And I don't want to be candid here in public on MM as the discovery process will lead to objections and suppression.

I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.
There are lawyers on MM! However, I don't know how to search for them in Canada.

Haven't read the case file in detail but let me throw out some things I've not yet seen discussed (if I missed them, my apologies).

What does the release say?

Is there an explicit quid pro quo? My guess is that there isn't one because I didn't read that he invoked that condition or clause from the release.

The reason I ask, is that I met and worked with a kosher tog in Texas who has that in his model release. And he says models sign it! He does NOT enforce it but he includes it to demonstrate that models should READ the RELEASE before they sign it!! I fully concur. [kosher is not intended to be unPC.]

I think that's totally safe advice to give on MM thread. ;-)

The next should also be safe advice regardless of the actual truth.

As soon after the alleged incident,take some time to avoid retelling it and type it out to the best of your ability, edit it, and when it's factual and correct, print it, get it signed and notarized as an accurate statement of the what occurred from your perspective. Make it as contemporaneous as reasonably possible to mitigate challenges to the account based on malleable memory.

If nothing happens, you have it;
If you need it for any legal proceedings, you also have it.
The time and cost should be relatively nominal.
Store it in multiple places.

This also avoids charges that you're changing your story with various recountings. .
And you want to avoid being charged with perjury.
I'm presuming that the OP is the innocent party--want to keep it that way.

For a variety of reasons, these kinds of things sometimes have the ability for the victim to be revictimized--very unfortunate. So sometimes just being right is not enough.

1. Set boundaries.
2. Clearly communicate them.
3. Enforce them PRN.

Another suggestion: is get a time lapse camera set up to do a shoot of the shoot. I've sometimes done that for the learning experience, not for legal reasons but that's not a bad use for it.

I did a river shoot and I don't know the model's swimability, I don't know what currents are like, rocks can be slippery, etc. and I wanted to have EMS standing by. But the rains were mild, the river was not swollen, so it was deemed as unnecessary, aka overkill. so I didn't call them to standby although they were willing and I let them know what we were doing and where.

On one bridge shoot, I wanted to have a boat in the water in case any one fell off the bridge into the water.

OP--are there any safety concerns you have that would warrant your bringing an assistant? Do you have any medical conditions that could justify a watch dog to accompany you? ;-) Let me know if you want to do any additional analysis, exploration of options, etc. I can allocate about 3/10 of a nonbillable hour without getting into trouble!

Again, sorry.

What? I m sorry but the escort or the time lapse photography is reactionary and not necessary . Also, the points about the release and quid pro quo don't make much sense.   Quid pro quo statements are almost never written down, and they are almost always verbal in nature. Just ask Gretchen Carlson et al in the Roger Ailes ( sp) / Fox case.

Your other points are ok.

1. Modeling is a job like any other ... Correct? There is a boss ( the photographer hires the model) and there is an employee ( in most cases the model that is getting paid or that agrees to shoot for trade).

2. Also, it does not matter what the intention of the photographer was when he made those statements. The only thing that matters is what the model/ employee feels. If they feel they were harassed then THEY WERE HARRASSED. It is that simple. Plus there is more then adequate proof based on verbal and written emails that she in fact was harrassed.  The intention of the perp, in any of this, is not a defense.

So the OP seems to have an actionable cause for harassment. 

Not only that, she seems to have a cause for sexual assault ( the togs statements ) and battery ( his kissing her) . If not with a criminal charge, where you have to deal beyond a reasonable doubt, then civilly as a tort.

It would be great if we could just shut down those who use their "power" and privilege to insult, harrass women.  It is photographers like these that give photographers a bad name.

We don't know the other side of the story and in a court of law his story is important. However as an executive who had to investigate sexual harassment claims over the years and upon hearing the detail of her claims and upon seeing the email evidence, I WOULD HAVE FIRED HIS ASS.

Oh and BTW I do have a law degree.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:

What? I am not getting this at all. Are you familiar with laws regarding sexual harassment?

1. Modeling is a job like any other ... Correct? There is a boss ( the photographer hires the model) and there is an employee ( in most cases the model that is getting paid or that agrees to shoot for trade).

2. Also, it does not matter what the intention of the photographer was when he made those statements. The only thing that matters is what the model/ employee feels. If they feel they were harassed then THEY WERE HARRASSED. It is that simple. Plus there is more then adequate proof based on verbal and written emails that she in fact was harrassed.

I feel that your last comment is harassing me, and I am going to file a complaint with MM.

Herman Surkis wrote:

I feel that your last comment is harassing me, and I am going to file a complaint with MM.

Seriously?  Nothing was directed at you. I get you point, but I believe you to be mistaken.

And remember the OP had more than anicdotal evidence that she was in fact harassed.  I was tring to make a simple point around Sexual Harassment claims ( I can't speak for Canada, but I can speak for the US) that is often not understood but is never the less real.