Lara Stone sues Playboy over 'unauthorised photos'

[Ceir]

Oh, she has a right to sue for the fact that they used her images without her permission. But, for her to act like she's above appearing in French Playboy, or that it would tarnish her reputation is hilarious. Most French Playboy editorials are classier than what she's done for Purple. I think that's what most of us are trying to get at.

 

[Empress Merel]

^^ Fine. But it's not the point Lara is making. There is such a thing as rights to the pictures.

 

[Suhzie]

Who hold the rights to the pictures, btw? Lara, her agency, the photographer?
Since Playboy didn't actually shoot the pics themselves, they must have bought them from someone, right?

 

[williscrazy]

Good for Lara, I hope she wins.

It is different to pose nude on a fashion magazine and playboy... Just cause we know Lara Stone and can search her up in google and find all kind of naked photos of her, doesn't mean the majority of the society knows Lara and will want to search her up on google; the fact she is on playboy might turn out to be that, when you put playboy on google, you see her up there, she might become popular, but definitely not the way she wants it to be.

Put someone else on the spot, Carla Bruni once or more was topless or naked I forgot featured on Vogue or Harpers Bazaar in her early years of modelling, what if those images were then put into playboy, I wonder what she will do, and I wonder what everyone else will think about it.

 

[AD011620]

I think her statement about not appearing in French Playboy is ridiculous, firstly because all she does is posing with her t*ts out and secondly, French Playboy is in a different league and she should not be making such statements because some great models graced its covers and some great photographers collaborated with it... of course, she does not have to appear in Playboy if she does not want to but this sounds a bit bigheaded to me...

Not blaming her for suing the magazine though if they really used her photos without a proper authorisation...

My conclusion: I'll keep this one for myself, don't want to upset people;-)

 

[tigerrouge]

It doesn't matter how many times she's posed nude before, or where the pictures have been printed previously - if she has certain rights to images, then she gets to make certain decisions about how and where they can be reproduced.

The irony is that most of the world wouldn't have been aware of this in the first place... but the concept of Lara in Playboy has definitely been established in people's minds, now that it's become headline news, even if that comes due to her disapproval.

The cynic in me always harbours a suspicion that these things are done for publicity. At a time when sex tapes seem to be the best way for nobodies to turn themselves into celebrities, an appearance in Playboy isn't a shocker - and it doesn't really increase a model's profile as much it used to. Until the moment you complain about it.

That said, many celebrities have experienced the surprise of seeing themselves in Playboy thanks to bought-in images, so she wouldn't be the first to be affected by the magazine deciding to act without consultation.

 

[chuliach]

If they use photos without any permission, then she should sue them.

 

[Over the Sea]

good for her.
if she didn't give her consent for the images to be used, then they had no right to use them

 

[IAmLordZen]

Did the "Almost Unemployed" Lara Stone Neglect to Stitch Up a Nude Greg Lotus Photoshoot in 2008?

Last week frockwriter revealed that the spectacular onyx and crystal corset and cuff worn by Lara Stone in the June edition of Playboy France were originally designed by Australian jeweller Jenny Mercian for the 2008 Victoria's Secret show. We also noted that some mystery surrounded the origin of the photos. Although some images had already been widely circulated online in late 2009, with only the website of photographer Greg Lotus cited as a source, it appeared to be the first time the shots had made it to print. Now comes news that Stone is is taking legal action against both Playboy France and Lotus, in order to "protect" her "reputation", claiming the publication of the shots was unauthorised and that she would never have posed for Playboy. Given the volume of nude work that Stone has pumped into the public domain in recent years, the claim that her reputation has been sullied by a nude Playboy spread seems a little frivolous. The far bigger issues, surely, are did Stone not have the right to consultation before the photos were sold to Playboy and is she entitled to remuneration?
One clue to the timing of the photoshoot is Stone’s strapped ankle, which some have made light of, assuming it may have been a styling accessory (along with the wheelchair which appears in some shots).

If frockwriter is not mistaken, the images were taken some time after the 2008 Victoria’s Secret show, on November 15 2008, when the corset was worn by Selita Ebanks - and the publication of several other photos of Stone with her ankled strapped shortly afterwards, reportedly after falling off a pair of killer Rodarte heels (possibly these) at a W photoshoot.

Just a reminder that although Stone is now ranked as the world number one editorial/advertising/runway model by models.com, in late 2008 it was a different matter.

Pivotal to Stone’s meteoric rise in 2009 was the publication, in February last year, of a virtual Lara Stone issue of Paris Vogue. With the cover line, “Et Vogue Créa Lara” ("And Vogue Created Lara" - a play on Roger Vadim’s 1956 classic, And God Created Woman, starring Brigitte Bardot).

When asked why she decided to dedicate 100 pages of editorial to the Dutch model, Paris Vogue editor Carine Roitfeld told Hintmag.com in late 2008:

“Lara had almost stopped working so I decided I wanted to make her a star”.


She might well have been in the 2008 VS show, but is it possible that the then much less high profile Stone did an edgy magazine submission with a mate, thinking it might help boost her profile - and either she, or her agent/s, neglected to formalise the terms of the arrangement with Lotus?

With Stone now at the very the top of the industry, commanding top dollar via lucrative advertising deals - such as a triple exclusive with Calvin Klein - quite obviously her image is far more valuable in 2010 than it was in 2008. Lotus was probably paid handsomely for the shots - although a lot less, presumably, than Playboy would have had to pay Stone to pose for them.

According to leading IP specialist Stephen Stern, from Melbourne's Corrs Chambers Westgarth, the go-to IP rep for LVMH and many luxury brands in Australia, provided that Lotus was working independently at the time the photographs were taken – and was not employed by another company – then the copyright most likely belongs to him.

“Unless there was a contract of some form – even oral – restricting the use of the photographs, the photographer could use them as he sees fit” Stern told frockwriter.

“But there is no one international law on ownership of copyright. It depends in which country the photos were taken - or where you want to stop the publication. Some countries do have rights of publicity (ie of public figures) that exist independently of copyright law. Everything depends on what was agreed or could reasonably be implied in the agreement between Lara Stone and the photographer. And lastly, any damages that she could claim, if there are in fact numerous nude photos of her in circulation, if the (Playboy) photos were obscene then there may be reputational issues. If they are simply like other naked photos of her, then her loss might well be what she could charge to have those photos published”.

*frockwriter.blogspot.com

 

[IAmLordZen]

^ I think the article raises some very important points regarding this issue.

 

[jaben]

There are two key issues here:

1)The terms of the model release between Greg Lotus and Lara.

2) The phrase "elle s'offre sans fard pour Playboy" - my French is rusty but I think that translates similar to "she goes without makeup for Playboy".

Even if the publication was unlawful under the terms of the model release it will be very difficult for Lara to show a significant damage to her reputation because the defence will use her Purple and other nude photos as proof that being shown naked was not damaging for her.

She has a better cause of action for Playboy mis-representing that she posed for them. However the fact she has done a lot of nudes would reduce the damage caused to her reputation of being seen to pose for a "nude" magazine.

If this case comes before a UK court we are going to have the hilarious situation of an elderly, out of touch British judge having to look at a bunch of nude pictures and decide how damaging they are. I'd love to be in the gallery for the court hearing.

In all likelihood Lara feels betrayed by Lotus and this over-reaction is drawing more attention to the pictures.

 

[Meg]

^
I agree that the fact there are several other nude photo shoots of her diminishes her reputation argument though of course it doesn't make it obsolete. I don't know why she would pursue the issue in the UK, though perhaps because the UK has some of the most outdated libel laws, it is easiest to pursue here.

 

[sethii]

The argument about reputation might have nothing to do with nudity and everything to do with the Playboy brand.

 

[FrenchCactus]

2) The phrase "elle s'offre sans fard pour Playboy" - my French is rusty but I think that translates similar to "she goes without makeup for Playboy".

Your translation is OK-ish but there's actually a play on words on a few levels.

"Elle s'offre (...) pour Playboy" means that Lara decided to pose for Playboy (which, as we know, is not true).
And in this context this verb also has a strong sexual connotation, as in "she willingly offers her body to a man".

"Sans fard" does literally mean without makeup. But it's an expression meaning "in all honesty, naturally", and in this context "without modesty : you'll get to see every little bit of her".

 

[Spiral1532]

I think her statement about not appearing in French Playboy is ridiculous, firstly because all she does is posing with her t*ts out

Yeah, I kinda chuckled when I read that she said it "damaged" her reputation. In fact, if I recall correctly, the very first picture of Lara that I ever stumbled upon a few years ago was a topless picture showing her t*ts dangling all over the place.
In contrast, I've NEVER seen a topless picture of Gisele (another busty model) in all her years of modeling. If this had happened to Gisele and she complained about it damaging her reputation, then that would be understandable.

 

[Meg]

The argument about reputation might have nothing to do with nudity and everything to do with the Playboy brand.

Yes of course, but we all know that French Playboy is different than American Playboy and the lawsuit isn't about the playboy brand...of course her lawyer could argue that but I think it's weak. If it's a libel case being brought, you can't say 'ignore the other magazines and the nude photoshoots I was involved in, such as with Purple' and then say 'but the relationship between this magazine and another is integral'. Well I mean you can but....

I have no problem with the idea - if photos were published without her authorization then she has a right to sue. But that is separate than suing for harm to reputation.....

 

[Karen0193]

The argument about reputation might have nothing to do with nudity and everything to do with the Playboy brand.

I absolutely agree with this.

 

[FASHIONLOVA]

oh please, u re a model u re nude half the time.
get over it.

 

[angel222]

I believe in articles that I read today that she's pursuing the case in France not UK. She should have sued because the photos are unflattering! If the photos were in W, V or Vogue or perhaps shot by Irving Penn I wouldn't know if she'd be shot heated up. If by technicality she didn't sign release forms for these photos based on her penchant for nudity the damages wouldn't be high but she'd win.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

Go Lara!
She is totally right in my opinion, they shouldn't use her pictures without permission. And Lara is ofcourse famous for her naked shoots, but there is a difference between VP or W and Playboy even though French Playboy is way classier than other editions, it's still Playboy.
And she was everywhere in the news that she appeared in Playboy and the general public think of Playboy as Playboy. And not as 'oh, it's the French edition, which is much classier'.