Lara Stone sues Playboy over 'unauthorised photos'

[blueorchid]

Oh well Purple is fine then.

How many men buy Purple magazine for the same reasons they by a magazine like Playboy or Hustler or Penthouse? Regardless of which international edition is supposedly "classier," like Cindy Crawford posed in American Playboy, that didn't make it classy of a sudden the same way Lily Cole, et.al. didn't make French Playboy any classier.

People are acting like the kind of nudity displayed in Purple is the exact same as what can be seen in Playboy, when it's not. I highly doubt you would ever see a nude like this in Playboy:

**edited**

You can't completely ignore the context of where she has posed nude before or not.

 

[Empress Merel]

Completely agree Squizree and blueorchid.

And besides, just because Lily Cole and who else felt the need to be in Playboy does not mean that Lara feels or should feel the same.

 

[retailqueen]

Criticising a French magazaine (albeit it Playboy) and bringing them to court in France is not a intelligent idea and is likely to fail.

I want to know if a model's agency has to give the OK before there are reprints of editorials? this isn't even an editorial so do the pictures belong to Lara and a photographer?

On one hand, the woman in me beleives that she should have some type of say in where her pcitures appear.
On the otehr hand, Lara has basically made her career out of being nude and was not forced at gun point to make these pictures.

Unless these are private pics that were destined for David (her husband) only, I don't see how this can go her way.

 

[williscrazy]

The point is not about how her career is so high up and successful because she post nude most of the time, if we all put it that way, then the next thing she can do it p*rn photography because thats about being nude infront of the camera as well, and everyone will still be like, "oh Lara taking her cloth of and post nude again"?, I doubt so.

I believe she has the right to choose which publication she wants to appear in, so no matter if she loose or wins, go Lara

 

[FASHIONOGRAPHY]

I didn't read everyone's responses here but I agree and disagree with many. It's my belief that she's both right and wrong in thinking and feeling the way that she does. First of all, if the shots were in-fact used without permission, she has a case regardless of the rest of the circumstances. Secondly, her talking about reputation takes it a bit too far imo. It's not like the pictures were published in American Playboy. The French edition has been known to publish some really outstanding work. But I guess she might be coming from a standpoint that's association with the Playboy name in general. Either way, I love Lara.

 

[TianSoFine]

Lara has a lot of sex appeal, she posed nude in fashion magazine where the editorials are fashion oriented.

Fashion is about clothing, not the lack of it.

I'm not saying she has no right to bring this to court, but I don't think Lara should be acting as though she's above Playboy if even someone like Diane Kruger is fine with it. [sarcasm]Yes, Lara, reputation damage indeed.[/sarcasm] Most of what we have read also points to that the ownership belongs to the photographer.

 

[Empress Merel]

Fashion is about clothing, not the lack of it.

I'm not saying she has no right to bring this to court, but I don't think Lara should be acting as though she's above Playboy if even someone like Diane Kruger is fine with it. [sarcasm]Yes, Lara, reputation damage indeed.[/sarcasm] Most of what we have read also points to that the ownership belongs to the photographer.

You should tell Carine Roitfeld that..

 

[agee]

Fashion is about clothing, not the lack of it.

You should tell Carine Roitfeld that..

I think that is part of the issue, because of some of the decisions made by fashion editors and models like Carine and Lara respectively, in 2010 the gap has narrowed between Playboy and certain high fashion magazines when it comes to propriety and reputation. I know that this is going to sound harsh but Lara helped debase the industry and now she is trying to stand on the shoulders of the real fashion models who have created the image that what they do is different from what cheesecake, glamor and Playboy models do. If you used only Lara Stone's body of work to define the fashion industry, then the "fashion modeling is up here" and "Playboy modeling is down there" distinction does not exist and in fact quite a bit of the LS stuff goes much further than Playboy does when it comes to fetishism and poking at religious and cultural norms. To me tweaking a nipple is tweaking a nipple,* whether it is in French Vogue, Purple, Love, Interview or Playboy, and to think that there is a substantive difference because it is a fashion magazine versus a girly magazine is a variation on the tale The Emperor's New Clothes (ironically). Well let me roll back on this a bit, I am not stating that nudity should be verboten in fashion magazines, but it should not be a staple either and when it has then recognize that the ubiquity of nudity and hyper-sexualized themes comes with a cost. Also, I am not stating that Lara is a woman of ill repute to be scorned and that some perv can take pictures of her in a dressing room and sell them to the highest bidder; so no she does not have a bad reputation, but to assert that her reputation is being sullied because some relatively tame photos of her appeared in Playboy is high-larious!!!!

Having said that, if there was an agreement where the photographer had to obtain Lara's consent before selling the photos to Playboy and he did not, then she has my support on those grounds but not when it comes to that nonsense about her reputation. Of course I don't know the specifics of the agreement in question, but I thought that the typical agreement was that the photos were the property of the photographer to do with as he wishes. Something like this flares up every few years probably dating back to Marilyn Monroe's nude pictures in the debut issue of Playboy and that is a model / actress / singer / celeb poses nude for little or no money, she becomes famous (in Lara's case probably because of her engagement / marriage), photographer sells pictures to Playboy / other skin magazine / tabloid for a hefty amount, blah, blah, blah. And usually when these situations happen, it becomes an object lesson on the fact that models have no control over the pictures they take and no one should take pictures that they don't want in the public domain. Again, Lara and her people may have negotiated a different deal which presumably will come out in the proceedings.

* This is a general example, I am not saying one way or another that Lara has a picture of this type.

 

[angel222]

Just for clarity top models who've posed for American Playboy include Janice Dickinson, Lena Kansbod, Cindy Crawford, Paulina Porizkova, Stephanie Seymour, Naomi Campbell, Kylie Bax, Carol Alt and ...... So what's this reputation thing?

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

^Eva Herzigova as well i believe

 

[angel222]

^ Thank you. I forgot about her.

 

[tigerrouge]

Elle Macpherson also.

 

[FASHIONLOVA]

that is so sexist!!! and you are a woman!!!
i have nothing but respect for lara. she worked hard, she had hard times, she has every right to choose where will her nude photos be published.

no it s not. it doesn t make sense to get naked a lot of times and sue for one time!! if she has a problem with being seen naked she shouldn t have done it the first time.

anyway, i think this whole story is a publicity stunt anyway.

 

[FASHIONLOVA]

Just for clarity top models who've posed for American Playboy include Janice Dickinson, Lena Kansbod, Cindy Crawford, Paulina Porizkova, Stephanie Seymour, Naomi Campbell, Kylie Bax, Carol Alt and ...... So what's this reputation thing?

exactly!!!!

 

[blueorchid]

^ Again, they WILLINGLY posed in Playboy. Lara did not. She posed in Purple willingly, but not Playboy. There's a DIFFERENCE. And the "reputation" of other models who have posed in Playboy is not particularly relevant to her. I can't think of a model nowadays on that level who would be caught dead posing in American Playboy, people also can act like French Playboy is "classier" than the American version, but it's not.

 

[jollyvixen]

at Lara Stone. Many words come to mind about her, and "classy" is not one of them. As for the distinction of being nude in a "high fashion" magazine and Playboy? No difference - nudity is nudity. Being naked in Vogue doesn't make it any more fancy or lessen the sexual representation. Her "reputation" is pretty much tarnished, as far as I'm concerned. Covering crap with gold doesn't make it gold, sorry.

I am truly sorry if these photos were used without authorization, but she's going overboard with the whole "reputation" thing.

 

[Squizree]

^ I'm going to have to disagree. While I DO agree that Lara Stone isn't exactly the most conservative model it's beyond me how you can think fashion magazine nudity is the same as Playboy nudity. Like I said it's not HOW nude she is, it's WHO'S she's appearing nude to.
Vogue's target reader is FAR from Playboy's target reader. Vogue readers will look at Lara Stone nude and think "Oh, it's a nude model" because Vogue is a magazine about women and style. A naked girl isn't going to mean much. Playboy readers, however, are probably more likely to be having a wank at a nude picture of Lara than anything else, because Playboy is that kind of magazine.
This is about more than just Lara's reputation, this is Playboy attracting the wrong kind of attention to a photo. Whether Lara's current reputation is good or not is irrelevant.

 

[jaben]

^ I'm going to have to disagree. While I DO agree that Lara Stone isn't exactly the most conservative model it's beyond me how you can think fashion magazine nudity is the same as Playboy nudity. Like I said it's not HOW nude she is, it's WHO'S she's appearing nude to.

All too often pics will be scanned and appear on the internet. Therefore what most people see is Lara Stone showing her intimate parts. They may not even be aware that the photos are from Purple or Love. Ten or fifteen years back if you posed nude for a magazine the only way people would see it was if they got the magazine. Therefore the context of the nudity was clear. Now the nudes will appear in isolation across the net including pay sites.

 

[Escale Cherie II]

Fashion is about clothing, not the lack of it.

I'm not saying she has no right to bring this to court, but I don't think Lara should be acting as though she's above Playboy if even someone like Diane Kruger is fine with it. [sarcasm]Yes, Lara, reputation damage indeed.[/sarcasm] Most of what we have read also points to that the ownership belongs to the photographer.

Arguable. The fashion industry has evolved in to the study (art, design, science, two, or all) of our, human beings', physical appearance. How it affects our identity and what effect it has on others. Posing nude, without the comfort of clothing, brings a lot of emotions to people, which is the part of the intent. Admiration, for being willing for others to see oneself in a completely vulnerable state (or, for photographers and editors, for seeing people in said state and letting others see them), or disgust, for the same reason. The other part is to see how to shoot the human body in a way that is aesthetically pleasing or brings new light to a human's form, or both. The difference between fashion photography and other photography is the former puts most emphasis on the actual person, his appearance, as a result, his identity, and finally how they all come together.

 

[angel222]

Well I was just viewing videos of her recently shooting her Calvin Klein ads with her pseudo covering her t*ts. And the poster who said that top models in this age don't pose for Playboy is wrong because established supermodels who want to make the commercial money do it to get the horny men in mainstream to widen their fan base.