Lara Stone sues Playboy over 'unauthorised photos'

[williscrazy]

^ While thats what the poster thinks. Not everyone wants to be on playboy and become one of the horny men's imagination, it's personal choices.

 

[Fini]

I think the point frockwriter made about Lara posing for these photos during late 2008 to gain more attention is ridiculous. Carine's statement of 'Lara has almost stopped working so I decided to make her a star' was completely misrepresented in the article. It does NOT mean that Lara was 'almost unemployed'. Lara had tons of work in 2008. (Jil Sander, Givenchy, ck, Just cavalli campaigns etc) Carine meant that Lara almost retired. So it was completely unfair for frockwriter to elaborate on this point and make Lara seem desperately attention-seeking when she didn't need it at all.

That said, I must add that I agree with the members that said Lara's reputation would be damaged by appearing in Playboy. Seriously, appearing in Playboy nude and appearing in Vogue Paris nude bears a huge difference. Lara entered the fashion industry ages ago and when she started she followed the typical footsteps of a high fashion model: appearing in small local fashion magazines first, then going to Paris for catwalk and was eventually discovered by someone influential. (Carine and Riccardo Tisci for Lara). She was waiting around for more than five years in Paris without much jobs and almost penniless before working with Carine and Givenchy. But the point is, she didn't resort to posing for Playboy or other adult magazines to make money when her modelling career wasn't taking off. With her body she could have easily done so, but she didn't. She clearly sees the difference between a HF magazine and Playboy. If she didn't want to appear in Playboy back then then why would she want to now? It's only natural that she wants to sue the magazine.

And I also think one of the reasons why Lara is upset is because of her family. I remember reading an interview with her and she said when she posed nude for I&V in Purple naked her mother called and asked her if she was alright and told her that she could come home if she didn't want to model anymore. That was for Purple. I can imagine her reaction if Lara appeared in Playboy.

 

[tigerrouge]

Playboy wouldn't have been interested in someone like Lara when she wasn't that well-known. Outside of fashion, the world is full of women with figures like that... and more favourable faces. Lara's a great model, but it's her name they're interested in. Great t*ts are ten-a-penny in that type of photography, where there's no shortage of girls willing to get them out, accompanied by pretty smiles rather than toothy scowls.

Because most high fashion models currently have the physical presence of scared children, we've come to regard Lara Stone as the epitome of physical sensuality, when she's not really that special in terms of a magazine like Playboy. Or even French Photo, which has more fashion content.

But if she doesn't have any say-so over the situation, and she isn't getting any money from it, there is one way she can still turn the situation to her benefit - publicity. No-one would have known those images were in a not greatly well-selling foreign edition of Playboy, until she released a statement about it. This magazine wants to shift a few issues in France by trading on her name? So why not flip the situation and make herself more famous worldwide by complaining about it? She gets the upper hand, makes the situation sound terribly unfair for the poor maiden, and now more people know who Lara Stone is, and how desirable she is.

Because in the general public imagination, appearing in Playboy is a sign of someone being desirable. It's not going to be hugely damaging for an adult woman who makes a career from being physically appealing to be associated with that particular brand name. It's not hard-core p*rn - Playboy pencils and pillowcases are on sale as children's items in high street stores. Whatever I may think about that, the brand has turned itself into a byword for a sort of unthreatening-yet-aspirational pulchritude.

Gisele has shown that it's still possible for a model to turn herself into a financial powerhouse if she takes steps to turn things to her advantage. Apply persistence when nobody wants you, and then capitalise on your upwards trajectory with lots of hard work, business savvy and a celebrity boyfriend. Gisele's particular trick was being famous for her breasts but stating that she'd never pose topless, thereby keeping everyone interested in the topic. Whatever moral reason she gave for the shrouding of her boobs was beside the point; she knew how to create and then capitalise on that interest to the tune of millions of dollars, all the while maintaining the notion that she's a "good girl" while still posing semi-nude on countless occasions. The reasons she gave - and the real strategy behind it - were two very different things.

So the face value of a press statement doesn't amount to much, it's a game people play. And one which does leave us free to sympathise and defend the poor more-famous-than-ever-before Lara. She doesn't seek the publicity, you understand, these things happen to her. Beautifully played.

 

[Harumi]

Reading some of the comments in this thread, I am reminded of the sad story of p*rn*gr*ph*c actress Raffaëla Anderson who was once raped by men who recognised her from her videos. When she pressed charges, the judge dismissed her complain by saying, in essence, that she had no case because she was a sex worker so she could not complain about being used and abused.
I would not be so absurd as to equate the two cases but the the thinking behind the dismissive attitude of some members and the aforementioned judge is eerily similar, imo.

Lara did not lose any right over her body or image once she decided to drop her kit.
She still has the right to choose for whom and in which conditions she wants to expose her naked body. It is the same thing with actresses who agree to do sex scenes in their movies. That doesn't mean they loose right to complain when their naked image (be it a stolen pap picture or a still photograph of their nude scene) is used in ways they have not agreed upon.

Do I find her complain about the damage to her image far-stretched? Yes, for the same reasons some members have already mentioned: French Playboy is not a cheap p*rn*gr*ph*c publication (truck drivers are not buying that magazine, trust me), is actually quite respected in the fashion community and the pictures in question are pretty tame compared to her other body of work.
However, that doesn't mean she has no right to complain: her body, her standards. If for whatever reason Playboy is the one publication she is not comfortable being featured in, if she finds it degrading, then that is all it takes. Bringing up her work for Purple is irrelevant. The issue here is consent.

On the legal standpoint, I fear she will loose her case.
1) It is very unlikely she has any legal ownership of the pictures whatsoever. She was but an employee and the rights to the final result belongs either the photographer or to whoever hired him in the first place.
2) She will have a very hard time proving any damage was done to her reputation (see above).

The only angle that I see could work is the 'misrepresentation' angle.
The by-line on the cover clearly implies that she posed for Playboy. Except she didn't. She posed for Greg Lotus who subsequently sold the pictures to Playboy.

 

[Squizree]

^ I had the same legal thoughts, but I'm not quite so good with law and politics so I didn't really wanna post my thoughts. But thanks for clearing up those legal points. I doubt Lara will actually have any valid claims over this.

 

[jaben]

She clearly sees the difference between a HF magazine and Playboy. If she didn't want to appear in Playboy back then then why would she want to now? It's only natural that she wants to sue the magazine.

What is HF about showing a model's vagina? I can't see what I&V seem to think is remotely fashion related in having Lara, Dree, Freja expose their vaginas.

And I also think one of the reasons why Lara is upset is because of her family. I remember reading an interview with her and she said when she posed nude for I&V in Purple naked her mother called and asked her if she was alright and told her that she could come home if she didn't want to model anymore. That was for Purple. I can imagine her reaction if Lara appeared in Playboy.

The Playboy photos were less revealing than I&V.

 

[Fontenrose]

The legal permission to use photos is exactly what model agencies sell. Unless this photographer has a model release for his photos for Playboy he is in big trouble.

The fact it is Playboy just adds to the damages, since Playboy often pays a lot of money to celebrities. Girls who have signed unlimited model releases (because they dont' have an agency to tell them not to), then suddenly become some kind of celebrity, often have these kind of pictures showing up. Agency models usually don't sign anything unless their agency OKs it.

Carla Bruni got a nice sum after an unauthorized picture was used on a purse after she married Sarkozy.

 

[amandagian]

^ 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.

ia.

 

[Videl]

Hello, im quite new to this whole fashion industry thing but I'd like to give my input

I have two feelings on this:

1. Im all for the fact that she's standing up for her rights against something that's made her very uncomfortable. BUT-

2. I also want to roll my eyes at this because I've never heard of this 'Purple' magazine before, but Lara Stone poses naked most of the time in magazines like i-D and I'm not a huge fan of her mainly because she's famous for...i dont care. Her teeth irritates me (i guess its the fashion noawdays. which is funny because i quite like that sort of teeth!) and everytime i look at a nekkid picture of her, im thinking "yawn I get it, you have a great bodd, try modelling next time" anyway, she just annoys me anytime i see a picture of her, naked or not (oh well)

If its true that the magazine did not ask for her permission to use her pictures, then she has the right to confront them about it, sleezy magazine or not. I too am slightly confused at the fact that there's so much sleezy nudity in fashion mags, but nudity doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing at all if its done in a way that doesn't remind you of a playboy magazine

I agree with what one person said already: nudity is NUDITY, no matter what magazine it comes from. I have pictures of a couple of naked models from the 'Love' issue up on my wall anyway! because like some men, im turned on by it- who cares if it was from a fashion magazine. So... if men (and women) drool at pics of naked models in a fashion magazine, then lara stone's 'reputation' is already destroyed. Purple magazine wont make it any different! (for the record, i dont get excited looking at Lara -__-)

 

[agee]

Hello, im quite new to this whole fashion industry thing but I'd like to give my input

I have two feelings on this:

1. Im all for the fact that she's standing up for her rights against something that's made her very uncomfortable. BUT-

2. I also want to roll my eyes at this because I've never heard of this 'Purple' magazine before, but Lara Stone poses naked most of the time in magazines like i-D and I'm not a huge fan of her mainly because she's famous for...i dont care. Her teeth irritates me (i guess its the fashion noawdays. which is funny because i quite like that sort of teeth!) and everytime i look at a nekkid picture of her, im thinking "yawn I get it, you have a great bodd, try modelling next time" anyway, she just annoys me anytime i see a picture of her, naked or not (oh well)

If its true that the magazine did not ask for her permission to use her pictures, then she has the right to confront them about it, sleezy magazine or not. I too am slightly confused at the fact that there's so much sleezy nudity in fashion mags, but nudity doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing at all if its done in a way that doesn't remind you of a playboy magazine

I agree with what one person said already: nudity is NUDITY, no matter what magazine it comes from. I have pictures of a couple of naked models from the 'Love' issue up on my wall anyway! because like some men, im turned on by it- who cares if it was from a fashion magazine. So... if men (and women) drool at pics of naked models in a fashion magazine, then lara stone's 'reputation' is already destroyed. Purple magazine wont make it any different! (for the record, i dont get excited looking at Lara -__-)

This post cracked me up two or three times, welcome the tFS, Videl.

 

[tigerrouge]

There are plenty of men who are well aware that fashion magazines are full of "inspirational imagery", but we only tend to hear the thoughts of these particular gentlemen on certain sorts of forums, for which we should be thankful.

 

[TheCheekyCritic]

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.

Quite so. Just look at Milla Jovovich's nude spread for Purple F/W '09. Although unusually sensual and beautiful per se (at least to someone who generally doesn't appreciate nudity, as attached to 'fashion' or otherwise), ever since the scans appeared online they have spread across the web of message boards solely intended on providing pictures to jack off to, like wildfire. "Love that bent over rear shot," is but one of the tamer comments I've seen made on her ed. This is a reality that has to be and is accepted when you do a nude photoshoot today, and if not equates a feature in Purple to one in Playboy, certainly blurs the line between them, at least when the argument is that it somehow cramps your style to appear in a publication that's aimed for people with a need to sexually relieve themselves to pictures of naked ladies. (And Lara specifically has certainly done her share of the raunchy, the suggestive allusions and intended as well as the "unintended" but all the same predictable effects of which can hardly be avoided or disregarded.) Fashion magazine or not, we've long since passed the days when there was such a thing as "tasteful nudity".

(As a sidenote, I find it hilarious that people should differentiate so harshly between a nude feature in a fashion mag and that same feature in a men's mag. The pictures are the same after all, and when they depict the beauty of the naked body, the photos automatically come with a certain degree of intended viewer arousal, whether it be through the mere visual pleasure or otherwise. The difference is only in the degree; a nude in Purple and that nude in Playboy are merely in different corners of the same room.)

Ironically, I think more people know who Lara Stone is now than before she raised this ruckus. It's interesting how press like this always seems to serve a double purpose -- at the same time as Lara Stone gets to publicly assert the "dignity" in and of her work and her position in the limelight as a fashion(!!) model only, she has not only made more name for herself but the Playboy feature she wishes no one would've seen (in the aforementioned publication, anyway). Considering how ultimately rather decently Lara will have fared in this situation, no matter the outcome of her legal case, I find her apparent repulsion at being featured in "such a magazine" more than a little suspect. But I guess every cloud has a silver lining? Or is all publicity not good publicity after all?

But at the same time, Harumi is right. Lara may explain her reasons to her actions in any way she likes or sees fit, so long as her legal argument regarding representation and rights is sound. We as observers can certainly call her out on her "double standards" (if you see them as such), but it's the Stone-Lotus contract and how it can and cannot be interpreted (esp regarding the significance of Lara's consent, or lack thereof, to redistribution and publication) that should weigh more, legally. And that is only fair.

 

[Harumi]

The legal permission to use photos is exactly what model agencies sell.

Isn't that right included in the contract? Otherwise that would mean that agencies own publishing rights, which would be the first I ever heard of it.

Unless this photographer has a model release for his photos for Playboy he is in big trouble.

He wouldn't be liable though, Playboy would since they are the one who published the picture. And what are the odd of a national publication printing pictures without checking if they have the legal right to do so? They are not amateur.
I remain unconvinced Lara's claim has much legal footing.

Carla Bruni got a nice sum after an unauthorized picture was used on a purse after she married Sarkozy.

Completely different situation.
The company in question used the picture on a commercial product and was in copyright infringement.
As a point of comparison, the very same shot was (legally) published all over the British press on the eve of her first State trip to the UK. Bruni was very displeased but she didn't sue (because she couldn't).

As a sidenote, I find it hilarious that people should differentiate so harshly between a nude feature in a fashion mag and that same feature in a men's mag. The pictures are the same after all, and when they depict the beauty of the naked body, the photos automatically come with a certain degree of intended viewer arousal, whether it be through the mere visual pleasure or otherwise. The difference is only in the degree; a nude in Purple and that nude in Playboy are merely in different corners of the same room.

Completely agree. I find it comical too.

'Am I looking at Purple or Husler?
Ah, it's Purple, so I will stay classy and not look at the displayed genitalia and t*ts with a lustful eye and just chastely admire the beautiful fashion photography.'

Right.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

Maybe it's just me (and clearly Lara) but I think there's a slight difference between being photographed naked by Paolo Roversi, by Olivier Zahm, for Playboy, for an imagebam ad or drunk while skinny dipping... just because you do the first and maybe the second, it doesn't mean you'd do the rest and find it just as rewarding.. maybe my logic is not that logical in some cultures where capitalising on nudity is the lowest of the low and shouldn't deserve any consideration.. but like I said, that's just me.

Hope Lara wins this or at least gets an apology like Jessica Alba did a few years ago when Playboy put her on the cover against her consent.

I'm sure this has been argued (I didn't read the whole thread), but if I could play devil's advocate for a moment, there's also a difference between French Playboy- which sticks to many of the ideals US Playboy was founded on but has strayed far, far away from- and pretty much any other edition of Playboy. Lou Doillon and Juliette Binoche have both had two of what I consider to be the most tasteful nude layouts I've ever seen in French Playboy; I would even argue that their layouts were more tasteful than many that I've seen in Purple and V. Delicate lightening, designer clothing, even name photographers are present in both if I'm not mistaken. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... B)

It's her right and if that's how she feels, that's great. It's her body and she gets to decide who gets to see it naked and who doesn't. I could even understand if the doesn't desire association with the Playboy name at large. I just think sometimes all men's magazines are written off as tasteless in their presentation of women- and while I would say a good 80% of them are (and 5% of them are either about cars or are for men who date other men), there are a few out there that do present women in a beautiful, non-vulgar way.... just naked.

 

[Fini]

What is HF about showing a model's vagina? I can't see what I&V seem to think is remotely fashion related in having Lara, Dree, Freja expose their vaginas.

The Playboy photos were less revealing than I&V.

I see your point about nudity being fashion-unrelated but that is not my point. Did you notice the names you put beside Lara's in your post? Dree and Freja. They are not models you'll see in Playboy. And I&V? Would they shoot for Playboy? Most likely not. The question is not whether the photos were more revealing that ones Lara had done before but whether the image she's projecting by appearing in Playboy is a favorable one or not. Purple is a magazine who's featured nudes of women with bodies like Freja and Dree. It's definitely not targeted at the same market as French Playboy, no matter how 'above' it is from a typical truck driver's mag. At least take a look at its website. Are those people women that Lara would expect to be featured in the same magazine when she posed for Greg Lotus?

It really doesn't matter how much clothes Lara wore for the shoot sold to Playboy. She could be fully clothed for that matter and her reputation could still be damaged. The reactions she get from men looking at her photos may be the same as the ones she shot for Purple, but again, it's about the target audience thing again. I know Cicciolina is one of Riccardo Tisci's muses and lots of celebrities have had p*rn star girlfriends but seriously, how many Playmates of the year have respect from the general (or fashion) community?

To the average male jacking off to Lara's nudes he found on p*rn sites he might not perceive Lara any differently after this Playboy incident but to many who have followed her work since the start or to Anna Wintour contemplating whether to feature Lara in an upcoming issue, I'm sure they would look at her differently had Lara posed for Playboy willingly. (Does anyone know if Lily Cole has appeared in US Vogue after her French Playboy cover?) Company executives who are considering Lara as their next campaign girl may rethink their decision as well.

 

[blueorchid]

There are plenty of men who are well aware that fashion magazines are full of "inspirational imagery", but we only tend to hear the thoughts of these particular gentlemen on certain sorts of forums, for which we should be thankful.

You're right. I always have to listen to this one guy who works at the newsstand I go to telling me that he buys these magazines so he can look at the lingerie they wear for his "drawings." He went through what could only be described as a saga trying to find Adriana Lima's V cover. If he never told me his opinions on fashion or why he buys these magazines it would be too soon.

 

[Escale Cherie II]

I see your point about nudity being fashion-unrelated but that is not my point. Did you notice the names you put beside Lara's in your post? Dree and Freja. They are not models you'll see in Playboy. And I&V? Would they shoot for Playboy? Most likely not. The question is not whether the photos were more revealing that ones Lara had done before but whether the image she's projecting by appearing in Playboy is a favorable one or not. Purple is a magazine who's featured nudes of women with bodies like Freja and Dree. It's definitely not targeted at the same market as French Playboy, no matter how 'above' it is from a typical truck driver's mag. At least take a look at its website. Are those people women that Lara would expect to be featured in the same magazine when she posed for Greg Lotus?

It really doesn't matter how much clothes Lara wore for the shoot sold to Playboy. She could be fully clothed for that matter and her reputation could still be damaged. The reactions she get from men looking at her photos may be the same as the ones she shot for Purple, but again, it's about the target audience thing again. I know Cicciolina is one of Riccardo Tisci's muses and lots of celebrities have had p*rn star girlfriends but seriously, how many Playmates of the year have respect from the general (or fashion) community?

To the average male jacking off to Lara's nudes he found on p*rn sites he might not perceive Lara any differently after this Playboy incident but to many who have followed her work since the start or to Anna Wintour contemplating whether to feature Lara in an upcoming issue, I'm sure they would look at her differently had Lara posed for Playboy willingly. (Does anyone know if Lily Cole has appeared in US Vogue after her French Playboy cover?) Company executives who are considering Lara as their next campaign girl may rethink their decision as well.

Agree.


Plus, like Squizree has been saying, there's just a difference being in a magazine that's intent is for sexual arousal and virtually no aesthetic arousal (for lack of a better word) than in a fashion magazine (although i don't follow Purple, but it does seem to play heavily on aesthetics).
It's the intent, what one does with it is completely up to the individual. Like last fall with Lara's Blackface scandal in Vogue Paris. I highly doubt it was intended to be racist, but people though of it that way (and even though i disagree with them, they have the right, as reacting is a part of freedom of speech and expression); same with James Cameron's Avatar. That's why, like KhaoticKharma said, she might not want to be associated with that kind of brand.

 

[TREVOFASHIONISTO]

I can completely understand about the Mens reactions towards nude women
in fashion magazines and they simply could care less about the artistic aesthetic
once they see the woman's goodies they are all over it. I used to have to look at my fashion magazines when boy werent around because they would gravitate towards it...but back on subject to me whehter its Mario Sorrenti or whoever shoots Playboy issues nude is nude...and Lara has done plenty of it

 

[Psylocke]

I also agree that it does make a difference whether you willingly pose nude for a fashion magazine or your nude photos are used for a publication that's aimed at horny guys relieveing their sexual tension thanks to the images in the magazines. Besides, I think a lot has changed for Lara over the last couple of months. She has become an exclusive for calvin Klein and she has gotten married. Maybe she decided for herself that she won't pose nude anymore, so I can imagine it's frustrating for her - and for her husband - when suddenly those old pictures reappear in an erotic magazine without her permission. Just because she posed nude so often in the past doesn't mean she wants to be the nude blonde with the big t*ts that's associated with posing in men's magazines for the rest of her life when really she's a good model that deserves to be recongized as such.

 

[agee]

If fashion nudity is sooo different and better than sex object nudity then where does posing (oftentimes nude) for the Pirelli Calendar come in? Why are fashion models so willing to pose for something that will be hanging up in a Sioux City garage with grease stains smeared across it?

As previously stated by me and others, if Playboy and the photographer did not have the proper permission and / or are misrepresenting things so that it looks like Lara did the photos specifically for Playboy, then that is one thing. But again I don't get the reputation issue or that posing nude (especially lots of times) for fashion magazines is somehow a substantially higher calling than posing for Playboy (which most people whether they are celebs, wannabe celebs or actual models for that category only do once or twice).