1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

One for the forum Lawyers….

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dangie, Aug 25, 2021.

  1. dangie

    dangie Senior Knobhead

  2. IvorETower

    IvorETower Little Buttercup

    Just seen the story on the BBC website.
    I bet the only winners out of this will be the lawyers........
     
    zx9r and Mark101 like this.
  3. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    A load of ba... cobblers. How opportune can you get??
    Pathetic.
    PS Someone has an eye on the money, not his...
     
    Mark101 and TheFatControlleR like this.
  4. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    As a 4 month old baby he was chasing the dollar. Looks like he still is. He has certainly played on his fame doing talk shows etc. Perhaps if he feels that he was exploited as a baby he should take it up with his parents
     
    zx9r, neilt3 and Catriona like this.
  5. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    UK law is irrelevant here as there are significant differences in relevant UK and US laws. However, there is at least one relevant US precedent.
    When Brooke Shields was 10 her mother paid a commercial pgotographer to take photographs of her including full frontal nude ones. The contract specified that her mother got the negatives but did not mention copyright which therefore remained with the photographer. The photographer made extra prints before he handed over the negatives.
    After Ms. Shields was a famous adult the first photographer sold said prints to an art photographer who made additional prints by photographing the originals. These he advertised flor sales.
    Ms. Shields went to court to try to stop this. The court ruled she was stuffed - sorry "bound by her mother's signature on the contract".
    I rather agree with both Ivor and Nige.
     
  6. miked

    miked Well-Known Member

    I suspect this case will sink without trace.
     
  7. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Well-Known Member

    Not only did his parents clearly agree to the original shoot but he has recreated it (in swimsuit) for multiple anniversaries - including the 25th when he was obviously a adult. I can't see he has a leg to stand on.
     
  8. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I think he's had enough exposure.
    He must be running short of cash.
     
  9. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Attempted money grab.

    My grandfather worked for the local newspaper and was a very keen photographer. He took a revealing photo of me in the bath when I was about one which he arranged to get published. Perhaps I should sue.
     
  10. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    I'd just ask for an enlargement but maybe that's just me.:rolleyes:
     
  11. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    To be fair he was just a child at the time...
     
    peterba likes this.
  12. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    I heard this story on the radio when I was driving, fortunately I still have the ability to concentrate whilst laughing.
     
  13. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I've seen quotes from an interview he did which seem to suggest that most of his adult life he's defined himself by that one piece of fame, and isn't able to get past it.
     
    AndyTake2 likes this.
  14. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    If someone were to pass him in the street, would they have a clue who he was?
    The only people who would recognise him would be anyone who has seen him on a talk show or something. If he self-promotes on that basis, he hasn't got a chance of doing anything about it.
     
    Zou, Petrochemist and zx9r like this.
  15. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    I am minded of another american case and (vaguely) of its significance. When Cameron Diaz was a young aspiring actor she did a topless model shoot no contract was signed. Many years later after she was famous the photographer started to publish. She sued and won. The basis of her suit was that in america people (and their beneficiaries after they die) own copyright in their own image. This was not a one off as I do remember that corporations have got into trouble for using what were clearly graphic images of the late Elvis Presley and the late Charlie Chaplin in their product/services marketing campaigns. This would not happen the UK as a) we do not own copyright in our own image and b) the dead have no rights. I suspect the difference between this and the Brooke Shields case was that there was no contract and therefor there had been no opportunity to claim copyright in the specific images.
    I do however suspect if Ms. Shields had better* lawyers she might have succeeded.

    * When discussing lawyers and particularly US lawyers the word better could probabbly be replaced by such expressions as "more savage" "more amoral" etc.
     
  16. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    That may well be true but it would only be of relevance in assessing the amount of damages appropriate if he wins. I do not believe it is relevant to his chances of winning.
     
  17. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    Should he not be suing his parents or guardians. The people who put him forward and gave their permission?

    Graeme
     
    zx9r likes this.
  18. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    Me eyeing up a Leica and my mum exposing my bald head and legs in the process! Ha!

    ap me eyeing up a leica as mum shows off my legs.jpg
     
    John Farrell likes this.
  19. WillieJ

    WillieJ Well-Known Member

    Yes. In theory at least but as he is likely to be their benefactors he might well be using his own money to sue himself.
     
    zx9r likes this.
  20. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    They're smart these Americans
     

Share This Page