Another day another lawsuit........

[BradShaw]

Can't people give me a month off lawsuits so I can relax before my wedding?

I was thinking this could be the big one. Or this could be KB taking the $ he made off Stern and suing me. But this is much more interesting, and should be of concern to many people who buy content.

We bought a ton of David Lace content over the years. Was contacted a couple years ago by a lawyer saying that we had images on one of our websites that was of his client and asked to remove it. At first they would not tell us what image was in question. Finally they told us which one, turns out it was an image we bought from David Lace. Lawyer claimed that the model never signed a release, and it was only a "test shoot". I tried numerous times to contact david lace and get a copy of the release and id's. He ignored me time and time again.

I guess he likes to ignore people, see Acacia. At that point I chose to remove the image, figured it was no big deal and it would be done. Well here we are 2 years later and today I get served with a lawsuit from this girl, she is also suing David Lace for using her image without permission.

Will be interesting how this turns out, and where the liability lies. If Lace really did not have model release and sold the images to me, who holds the liability here? Do I turn around and sue him and hope he does not hide like he did from Acacia? I can not see where I would lose, but no doubt this will cost some legal fees.

Bottom line is that when buying content, I would INSIST on model releases, and ID's in YOUR hands. Take this as a lesson learned. Also, if you have David Lace content on your site, may want to take my experience as a warning.

[Winetalk.com]

Brad, may I suggest getting JMM's lawyers on board?
I don't know any better people to rep content providers,
seen them in action...

[Fletch XXX]

What a nightmare. All over what? A 50$ set of some skank broad?

fucking christ.

[sextoyking]

brad,

that sucks man.

hope everything works out fine for you..

[Rodent]

And you have had the sluts picture down for 2 years? How lame...she must need some money for her crack habbit.

[Julene]

what a gold digger !

I hope the case is dropped against you.

[Mike AI]

I hate lawyers!!!!

David Lace definately has some liability, but one cannot squeze blood from a turnip.

People should deinately learn from this.... Model releases are VERY important, and need to be in your hand. Be careful who you do business with.

Brad, if we can help any, let me know!

[pompu]

Hey Brad,
Did you ever think the hoes would strike back!

[Ludedude]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on the web but I'd say you have an actionable claim against Lace should you feel it necessary to pursue it.

[Dravyk]

Hi Lude!

It sounds to me, Brad's in the clear. Why? He is contacted by someone claiming he has an image that is not legal. Note the lawyer CLAIMED. He himself did not give Brad (it doesn't sound like from reading this) any evidence. But that's their side of the story.

Brad then properly proceeds with due diligence, attempting to contact where he purchased the content to confirm and deny the lawyer's claim, and they (Lace) don't respond. As there's no reason for Brad to believe one side of the story without ascertaining the other side, and since he indeed sought the other side, and since neither gave him any proof one way or the other (neither the lawyer nor Lace) I would say they can't hold anything on Brad.

Likewise, not a lawyer either, but that's my understanding of the process, for what little it's worth.

Toss in the two years time delay and that the LAWYER failed to give proof, Brad, and you might even have a claim against the lawyer for filing an unwarranted suit (and try to get him disbarred for his bad behavior.) hehe




Last edited by Dravyk at Nov 18 2003, 06:10 PM

[nlphoto]

Sorry that happened to you Brad... I do not think you have any liability,
as you were not the original producer/photographer of the content.

I rarely shoot without a signed release at the beginning of the session.
If they refuse at the beginning I may shoot, but only if they sign
an additional statement that they have read the entire release and
agree to all terms therein... (I've had models attempt to put in clauses
after the shoot).

But as you know, the only way you can absolutely assure this is to
shoot your own. One point that people also overlook, is that nowhere
in 2257 does it state that a producer is obligated to provide copies of
IDs... only to provide the location of where records are available
for inspection by appointment. Also there are confidentiality issues
regarding the ID information of the models...



Last edited by nlphoto at Nov 18 2003, 04:14 PM

[BradShaw]

I am sure with some $ spent on lawyers, this will be handled. But it may drag out, who knows. She has hired a VERY powerful ATL law firm, and is suing in COBB County, talk about conservative area.

Goes back to the point I make all the time, if you can not afford a lawyer, you do not belong in this biz, or most businesses.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by BradShaw@Nov 18 2003, 06:16 PM
I am sure with some $ spent on lawyers, this will be handled. But it may drag out, who knows. She has hired a VERY powerful ATL law firm, and is suing in COBB County, talk about conservative area.

Goes back to the point I make all the time, if you can not afford a lawyer, you do not belong in this biz, or most businesses.

I am being sued by a model in ATL as well.

Get me a name Brad, I am curious to see what the deal is.

My case has been sitting around because the plantiff attorney realizes he is not going to win.

[Paul Markham]

I just cannot believe that someone like David Lace would sell a girl without a signed model and IDs. What may have happened is the girl did a "Test" session which she was not paid for and came back later for work she was paid for and filled out the 2257 documentation.

But it is a warning message, never buy without 2257 documentation. Bottom line is you are going on the word of someone you have never met and never likely to meet that it exists.

Want to protect a models "Privacy" then remaove all contact details from the documents. Better still tell her to keep her knickers on and not pose nude for money.

[BradShaw]

Originally posted by Paul Markham@Nov 19 2003, 02:28 AM
I just cannot believe that someone like David Lace would sell a girl without a signed model and IDs. What may have happened is the girl did a "Test" session which she was not paid for and came back later for work she was paid for and filled out the 2257 documentation.

But it is a warning message, never buy without 2257 documentation. Bottom line is you are going on the word of someone you have never met and never likely to meet that it exists.

Want to protect a models "Privacy" then remaove all contact details from the documents. Better still tell her to keep her knickers on and not pose nude for money.

Believe it. I am sure it was probably a mistake or oversight. But in this business, you can not make such mistakes. When this is done, I plan to own Lace, just registered lacecontentblowout.com. Working on filing a suit against him for the headaches and legal liabilities his company has caused me.

[Mike AI]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by BradShaw+Nov 19 2003, 11:22 AM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 AM..