Cameron Diaz's photographer case: Convicted!

[nomade]

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=975456

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

That's really too bad. I was very curious to see the pictures.

[seanb]

In this case the result appears justified, as the photographer has admitted that the signature was probably not real. However, I can see a situation arising where a celebrity denies that a perfectly legitimate release from her early career is genuine. With the Diaz case as a precedent, and access to more expensive lawyers, who's to say that the truth would come out?

 

I'm also slightly surprised that there is no genuine release. Were these never intended for publication? It sounds like a fairly elaborate shoot (on location, at least one other model) to not be intended for some use that would require a model release.

[will_perlis]

"However, I can see a situation arising where a celebrity denies that a perfectly legitimate release from her early career is genuine."

 

A signed release and a picture of them holding up a driver's license with the same signature on it would take care of that. That's standard practice for glamour and X-rated shoots. This guy is a greedy idiot.

[richard_cochran]

<cite>However, I can see a situation arising where a celebrity

denies that a perfectly legitimate release from her early career

is genuine.</cite>

<p>

This was a criminal trial, and a jury of 12 people were

convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. If a

model just alleges that an old release is a forgery, she's going

to have to come up with some pretty convincing evidence to remove

all reasonable doubt in the mind of 12 jurors. If it's just a

"he said - she said" case, and the signed release looks

more-or-less genuine, I hope there would be at least one

juror with some reasonable doubt left, which would prevent

a conviction.

<p>

A civil suit would have lower standards of evidence. Still,

a preponderance of evidence would have to go against the

photographer for the model to be awarded a judgement. The

signed paper would be one item of evidence, the testimony of

the photographer would be another, and any photos showing the

model holding the release and license would be still another.

The model's testimony that the signature was a fake is unlikely

to outweigh those other items of evidence pointing toward it

being genuine.

<p>

Madonna had some early nude photos of her published, as did

former Miss America Vanessa Williams. In those cases,

the photographer just took the photos to a magazine (Playboy

and Penthouse, respectively) and sold them directly, without

trying to extort money out of the celebrity. The photographers

in those cases did nothing illegal, and didn't suffer from lawsuits

or criminal charges.

[dai_hunter]

An interesting twist to this is that at the time Diaz was rep'ed by a fashion agency (I believe it was Elite). It is normal practice in the completely abnormal business of agencies to instruct the models NOT to sign client/photographer releases on the day - and typically the release is not issued until the agency has been paid.

 

In the end the photographer and / or client has absolutely NO way to verify that a valid release has actually been signed by the model personally and not by some flunky at the agency scribbling the model's name on it.

 

The issue here was the signature but it would be much more interesting to explore just who signed it. If indeed it was prepared by the agency and the (a?) signature was fixed to the release in the capacity of the agency acting, in a legal sense, as Diaz' "agent" then it could arguably be made out that the signature was valid EVEN IF DIAZ DID NOT PERSONALLY SIGN IT. Under those circumstances the model can always later try to disavow the release as Diaz has here.

 

Don't know and would love to find out if that was the case here... especially as the jury didn't buy it as a genuine or valid release in this instance. Even Rutter admitted that he became aware at some point that it was not Diaz personal signature - in her own handwiting - but where did it come from and in what circumstances?

 

Makes you wonder how many other models, photographers and clients, and how many other releases sent out by agents / agencies, after the fact, could be in the same position.

 

Hunter

[leeblackman]

I see it as another money game in our capitalistic society. Which ever party has the better lawyers wins, and the better laywers cost more money than the other guys.

 

I think that in this day and age people should be use to having their picture taken, considering that every street corner these days seems to have a surveilance camera on it. I figure if you take someone's picture and you own the film or medium it was taken on, then you own the image. Its ashame the courts don't see it that way though.

[w_r]

I'm glad the Cameron Diaz photographer was convicted. Extortion should not be a standard business practice for photographers. Getting the proper paperwork signed and witnessed is a common practice. If he had a legitimate witness and witness signature on the release - he would never have lost his criminal case. It's not a smart idea to be shooting naked or half-naked women on film without an assistant at the shoot. You never want to let yourself be in a position of he said/she said when nude pictures are being taken and it's business related. It's the photographer's responsibility to understand how to create proper model releases and copyright ownership for his or her business at all times. This guy was stupid and unprofessional - his felony conviction is well deserved. He's probably the only photographer in a decade to get a felony conviction for trying to unlawfully extort a star.