Lara Stone sues Playboy over 'unauthorised photos'

[blueorchid]

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?

Well a Pirelli calendar probably wouldn't end up in a Sioux City garage because it's very exclusive. It's not something you can just go out and buy. And that's the exact difference: context. The Pirelli calendar isn't the same as some girlie calendar you can buy from the 7-11. And that's the difference between posing in Playboy and Purple, imo. People keep ignoring the importance that context plays and just think that the nudity itself is the most important aspect of it.

 

[agee]

^ Pirelli is a tire company and the "very exclusive" aspect is that the calendar is not sold rather Pirelli distributes it as a gift to selected customers (now you have to do a certain level of business with them), so yeah a Pirelli calendar can very well end up in a Sioux City garage / tire shop. At the end of the day, the CONTEXT is that Pirelli is a girly calendar (and that's perfectly fine), so is the argument going to become that if a model poses for a girly project / publication where the customers have a net worth above a certain amount* then she does not lose her fashion cred?

*which to me is a lot about what Purple is about.

 

[Fini]

^Pirelli is known for featuring high fashion models and is photographed by the likes of Karl Lagerfeld, Mario Testino, I&V, and Patrick Demarchelier. How many nudie magazines can boast all-star casts and top level photographers?

I'll argue that Pirelli actually gives a model extra cred for proving that she can be sexy as well as high fashion.

 

[agee]

^ I totally agree with the points that you are making but what I am addressing are the comments that posing nude in Playboy is damaging because of the intent and target, i.e., models being appealing and sexy for a predominantly male audience. Well in that respect modeling for the Pirelli Calendar is synonymous with modeling for Playboy.

 

[LUXXX]

It's a shame Playboy is no longer what it was in the 50's,60's and 70's. It was much more literary and intelligent.

 

[m.j.]

It's a shame Playboy is no longer what it was in the 50's,60's and 70's. It was much more literary and intelligent.

i agree.... even the 80s weren't bad... it was respected magazine.... now its pretty trashy.... just like almost everything else.

 

[Fontenrose]

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.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.Completely different situation.

(re: Carla Bruni lawsuit over photo on purse)
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).Completely agree. I find it comical too.

The photographer owns the copyright; the model has the right to control the commercial use of her image. The model has to sign a "model release" to allow her image to be used commercially. The agency sells her time, plus the model release for the particular use of the image. The cost depends on how the picture is being used, and for how long (in the case of a campaign). For most fashion magazines the model benefits from the publicity, and the price is very, very low.

For Playboy, the price of pictures for a celebrity is very high, and the celebrity doesn't have to reveal very much skin. Since it is doubtful that as an agency model Lara signed a release for these pictures for any other use than in the fashion magazine they were originally printed in (unless her agency has arranged this use), Playboy probably is ready to pay a settlement, and planned to pay a settlement all along. Playboy may not really care. It's still going to be cheaper than most actresses, and show more. (The photographer's situation may depend on what his deal with Playboy is. If Playboy is paying the damages, he doesn't care either.)

Just like the purse on which Carla Bruni's picture was printed, Playboy is a commercial product. Pictures can be used by the newspapers on the other hand if they are "news", which once a lawsuit is started, they certainly are.

 

[KaraDanielle11]

But French Playboy is very different than American Playboy. And she clearly poses nude all the time- I think she's just mad she wasn't paid for a second time for the shoot.

 

[nanker_phledge]

Frankly ...I can see why she wouldn't want to be associated with the reputation of 'Playboy'.She certainly wants to give the impression that while she's half naked in 90% of her shoots, she knows 'the line/the difference'.To be honest,I've never really been a fan of her work...80% of her appeal is based on her 'big breasts' and that's all she seems to be showing when she poses and yes,she must be idiotic or just plainly a hypocrite for bliding herself over the fact that nearly her entire potential is based on her sexual appeal.Besides,I get the fact that there is a difference between high fashion shoots and 'Playboy' in terms of 'public target' or 'reputation'...but not anymore in terms of INTENT/content/intention,especially when it comes to the French 'Playboy'.I do think that fashion has become more sexual than ever (and I don't mean it in a pejorative way),yes it does have a sexual message which could be just the same whether you pose for 'Playboy' or 'Vogue',it's not a coincidence if her ed/series ended up there.And while the main subject is fashion in fashion magazines,both 'Playboy' (at least the French edition) and fashion magazines promote/generate a certain sexual attraction/impulse,and no,I don't think it generally means 'jacking off to a model's figure'.You would have to be blind or stupid not to denote the sexual content and intent of certain Paris Vogue editorials and I don't see why it should be defined as being more 'artistic/intellectual/of higher standard' than certain Playboy's content.See,I don't think that the context/intent is any different,t's just the public/target that is.I get the fact that she should have been informed,it's her image after all,but she's acting as if the same editorial had a radically different message whether it should be found in 'Playboy'or 'Vogue',and given how much she played/bet her career on her sexual side/profile,I find that laughable.

 

[Fontenrose]

But French Playboy is very different than American Playboy. And she clearly poses nude all the time- I think she's just mad she wasn't paid for a second time for the shoot.

Yes, I think she is suing because she is supposed to be paid for her pictures. It costs more if you print them without making arrangements in advance of publication.

I don't know why so many people are even talking about nudity in this topic. They were nude pictures for fashion, and they are still nude pictures when printed in Playboy. Claiming that one wouldn't allow Playboy to print the pictures is probably a tactic to raise the amount claimed. Good for her lawyers!

 

[Echoes]

I think she's just mad she wasn't paid for a second time for the shoot.

Yes, I think she is suing because she is supposed to be paid for her pictures.

< snipped >

Claiming that one wouldn't allow Playboy to print the pictures is probably a tactic to raise the amount claimed. Good for her lawyers!

What, like anybody thought this was ever about anything but money?

 

[m.j.]

she posesfor money.... like you woudn't be mad if u did the work and not get paid.

 

[Burberry Boy]

Honestly, far too much speculation on an issue that isn't personal to any of you, I think. Some of you clearly understand that whatever she decides to do, wherever she decides to do it, is entirely her choice. Whatever she feels when she poses for a magazine, where it's published, isn't going to be something anyone but her can understand. So, the debate over her statement regarding how she'd never wish to pose for playboy is...useless.

Now, the real issue is whether she has or hasn't any rights to the images and their use. Let's watch for that ..honestly.

 

[jaben]

Stone filed a case against the magazine and photographer Greg Lotus in a Paris court under French image rights legislation. She said that she did not consent for the pictures to appear on the magazine. The high fashion model said she will donate the undisclosed amount to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. Playboy has been ordered to publish a legal statement in its next issue to confirm that it was found guilty of infringing Stone's image rights.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lara-stone-wins-damages-from-playboy-2117223.html

The infringement seems to have been Playboy claiming she posed for them.

 

[sethii]

Great! She won!

^ Where did you get that quote from? This is the article I get from the link:

Lara Stone wins damages from Playboy

By Mike Hornby

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Dutch supermodel Lara Stone has won "significant" damages from French Playboy after the magazine published unauthorised naked photographs of her, lawyers said yesterday.
Stone, 26, who is married to Little Britain star David Walliams, 39, will donate the money to Great Ormond Street Hospital.
In a statement released by law firm Schillings, the model said: "No woman wants photos of them to be published in Playboy without permission. I'm very pleased to have won the case, although of course I would rather not have had to take legal action at all."
She sued the magazine and the American photographer Greg Lotus after the images were published in June.

independent.co.uk

 

[m.j.]

there IS justice!