Curious how this pans out

Kinda torn, but I think she has every right to sue since the use of the video had nothing in common with how it was presented. I'm sure having her minor child's name being linked to porn videos also sided in her favor. Horrible situation regardless.
 
Seems it would hinge on whether that use of the content was authorized by the person she gave the rights to. If not then THEY should be able to sue, but don't see how she can.

On a side note my release says that I can "subject them to public ridicule".
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-mom-sues-over-breast-feeding-video-turned-220008832.html

She signed the release and yet is still allowed to sue. Can have implications to all content producers.
Click to expand...

This does not seem to be a case where the company which took the footage, then 'distributed' it to a porn producer. It may be that the 'porn producer' picked up a legitimate copy of her breast feeding demonstrations, and then incorporated that footage into the porn.

I don't know how a company could be 'responsible' for illegal copy and inclusion, and to me that is the more dangerous precedent that this case may set.

Say you shoot a car ad, with full 'for any and all purposes, in perpetuity'... release forms signed... somebody, uses your 'car ad' as bookends for humping in the back seat of similar car... you are then sued by the talent in your legitimate ad, for illegal copy and use...

Worse... say you sold, as was your right via the release form... the footage to a 'stock photo/clip' farm... and that got legitimately copied and included in 'something the talent didn't like'... porn for example being a popular 'didn't like' category... but heck it could be a 'patriot' being included in a 'anti-government' work... whatever...

I think this will boil down to 'did the company take all due precautions about footage in their possession and it's wrongful use'. If the footage was ripped from a DVD copy... I don't think it would go in the plaintiff's favor... of course the company could settle out of court just to get on with things...
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
What clark is saying... The footage was stolen then missued by some 3rd party and now the producers are getting sued.
Click to expand...

The one thing that could come to mind, is that according to the article, the woman stated that the producer told her only 'first names' would be used... If that was not in the contract/release, then well... a 'he said/she said' situation and it's anyone's guess how that would go. If it were in writing, and on the distributed copy her name in full was credited, then that would be a breach of contract.

On the other hand... some releases these days may include wording to the effect of 'production company is not responsible for illegal copy and unauthorized use of...'. And with cases such as this one should consult one's legal adviser to update one's release forms...

There are any number of celebrity 'photoshoped' images involving 'porn'... which are just out there... in fact whole sites worth...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top