Model Wins Lawsuit Against French Playboy For Publishing 'Unauthorized' Naked Photos

from the publicity-rights? dept

Wed, Oct 27th 2010 3:39pm — Mike Masnick

Erik sent over the the news that Dutch model Lara Stone has apparently won damages against French Playboy for publishing what were referred to as "unauthorized" photos of her in their June issue. Tragically, much of the reporting on this doesn't explain what kind of photos we're talking about (from the description, it almost sounded like photos taken while she was unaware). However, in the interest of understanding the legal implications only (of course), I (ahem) found the photos in question (oh so very NSFW). The photos all appear to be professional studio shots, most likely from a single photoshoot. Stone claims that her main complaint was just that "no woman wants photos of them to be published in Playboy without permission." However, I'm wondering how French Playboy got the photos in the first place, and if it wouldn't have a claim against the photographer, if he had claimed the rights to the photos (and produced a signed model release form). Obviously, the photos themselves were initially taken with permission, since it's clearly a professional photoshoot. So, where in the process did the photos become "unauthorized"?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: france, lara stone, playboy, publicity rights, unauthorized
Companies: playboy

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2010 @ 3:49pm

The face of that woman reminds me of zombies.

Anyways I'm curious to know where it became unauthorized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2010 @ 3:51pm
  
  Re:
  The moment she found out that the legal system allowed for "damages".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 27 Oct 2010 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re:
  Probably because she had, as I pointed out, a case-by-case (photo-by-photo) approval thing in her contract with the photographer and Playboy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2010 @ 3:58pm

France is a funny country.

I wonder what they will do about the threats that Bin Laden made to them. They probably surrender and sue anybody reporting on the surrender for copyright infringement LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lar Fleet, 27 Oct 2010 @ 4:25pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, it's too bad George Bush wasn't interested in capturing Bin Laden, he would have done the whole world a big favor. Just another failure of his liberal administration to add to the list, I guess.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 27 Oct 2010 @ 4:45pm

The judge will need a 15 minute recess to study the evidence in the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher (profile), 27 Oct 2010 @ 4:56pm
  
  Re:
  I laughed when I saw your post.
  
  On to the article itself. I am betting that she had a thing where on a CASE BY CASE BASIS, she had to give permission to use her photographs.
  
  If the photographer included photos that the woman said "No, I don't want those to be put in the magazine!" because they were too explicit or something similar?
  THEN the photographer should be in trouble, not Playboy France.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 27 Oct 2010 @ 6:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "On to the article itself. I am betting that she had a thing where on a CASE BY CASE BASIS, she had to give permission to use her photographs."
    
    Odd that's not mentioned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse, 28 Oct 2010 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    And this makes Playboy liable how, exactly? Such an agreement would have been with the photographer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wordsworm (profile), 27 Oct 2010 @ 4:59pm

America is a funny country.
It thought that it could show the world how great of a military it had by showing up France in Vietnam. We all know how that turned out. We also know that starting with Regan, Bin Laden got his arms and funding from the US government.

I don't think it's the nude photos that bother Lara Stone so much as where they were published. It's too bad that the author didn't do a bit more digging. Looking around myself, it would appear that the agency Icon ought to have borne most of the blame since they did not verify that the buyer was a tasteful publisher. In other words, she doesn't want to be associated with porn. I can understand how she might be upset and how that could have a seriously negative impact on her career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:45am
  
  Re: America is a funny country.
  Wait a sec, playboy is porn?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul`, 27 Oct 2010 @ 5:00pm

Didn't sign a release?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vigo, 27 Oct 2010 @ 5:47pm

I'm sure she was unaware
Naw, I'm sure those are just from hidden cameras in her very empty, "studio" apartment. She's not crouched seductively, she's just looking for her contact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2010 @ 6:22pm

Italy is a funny country.
I mean, it kinda looks like a boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2010 @ 10:13pm

I've had better
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lisae Boucher (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 4:42am

She never posed for Playboy!
Actually, while Lara did pose nude for some photographer, the pictures were never meant to be used in Playboy magazine. She posed for the Pirelli calendar and several similar artistic photo collections but Playboy is a (softcore) porn magazine. And she doesn't want to be associated with such magazines simply because it hurts her career in the modelling world.
These photo's were made by Greg Lotus (http://greglotus.com) and were probably meant to be published in Vogue magazine. The pictures were made somewhen in november or december of 2009.
And apparently she can dictate the conditions of when and where they can be published.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vigo, 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:42am
  
  Re: She never posed for Playboy!
  And she doesn't want to be associated with such magazines simply because it hurts her career in the modelling world.
  
  It doesn't hurt her career as much as suing companies that want to use her photos. I don't think anyone would want to deal with her now.
  
  And apparently she can dictate the conditions of when and where they can be published.
  That's probably the core of her argument. I am guessing they told her the photos were solely for the calendar, but if the studio followed contract standards, then they probably had her sign away the rights to the photos.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lisae Boucher (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 6:02am
    
    Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
    Actually, it does harm her career, since some modelling agencies won't want to hire models who've appeared nude in playboy magazine or similar magazines. The reputation of a model is very important in the modelling world. The playboy-article just destroyed her reputation as the "innocent girl next door" image, because Playboy is associated with erotics, not fashion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 1:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
      But they don't mind hiring ones who have appeared nude in a calendar? That's bizzarre.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lisae Boucher (profile), 29 Oct 2010 @ 3:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
        I know it's bizarre. But it's the context of the nudity. If it's artistically done then less people will object. But Playboy is an erotic magazine, even though some guys consider the pictorials to be artistic...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2010 @ 6:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
        But Playboy is an erotic magazine
        
        Sure, I just don't get how a nude calendar is different. Magazine with erotic photos of naked women vs. calendar with erotic photos of naked women. It's not like one of them's hardcore. I just don't get the difference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JTchicago (profile), 19 Jan 2011 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
        My guess is [as with most models] they demand a higher amount of pay to bear their bods. I am pretty sure she received a heafty sum for her 2009 and 2011 Pirelli Cals. But then look who took the shots for the 2011; Karl Lagerfeld; Head designer and creative director for the fashion house Chanel. Lagerfeld helms his own label fashion house, as well as the Italian house Fendi.
        
        Do the Math.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:50am
  
  Re: She never posed for Playboy!
  Interesting, you are saying that had these pics been published in Vogue, they would not be considered porn, however since they appear in playboy they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lisae Boucher (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:59am
    
    Re: Re: She never posed for Playboy!
    It's not my opinion. It's her argument! Vogue is a fashion magazine, mostly meant for women. Playboy is about all things that men are interested in and is more an erotic/softcore magazine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill G, 28 Oct 2010 @ 4:52am

Well she broke a very simple rule
Never do something on film that you do not want anyone to see. Once taken and you are not in control, it will get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 9:26am

wow... shes uh...
...kinda fugly for a model...

but more on topic, its not like this is the first time playboy has paid money for images they really did not have the rights to and published them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonCow, 28 Oct 2010 @ 10:24am

That chick is the definition of a butterface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joshy, 28 Oct 2010 @ 10:44am

Playboy has done this so many times over the years. This reminds me of the Jessica Alba lawsuit. She flat out refused and was the "Most gorgeous Women in America at the time So they went round and round trying to figure out how to get her or pictures of her from elsewhere she was upset because she didn't want anything to do with or to promote PB and then one month she is suddenly on the cover.

This link doesn't do justice to the full story. "http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/alba-threatens-playboy-over-cover-pic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:38pm

However, in the interest of understanding the legal implications only (of course), I (ahem) found the photos in question (oh so very NSFW).

NSFW, unless you work at Techdirt...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tax cpe, 31 Oct 2010 @ 8:21pm

Which one
Which one of those pictures was she complaining about? They all look the same to me. She was nude/almost nude on those so what's her fuss about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JTChicago, 19 Jan 2011 @ 4:35pm

Greg Lotus is a pretty respected photographer and done some exceptional work. So this is somewhat baffling. French Playboy is more about 'art' and taste as opposed to US-PB which is more about low-brow, and appealing to the lowest common denominator. And as far as Lara Stone is concerned, why is she concerned? It is not like this appeared in Penthouse or Hustler. It makes no sense other then she was having a beef with Greg Lotus. In the final anaylsis, Lara makes millions and probably had other ideas for these pics like selling them to Max, Purple, or some other artsy magazine rather then Playboy-France. Since Lotus knows his stuff, I am fair certain he HAD a consent signed. It just proves that releases mean nothing and the model [will always] have final say on where her pics are published.

One thing is certain, Lotus will most likely not want to shoot her again, and Lara should marry a 'baller' and retire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]