Hailey Clauson's Parents Suing Urban Oufitters

[HeatherAnne]

$28 million is a drop in the bucket for Urban Outfitters.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

^doesnt mean they want to lose that amount... they actually havent been doing well with their profits.

 

[cestmagique]

^
so sad, because Hailey had a bright career and then
her career is all over from this on

the knells mourning Hailey's career are just a tiiiiny bit premature at this point

 

[agee]

I don't think that Hailey's career is over, but this matter painted a bulls-eye on her back when it comes to the upcoming season because her signature walk is a sexy sashay and there were several designers who were willing to book her and then put her in a grown up ensemble and let her do her thing, and now I don't know if they are going to be willing to book her for that reason. I don't think that this is necessarily the end of her career but she may take a hit in the short-term since her parents put it out there that they are "shocked... shocked" that their little girl does modeling gigs that portray her in a sexy light.

 

[cestmagique]

I don't understand this ^ Hailey's walk is her own behavior... what, do you think Hailey's parents will sue Hailey because she swung her hips on the catwalk or something? It's a completely different situation. I really don't see why this lawsuit has to have a far-reaching effect on her career. Half the people in this thread are convinced the suit is purely financially motivated, so if that's true it should only pose a problem for the people she works with in the future IF they're planning to attempt ripping her off.

 

[agee]

^ Re-read my post, I did not state that her "walk is her own behavior.," and no I don't think that her parents are going to sue because she swung her hips on the catwalk which is why I am giving her parents major side-eye over them suing UO on the grounds of the sexual connotations of the pictures, as I and others have pointed out they are being selective and inconsistent about their daughter portraying sexuality in her modeling gigs.

 

[model_mom]

I don't understand this ^ Hailey's walk is her own behavior... what, do you think Hailey's parents will sue Hailey because she swung her hips on the catwalk or something? It's a completely different situation. I really don't see why this lawsuit has to have a far-reaching effect on her career. Half the people in this thread are convinced the suit is purely financially motivated, so if that's true it should only pose a problem for the people she works with in the future IF they're planning to attempt ripping her off.

You must not know the same fashion industry that I do... One of the very first things an agent tells a new face parent is stay in the background and don't make waves....

A photographer may not want to take a chance on a photoshoot with Hailey now because of the recent lawsuit taken out by her parents....an editor might not want to use her for an editorial for the same reason... A designer might not use her on their runway because of the recent publicity. Hailey is a stunning young lady and has a proven track record when it comes to runway and editorial work....but her parents have also created a lot of bad publicity
for the industry in the past week and that may take a heavy toll on her future career .....I hope I'm wrong about this because she seems to love it all so much....but with show season coming up...we're fixing to find out.

 

[cestmagique]

^I guess it's all in how individual people interpret the case. If they see the suit as erroneous and greedy, then yes, I agree with you that it will hurt her career because no professional wants to have to wonder if they're going to be sued for no apparent reason. But I don't see the suit as unjustified & if other individuals see it that way too, then the lawsuit is nothing more than typical business, and nothing negative will come from it for Hailey. Much of the problem with this situation anyway is that basic procedures weren't followed. Evidently no one was on the same page and rather basic things like 'who did or didn't sign a release' and 'who does or doesn't have the rights to the image,' somehow didn't come together. That's sloppy and all that really had to be done to prevent this whole mess, and all that will need to be done to prevent it from happening again in the future for Hailey or any other model, is for the photographer, agencies, and companies like BITNB to simply do their jobs and follow their own standard procedures.

I'm just puzzled at how people are so dead-set on a) Hailey's parents are hypocritical money whores, b) Hailey's career is over, and c) the entire fashion industry, with its thousands of different people and companies, will somehow all come to the conclusion that working with Hailey will have horrible consequences for them no matter what. I don't agree with any of that because it sounds so black and white to me, and a bit unrealistic.

 

[ParisFashionMuse]

well, if that was my daughter she would have limits to what she does. i don't care what photographer it is because they would respect my wishes and her adolescence. she's 16 years old. Her parents should be accompanying her or at least previewing her work or getting an email by her managers describing what the shots will look like or what type of shoot it is. they are provocative indeed. however, i don't think it would ruin her career. And again, if that was my daughter of course i would try and sue for any penny i can get. who isn't a money wh*re?

On UO & Perry's part- it's tasteless how they abused her images. Why not try and score $28M. It's worth a try. Now only if Hailey was my daughter!

my main issue with these comments is if its going to ruin her career. First off, she's not john galliano. get over it. I don't look at her work any differently and i highly doubt anyone else will.

 

[pavonine]

Tell you what, I don't find the shoot in question to be any more sexually charged than this or this. She's never truly styled to portray a 15 year old.

These are pretty standard poses in fashion shoots, and if her parents don't approve of it, then they should've never allowed her to get into modelling in the first place. They just come across as money whores who just want to milk everything for what it's worth.

 

[model_mom]

Cestmagique....How much you wanna bet? Naw....just kidding I hope you're right about the Hailey part....she's really good at what she does...

 

[pavonine]

however, i don't think it would ruin her career.

Maybe to suggest that her career is "ruined" is hyperbole, but surely, photographers and stylists are going to think twice before booking her again for a shoot, aren't they? It might cause a dent in the amount of editorial work she'd going to book, and maybe also in the number of campaigns she'd probably score. Why will big fashion houses and magazines and photographers want to go to all the trouble? It's not like her look is terribly unique; there are scores of other girls who'd perfectly fit the bill.

 

[Fontenrose]

The photographer sold the photos without a model release from Ford. He realized his error (he now says) and tried to make a deal with the agency after the fact. Parents seemingly are not willing to make a deal on photos that were never supposed to be used.

Normally the 'damages' would be related to the value of the shirts, plus some extra. Carla Bruni got 40000 euros when a vendor put a nude picture of her on a purse without a release.

In the U.S. if you really want damages you can add the underage aspect, and who knows what will happen. Totally depends on the judge. Hailey may not need a modeling career anymore.

 

[rosiecheeks]

The photographer sold the photos without a model release from Ford. He realized his error (he now says) and tried to make a deal with the agency after the fact. Parents seemingly are not willing to make a deal on photos that were never supposed to be used.

Normally the 'damages' would be related to the value of the shirts, plus some extra. Carla Bruni got 40000 euros when a vendor put a nude picture of her on a purse without a release.

In the U.S. if you really want damages you can add the underage aspect, and who knows what will happen. Totally depends on the judge. Hailey may not need a modeling career anymore.

What's up with that weird claim-y culture in the US? I agree the photo's are 'sexually charged' but she's done that before hasn't she? Sueing them isn't wrong though, it's just the inconsistency and the sum (28 million!!) that make this case a bit .. dodgy to me.

 

[Fontenrose]

Parents of young (Ford Agency) model sue when sexy shots aimed at clothed crotch are used on shirts without a release. Parents criticized all over the internet for letting their daughter model so young.

http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f63/hailey-clausons-parents-suing-urban-oufitters-145833.html

Fashion fans pooh-pooh the false modesty, since sexy shots of young models are par for the course in fashion.

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/columns/olivia-bergin/TMG8719935/Hailey-Clausons-T-shirt-war.html

 

[jmrmartinho]

i think it will afect her career cause if i was a client i would think 2 times before book her!

 

[citygrrl]

Well, I guess she won't be booked for "sexy" editorials anymore. Maybe that will be good for her...maybe her work will be more diverse now?

 

[Palssie]

Why does everybody think the main problem lies in how sexed up the photo is? To me this seems like a non-issue and was only brought up by the family for added effect.

It seems like the main issue, and reason to sue, would be that these photos were not taken for the purpose of being printed on t shirts for UO, no matter what the photo depicts. So UO doesn't have the legal right to use the photo. And if they have allegedly acquired the rights from the photographer, then the photographer didn't actually have the right to sign over the photo anyway without the model's permission, or her parents in the case of a minor. Taking this into account, it's irrelevant whether the photo is 'salacious' or not. They would still be able to sue even if it was a boring headshot of her smiling.

 

[Fontenrose]

Most people are uninterested in image licensing.

 

[agee]

Why does everybody think the main problem lies in how sexed up the photo is? To me this seems like a non-issue and was only brought up by the family for added effect.

It seems like the main issue, and reason to sue, would be that these photos were not taken for the purpose of being printed on t shirts for UO, no matter what the photo depicts. So UO doesn't have the legal right to use the photo. And if they have allegedly acquired the rights from the photographer, then the photographer didn't actually have the right to sign over the photo anyway without the model's permission, or her parents in the case of a minor. Taking this into account, it's irrelevant whether the photo is 'salacious' or not. They would still be able to sue even if it was a boring headshot of her smiling.

It is not a "non-issue" specifically because the parents did put words like "salacious" in their complaint. The parents possibly screwed up their daughter's career (at least in the short-term) by bringing up the "salacious" part whether it was sincere or "for added effect" and also for suing for a whopping $28 million.

Someone brought up the Carla Bruni Sarkozy case, and she was far more famous as a model and, of course as the first lady of France and the image in question with her was a nude, and yet she sued for €125,000 and made it clear that she was trying to stop the bags from being distributed. I think that at the time the Clauson parents filed suit that not too many of the t-shirts had been sold, and that the energy and rhetoric should have been aimed at halting the further distribution of the t-shirts and getting reasonable damages for the breach that led to the t-shirts getting created in the first place.