Hailey Clauson's Parents Suing Urban Oufitters

[oh me]

I actually wonder what kind of parents would allow their underage daughter to make this type of pictures.

 

[cologne_rocks]

Well it's LA

 

[valliaddict]

I'm afraid that this will help Hailey's celebrity status, but not her modelling career. Do you guys remember that whole debacle over her being underage at the DVF show? Diane didn't know she was underaged, and she said that HC just slipped through the cracks (It was all over the entertainment news shows). Anyways, what I am trying to say is that at such a young age she is getting too much controversial exposure. I bet that when her career dries up at age 20 she will right a tell-all book about the dangers of underage modelling.

 

[theBlueRider]

This little girl has been sex on a stick for quite some time and in quite a few settings, not just print but she also has a very sexy runway walk, so the parents could not have been unaware of it and if they were they are basically admitting their negligence. Now there may have other legitimate grounds for a lawsuit but sexually exploiting a young girl without her, her parents' and possibly her agent's knowledge and consent is not one of them.

it makes me really uncomfortable to hear "sex on a stick"...

i honestly think someone mentored her to be that way...i know for many young models the "sexy" type of poses are the easiest to master (the easiest expressions and easiest way to show emotion and attitude) and that is what we are taught during development.

it really does make me feel uncomfortable now that everyone is associating hailey with "sexy" because i don't think she's actually sexy (she doesn't quite have the mystery, allure or exoticism like some other top models) but just a well trained model

....maybe i just see it this way because i've been around and seen so many models

 

[agee]

^ Fair enough and when I was drafting my comment I considered adding in a comment that just because a model plays sexy is not an indicator one way or another about her how she conducts herself when she is off-duty, so I will amend my original comment to, "This little girl has been portraying sex on a stick for quite some time..."

 

[phenobarbie]

Maker Of Racy Hailey Clauson T-Shirt Didn’t Know The Image Was Unauthorized
Yesterday we reported that Urban Outfitters was being sued for selling a t-shirt screenprinted with an unauthorized photo of teenage model Hailey Clauson. But last night we learned the company that actually made the shirt had no idea they weren’t allowed to use the photo, or that Clauson was only 15 years old when it was taken.

Blood Is The New Black owner Mitra Khayyam emailed Styleite to explain that neither she, nor her staff nor anyone at Urban Outfitters was aware that photographer Jason Lee Parry didn’t get a release form for the photo, which Clauson’s parents called “salacious” in their lawsuit against Urban Outfitters. Khayyam also denied the allegation that her company stole the image from Parry. The company has worked with him before, and the image in question is one of several that were “delivered to us … with the sole purpose of producing tee shirts and marketing them to our network of stores worldwide.” From the email:

Blood is the New Black is very sensitive to the matter at hand as it was revealed to us that the Model was underage after the release of the tee shirts. We do not take this issue lightly as many of our customers are young men and women. Blood is the New Black has always been supportive of up and coming artists – our core mission is provide a space for emerging talent in design, art, and photography. The line has produced over a thousand images bearing works by 50 international artists, many of which our customers have come to know, love and support. We find it unfortunate that after six years of business we find ourselves, and our partners, part of a situation brought on by a lack of proper protocol from a member of the artistic community. We have addressed this issue internally to ensure such an egregious oversight never occurs again.

Khayyam said she values her relationship with Urban Outfitters and wouldn’t intentionally do something to damage it, saying “they must not be held responsible for this gross oversight.”

That leaves us asking, who will be held responsible? Only time (in court, that is) will tell.

http://www.styleite.com/media/hailey-clauson-urban-outfitters/

 

[LUXXX]

There's something very "Kate Gosselin/Dina Lohan School of Parenting" about this story.

 

[MyNameIs]

I can't be bothered to read the whole story because the whole thing just sounds fishy to me. Where were the parents when they agreed to participate in the shoot? Agreed Luxx, something very Dina Lohan about the whole thing.

 

[cynthia]

Hailey's parents seem to be exploiting their daughter in every manner conceivable, all under the guise of protecting their beloved child. It's sickening really how greedy and immoral some people truly are. *And meanwhile she is more than content to sit back and go along for the ride. Whatever, I never found her to be appealing or beautiful but I digress ....

 

[BonesAndOil]

I'm afraid that this will help Hailey's celebrity status, but not her modelling career. Anyways, what I am trying to say is that at such a young age she is getting too much controversial exposure.

I agree. I mean, what photographer/client is going to want to work with her after this? I feel like this is so damaging for her career. Couldn't her parents quietly have worked this out with Hailey's agency? And not of asked for such an insane amount of money? I mean - $28M?

I understand the parent's concern, but I don't agree with the way it has been executed. Now when you google her:


I love Hailey's look and think she has huge potential as a model, but this "scandal" will be damaging, and the worst part is it could of been avoided.

 

[*Bianca*]

This has been posted as a comment on various articles relating to the case:

Team Parry says August 21, 2011 at 1:52 am
August 20. 2011

For Immediate Release:
In regards to the recent lawsuit against Jason Lee Parry and Urban Outfitters.

While the outcome of the Jason Lee Parry’s lawsuit will ultimately be determined in court, I would like to address the undeniable facts about these absurd allegations.

- The model’s father was present for a majority of the shoot. He was shown photos while on set and sanctioned them long before they were published.

- Ford modeling agency assigned the model for Jason Lee Parry’s shoot. Ford approved the fashion story featured in Qvest magazine to be published. The photo in question was featured in the model’s portfolio on Ford’s site. All correspondence is documented in emails approving the shoot.

- A total of seven people were on set during the entire duration of the shoot, including three female stylists, and a female videographer. The upmost care was given to ensure the model was provided privacy while changing wardrobes and that absolutely no nudity of any kind was visible.

- There was absolutely no breasts or genitalia visible in the image in question. There is less skin observable in the image than could be seen in any contemporary bathing suit photo.

- Unbeknownst to Jason Lee Parry the image in question was selected by the t-shirt brand. He was also unaware of retail distribution of the t-shirt.

- After the photos were released the model proudly posted the images in question to her personal site.

Jason Lee Parry’s creative vision for the fashion photos in question is about a rebellious teenage girl hanging out at her father’s motorcycle shop. The story captures the American working class, motorcycle culture, and highlights the designer clothing featured on the model. The model is perched on the back of a vintage motorcycle. She is sitting in a position she determined would be comfortable and relevant to the photo. She is seated in relaxed casual manner, a tough motorcycle mechanic’s daughter. It is not to be perceived in any way as overtly sexual.

Jason Lee Parry is professional photographer in every aspect of his work. His edgy contemporary photography captivates the culture he photographs and defines his generation. His photography has been featured in countless international publications and online sources. Fans, friends, and family of Jason Lee Parry’s high fashion photography eagerly await closure of these defaming allegations and lawsuit.

 

[model_mom]

After Ali left New York....I recieved an e-mail from one of her agents at Ford asking for permission to use an image taken of Ali by a certain photographer. This photographer was putting together a coffee table book of some of their favorite subjects. I had never seen this image, but trusted the agent to use it at her discretion. She assured me it would be totally unidentifiable and Ali's name would not be used.
I should have ask to see the image because it was taken while Ali was getting dressed after a shoot. You can tell by her expression that she had no idea it was being taken. She was 16 at that time. A few months later the book came out and Ali's picture was included. You could not see her face very well but underneath the photo was her name.

It was an innocent picture of a young girl and had no business being a part of that book...but thanks to my gullibility and not questioning the agent about the photo....it was.
So the jist of this is..... Modeling is a risky business and you take a hugh gamble when you allow your daughter/son to be a part of it. Very few reach the fame of Miss Clausen ....but sometimes it can blow up in your face ....all because of poor judgement on the part of a parent.....and God help the young models who are on their own.

 

[Spark]

Does no one else see a distinct difference between a photoshoot done with permission of the parents for limited viewing -- as it's been reported multiple times now that the pictures were never intended to be viewed after her agent complained -- and the exposure that would result in that same image being on a t-shirt in one of the most popular clothing chains? I can understand why, in the industry, a provocative photoshoot was done and if her parents were there and gave permission and Hailey felt comfortable, whatever, it was experience and I will assume by the presence of her parents that it was fairly private and professional. I see a HUGE difference between that and a mass-produced t-shirt and I can understand why they are suing. Not saying that the image's sexual focus on a young girl isn't a whole OTHER issue that needs attention and examination, only that I feel there's a difference between doing that in a photoshoot with an inclusive audience and plastering it on t-shirts for young adults without permission.

 

[model_mom]

Do you not understand that the parents are going to say, "It's not our fault....we didn't know the big bad fashion industry was going to exploit our 14 year old."....and the agent is going to say, "Our agency would never release her photo without your permission."....and the photographer is going to say, "I had no idea how they ended up with that image.".... and of course the retailer is going to say, "Nobody told us we couldn't use her image for our tees?"....and guess what they want you to believe they are the only one that's telling the truth....the sad thing is that each and everyone doesn't care as long as there is money to be made.

 

[Vega Magnus]

I have a question. Why would anyone buy that t-shirt anyway? It'd be creepy even if she wasn't underage.

 

[cestmagique]

Does no one else see a distinct difference between a photoshoot done with permission of the parents for limited viewing -- as it's been reported multiple times now that the pictures were never intended to be viewed after her agent complained -- and the exposure that would result in that same image being on a t-shirt in one of the most popular clothing chains? I can understand why, in the industry, a provocative photoshoot was done and if her parents were there and gave permission and Hailey felt comfortable, whatever, it was experience and I will assume by the presence of her parents that it was fairly private and professional. I see a HUGE difference between that and a mass-produced t-shirt and I can understand why they are suing. Not saying that the image's sexual focus on a young girl isn't a whole OTHER issue that needs attention and examination, only that I feel there's a difference between doing that in a photoshoot with an inclusive audience and plastering it on t-shirts for young adults without permission.

I was surprised no one brought this up sooner. IMO it's context that makes this situation inappropriate. There's a big difference between that picture in a fashion context (like printed in a magazine), where the viewer has more of an understanding that editorials are carefully crafted fantasy and that the image should not taken as literal, vs. on a random t-shirt where the implications of the image are much different. If I were Hailey I wouldn't be embarrassed for having done that shoot, but I doubt I'd like if some shop were selling my image as something almost purely sexual, without my knowing it, just for them to cash in.

Side note: I hope Hailey's parents aren't 100% evil like this thread is saying they are. Harsh judgments, people!

 

[theBlueRider]

I was surprised no one brought this up sooner. IMO it's context that makes this situation inappropriate. There's a big difference between that picture in a fashion context (like printed in a magazine), where the viewer has more of an understanding that editorials are carefully crafted fantasy and that the image should not taken as literal, vs. on a random t-shirt where the implications of the image are much different. If I were Hailey I wouldn't be embarrassed for having done that shoot, but I doubt I'd like if some shop were selling my image as something almost purely sexual, without my knowing it, just for them to cash in.

Side note: I hope Hailey's parents aren't 100% evil like this thread is saying they are. Harsh judgments, people!

I see the points you're making and I think they are valid. But unfortunately that's not the perspective of the claims reported in the lawsuit.

It's all really hard to say especially when we all know that photos, especially fashion-like photos, circulate the internet so quickly among youth (with things like tumblr, blogspot, facebook, models.com feeds, twitter etc).

 

[franki]

I was surprised no one brought this up sooner. IMO it's context that makes this situation inappropriate. There's a big difference between that picture in a fashion context (like printed in a magazine), where the viewer has more of an understanding that editorials are carefully crafted fantasy and that the image should not taken as literal, vs. on a random t-shirt where the implications of the image are much different.

i understand what you are saying, but i don't think we can say that no one viewing it in a fashion mag would see it in a sexual manner.

and in this day and age whether the image was made for a tshirt or a magazine, i think, is irrelevant. it was in her portfolio, on her website, in her thread here. lets not pretend that images are confined to the pages of the magazines.

most people here would be a perfect example... we have all seen the picture on the internet long before this case, and many would have never even seen the tshirt nor the publication the image appeared in. and i know my first thoughts (in regards to the entire shoot) was "hmmm that seems a bit sexual for a young girl!"
i don't think her parents were that naive to believe the pictures aren't all over the internet.. their daughter is well known afterall.

 

[cestmagique]

^^It seems to me that people are assuming things about the case/Hailey's parents that aren't necessarily accurate. I don't really know what strategy they are using for their case and I don't think it can be deduced just by what they mentioned in their statement. I hope it's not quite as obvious as 'our precious angel was wroooonged!!!' and that they have some solid reasoning for suing UO, otherwise this is very hypocritical of pretty much every person involved.

Also I get what you two mean about how the images are distributed online, but virtually all of what was mentioned is still within the 'fashion world'. Her personal website is visited by people she knows (friends/family), and by people who know her-- people who know she is a model and at least have an inkling of what that means. Her portfolio, all those feeds, etc. are all within the fashion community and again, people should have at least an idea that they are not to look at the image and attribute her pose, outfit, and so forth directly to Hailey-- it's Hailey playing a character for an editorial, having been dressed and directed by other people. But you could have absolutely no idea about the larger fashion world or models, see her photo on a shirt and think that it is just some girl looking suggestive. The editorial it was for, all the circumstances surrounding it are unknown and it gets taken completely at face value. So that's my point, I guess. To me it's just a different scenario altogether and if I were her I wouldn't want to be a part of it either. At least if a non-fashion-type person saw it randomly online and took it the 'wrong way', there's no real consequence to that because they're not profiting from perpetuating that misconception and it could easily be corrected by someone who was more in the know about fashion.

 

[Jasmine04]

I think one important piece of information we're lacking about this case at the moment (unless I've just missed it completely) is if a model release form was signed and what the conditions were. I'm assuming the father would have been the one to sign it since apparently he was on set and Hailey is a minor.

The parents seem to specifically take issue with the use of these pictures on apparel, not so much in print work. I'm going to assume that if a release form was signed, it was specifically for use as an editorial and nothing else. If that's the case than they probably do have a legitimate reason for suing. Although 28 million does seem a tad over the top...

If a model release wasn't signed, then how does that work? The photographer would need to still somehow get permission from the model before he published or sold it, right?

But I also wouldn't be surprised if Parry honestly didn't know that the picture had been sold on a t-shirt. Urban Outfitters doesn't seem to have the greatest track record with getting permission from the original artists and the company that made the t-shirt seemed to be in agreement that it was their mistake.

I do agree with the parents that the pictures are too inappropriate for a 15 year old girl to take part in. But they do seem to pick and choose when they are going to be outraged, and this leads me to believe that the main issue that had with these pictures wasn't so much the nature of them after all, but that a company was making a profit off of the photos that weren't supposed to and more importantly, that wasn't them. I'm sure they will settle out of court for a nice sum of cash. Which makes me think that the real loser in all of this is Hailey, since it seems she has parents that care more about making money than what kind of photo shoots their daughter was apart of and that her career may very well take a hit because of it.