Kristen Kennis sues Vampire Weekend & photographer over album cover image

<p>Is there a copyright infringement count in this case (filed in state court) or did the Findlaw Celebrity Justice Legal Blogger confuse model release right to privacy issues with copyright infringement?...<br /><a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2010/07/model-kristen-kennis-sues-vampire-weekend-over-album-cover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CelebJustice+%28Celebrity+Justice%29">http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2010/07/model-kristen-kennis-sues-vampire-weekend-over-album-cover.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CelebJustice+%28Celebrity+Justice%29</a></p>

<p>Gotta love the snarky remark in <a href="http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/vampire-weekend-sued-by-model-from-i-contra-i-album-cover/7324163">this related snippet</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The vintage photo was originally taken in 1983 by Tod Brody when Kennis was <em>relevant</em>, relatively speaking..."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>More celebrity BS with salivating lawyers...</p>

<p>http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/181765<br /> Rolling Stone reports that a lawsuit was filed in LA Superior Court.<br /> [Chris Barth, Rolling Stone.]</p>

<p>The band members said in an interview that they did not know who the model was:<br /> http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1629504/20100112/vampire_weekend.jhtml<br /> [James Montgomery, MTV.]</p>

<p>Photo was reported to have been bought by the band, Vampire Weekend from photographer Tod Brody:<br /> http://www.myaft.com/kirsten-kennis/ <br /> That last source unnamed, regurgitator, looked like it was among a group that was starting to loop back on itself.</p>

<p>Unnamed writer in a blog listed publications which ran similar stories:<br /> http://entertainment.newsplurk.com/2010/07/vampire-weekend-contra-cover-girl-sues.html</p>

<p>Another write up on some blog suggest the lawsuit was filed on July 14, 2010; they note "TMZ" (Thirty Mile Zone) [iNTERNET: http://www.tmz.com/about/ ] as their source: http://askville.amazon.com/Kirsten-Kennis-suing-million/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=70435195</p>

<p>LA Superior Court has a website where you can search for information. The criminal side has about a five dollar charge per search. The civil side has some notice about some kinds of information not being available.<br /> INTENET: https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civil/<br /> Pretty much all of those LA court searches seemed to center around knowing the case number.<br /> I didn't see any notices about what was the mechanism of the complaint. They didn't say exactly what they were being sued about.</p>

<p>The Village Voice has a blog article stating that she's living in Connecticut, has an attorney, and provides some other personal details which describe a phone call they say was placed to her. The Village Voice article seems to describe what Entertainment Weekly collected, but doesn't outright re-state their story.<br /> [iNTERNET: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2010/07/vampire_weekend_14.php ]<br /> [iNTERNET: http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/07/16/vampire-weekend-model-lawsuit/ ]</p>

<p>If they're right, then her attorney's name is Alan Neigher. A search for his name reveals that there's an attorney by that name in Westport, CT. <br /> According to this website, he has some experience with representing people in the film and entertainment industries: [iNTERNET: http://www.oroloroentertainment.com/Neigher.htm ]<br /> Lawyers dotcom [iNTERNET: http://www.lawyers.com/Connecticut/Westport/Alan-Neigher-339472-f.html ] provides an address, website and phone number. <br /> That website [iNTENET: http://www.neigherlaw.com/ ] from the Laywers dotcom address lists him as a copyright and communications attorney. By the looks of it, he'd be one of the guys to pick if you were going to sue somebody over published words or insults. Seemed to be a general purpose sued-over-says type business for a Hollywood or sports figure clientele. </p>

<p>That website lists his email address if you want to ask him some questions. I'm sure he's astute enough to provide a juicy but empty statement. The phone numbers on the last two websites matched.</p>

<p>One of the interesting aspects, JH, about your question was that it pointed out a telling feature: that while all the stories, including some of the more polished ones, had some kind of entertainment value and provoked some questions; well, along the way I didn't see anything that looked like "substantive information." That is, we can see facts in there; some are weak or recursive, but there are facts.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, nobody said anything which sounds like the meat of the matter. Sued-over-picture and alleged forgery of a signature on a model release was all we really got. Some interesting personal color; but, no real points about stuff like, Exactly what was someone being sued over? Exactly what did the model want from the lawsuit? What was the scope and intensity of the complaint? Why did this get to a lawsuit? Instead of being a normal, amicably settled problem, why were these people quarreling on opposite sides of the US (LA,CA to CT), and so on.</p>

<p>Other questions like, Who did what, and did they even file the right documents in the right court for the action? Is the right person getting sued for doing the most wrong? Or, is the cash cow taking the fall? No telling.</p>

<p>They probably can't reveal any of that; but, this could be anything from "I want my two dollars," on up to publicity stunt, or demanding fortune and a house in Beverly Hills. Who knows? I can't tell from what these people have been reported as saying or doing about this what's what. We'll have to wait and see.</p>

<p>I wonder if Vampire Weekend will sue for being labeled a "hipster band" in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/kirsten-kennis-sues-vampi_n_648972.html">some versions of this story</a>? That's pretty close to being called insufferably pretentious. Not that I would imply such a thing. I haven't actually heard them. I've only heard <em>of</em> them.</p>

<p>Lex, I was going to get one of those "Die Hipster Scum" t-shirts, but then I noticed that all the hipsters wear them. I have to be careful with whom I am associated.</p>

<p>It is an intriguing image somehow.</p>

<p>After looking at the "Contra" cover art I can see why they chose that photo. Wonky color, skillfully offhand sorta smartypants who-needs-composition framing. Practically screams SX-70 in David Bailey's hands.</p>

<p>It's alll-most perfect... but why Century Gothic instead of Helvetica? I thought Helvetica was the font of this generation.</p>

<p>Oh, wait... vampire... century... gothic. Okay, icwutudidthar.</p>

<p>My take on the legal aspects is that Kennis's legal theory is a violation of her "right to publicity." Copyright infringement actions cannot be filed in state courts and she does not own the copyright to the photo if she did not take it.<br>

What I find interesting is the dispute over whether the image was taken by her mother or a professional photographer. What are your opinions about the source of the light considering the shadows and the vignetting? Granted, the image could have been edited but the lighting looks too "amateurish" to have been done by an amateur using an amateur camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...the lighting looks too "amateurish" to have been done by an amateur using an amateur camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my impression. Everything in that photo is just a little too carefully contrived to present an offhand snapshot appearance to actually be an amateur snapshot.</p>

<p>Unless the version on the album cover was retouched, she appears to be wearing makeup - no blemishes, etc. The oh-so-'80s flipped collar on her Izod shirt. But that particular photo looks like an outtake from a session, possibly selected because it didn't look too posed, too polished.</p>

<p>There does appear to be some very contemporary hipsterish editing. The partial vignetting extending from lower left, clockwise around to the upper right corner, reeks of contemporary hipster 'shopping. It doesn't appear to be natural light falloff from a low power flash on a compact camera. Ditto the purplish tinge - looks like a contemporary affectation.</p>

<p>It'd be interesting to see an original version for comparison, but so far I haven't found a before/after on the web. It'll probably show up soon.</p>

<p>Did 'hipster' become an invective term when I wasn't looking? Aren't you talking about faux-hipsters?</p>

<p>A few more details if accurate.<br>

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/231834/vampire-weekends-cover-art-contra-versy-model-sues-band-for-2-million/;_ylt=AiIy6lTcy9Opl1EY1P2AIBEexCUv?page=9#comments</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I find interesting is the dispute over whether the image was taken by her mother or a professional photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another interesting aspect is why it matters. The authenticity of the model release is obviously relevant to a misappropriation/right to publicity claim but wouldn't such a claim exist no matter who shot or owned the image? The model's right to publicity was allegedly misused either way.</p>

<p>I found it interesting from the practical side as stated above because the photograph looks too amateurish to have been taken by an amateur photographer. From the legal perspective, the identity of the photographer is important for several reasons. If taken by a professional during a modeling session, a judge or jury could find implied consent irrespective of whether the model release was forged, especially if Kennis was paid for the session. If taken by the mother, a judge or jury would likely find that the model release was forged. With respect to damages, the photographer could argue that Kennis was properly compensated assuming she was paid or received something of value during the modeling session. If taken by the mother, then the photographer is basically stealing someone else's work and profiting from Kennis's likeness without Kennis obtaining any benefit. With regard to the band, there is a higher probability that the photographer would have to indemnify them if he did not take the photograph.</p>

 

<p>I thought I had posted this yesterday - but I'm getting older...</p>

<p>Basically Lex - I agree with you - the lighting and editing look to perfectly amtuerish to be "amatuer". Even if according to the model her mother was an sx70 junkie - the lighting / color don't look to be pure SX-70.</p>

<p>Of course one way to settle this - If the photographer can produce a negative - granted he could have taken it picture of the sx-70 print- then that would settle it, wouldn't it? </p>

<p>Sounds like she wants to dissapear and if she had known that she was signing away rights to the image forever - she probably would not have signed...or at least had second thoughts about it.<br>

<br />Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That makes sense Bert. Thanks for weighing in.</p>