[bothsidesnow]

Quote:

Model sues agency for using face on hair removal products without her knowing... and she found out on trip to New York years later By DAILY MAIL REPORTER Marina Asenova is suing her former New York modelling agency after her face was used on cosmetics but she allegedly never received a payment A model is suing her former New York agency after spotting her face on hair care products at Duane Reade - the first she knew of a deal. Marina Asenova, from Bulgaria, was represented by MC2 models in New York before returning to Europe in 2006. But on a trip back to the city, she nipped into the pharmacy and saw her image had been used on hair removal and hair bleaching products. Modelling agency MC2 Models never paid her for the deal with Coty Cosmetics - then Sally Hansen Cosmetics - according to court papers. 'I guess they figured she'd never find out about it,' her lawyer Tom Mullaney told the New York Post. Asenova has now filed a lawsuit against MC2, charging them with breach of contract and unjust enrichment. She claims that 80 per cent of the money earned from the campaign should be hers, according to the Post. Yet the exact amount is not clear, as MC2 is allegedly refusing to let her know how much they earned from the deal, or even show her the contract. Mullaney added: 'To say they’ve given her the runaround would be kind.' She discovered her face on products in the hair care aisle, including brush on hair remover, in which she appears to be holding an applicator to the camera. Products: On a trip to New York, Asenova saw her face on hair products Image: She is uncertain how much the modelling contract was worth Her face also appears on hair bleach products, which bear the Sally Hansen logo. Cover model Asenova has appeared in campaigns for Yves Saint Laurent and Olay, among others. She also has representation in London, Switzerland and Germany. MC2 is a modelling agency based New York's West Village, with offices also in Miami, Florda and Tel Aviv, Israel. The agency did not respond to a request for a comment. Spotted: Asenova was stunned when she saw her face on the products in a Duane Reade store while on a trip back to New York City

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1pyvNQ5Pc

[Urban Stylin]

wow am sure it happens quite alot especially with models from foreign country or small towns who dont have regular access to the advertised product

[TommyGirl]

I may be a little lost in translation here, but I understood she just accidentally noticed her shots being used in these packages, but when those pics were shot, didn`t she have any idea who is she working for and hence be aware of the fact she should get paid for the job? Because her lawyer said that maybe the agency just trusted she will never know about this... Maybe she was told her shots were dropped or something, sounds weird anyway.

Edit: I noticed the shots are very "generic" face shots, so may have been taken for anything, but what about the one where she is holding something, maybe edited later?

[theatretokens]

way for daily mail to jack another story from jezebel and not have to do any research whatsoever. not that their readership cares.

[saann]

Isn't it usually the photographer who owns the pictures? it being his/her responsibility to ask permission from the model..

[bothsidesnow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Stylin wow am sure it happens quite alot especially with models from foreign country or small towns who dont have regular access to the advertised product

I'm sure you're right. I suspect it happens also with campaigns that run in Asia where the usage fees are quite high but the advertising is easily hidden from the model. Extensions of usages in particular would be a soft target for this type of scam.

[Urban Stylin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TommyGirl I may be a little lost in translation here, but I understood she just accidentally noticed her shots being used in these packages, but when those pics were shot, didn`t she have any idea who is she working for and hence be aware of the fact she should get paid for the job? Because her lawyer said that maybe the agency just trusted she will never know about this... Maybe she was told her shots were dropped or something, sounds weird anyway. Edit: I noticed the shots are very "generic" face shots, so may have been taken for anything, but what about the one where she is holding something, maybe edited later?

seems like they were test shots of a sort which ended up being used in ads though its weird how a major company like Sally Hansen would be involved in such a row

[agee]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saann Isn't it usually the photographer who owns the pictures? it being his/her responsibility to ask permission from the model..

My guess is that her first stop will be her agency and the agency's response been something like, "we didn't know but now that we do we will go after the photographer (or whomever) to get your and our money." But it sounds like she got the runaround instead which is probably why she concluded that the agency was paid. Also it makes sense since these ads were plastered around NY, and may have been for a long time, that it would not have gone unnoticed by someone from the agency.

This is really an intriguing case because like bothsidesnow stated, something like this is easy to pull off because models are so transient.