PDA

View Full Version : Ex-Bikini Models Stock Image Use Yields Charge of "soiling her wholesome image"



Musclepapa John
03-16-2010, 08:38 PM
Former model Irina Krupnik sues makers of 'Couples Retreat' for using sexy photo in tawdry scene

BY Jose Martinez
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Originally Published:Thursday, March 11th 2010,



http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/03/12/alg_couples_retreat2.jpg Universal Pictures
Not everyone is laughing over one of Jon Favreau's scenes in 'Couples Retreat.' A former model is suing the movie's makers over the use of one her photos in a raunchy scene.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/03/12/amd_krupnik.jpg Walker/Getty
Irina Krupnik




A ravishing Russian is suing over her film debut after an old bikini-modeling picture made a surprise appearance in a raunchy scene from the movie "Couples Retreat."
Irina Krupnik, now a successful makeup artist, contends she was disgusted when clients recognized her from a scene in which actor Jon Favreau shares a very private moment with her sexy snapshot.
"The image of an older married man pleasuring himself to the picture of someone who was closer to the age of a child is disgusting," said lawyer Thomas Mullaney, who is representing Krupnik in the $10 million suit.
"It was a swimsuit ad, not pornography."
Krupnik was 21 when she donned a bikini for a February 2001 modeling shoot in the Bahamas, then signed a release allowing commercial use of the image through stock photo agencies.
The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, accuses NBC Universal and Universal Pictures Co. of soiling her "wholesome image" and violating her privacy with the "tawdry" and "shocking" use of the photo.
An NBC Universal spokeswoman did not return calls.
Krupnik says she had no idea her picture would be used as an X-rated prop for the "purposely unattractive male" played by Favreau in the Vince Vaughn vehicle.
"She was shocked; she was mad as hell," Mullaney said.
"If you're a good-looking young woman, you don't want anyone leering at you or fondling you," the lawyer added. "If someone did in Central Park what they showed in 'Couples Retreat,' they would be thrown in jail."
Krupnik catwalked away from her modeling career seven years ago to become a makeup artist and image consultant whose work has earned mentions from Vogue and InStyle magazines.
"These were pictures she took nearly 10 years ago," Mullaney said. "In no way at all did she even remotely expect them to turn up in some raunchy movie scene."
The movie, which also stars Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell, centers on stressed-out couples escaping to a tropical paradise where they encounter ex-loves and a lusty yoga instructor.
It was largely panned by critics, and Krupnik gave "Couples Retreat" a big thumbs-down, too.
"At the very least, common decency means you should ask somebody before you put them into a scene that's essentially pornography," Mullaney said.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_former_model_irina_krupnik_sues_makers_of_coupl es_retreat_for_using_sexy_photo_i.html#ixzz0iODrzm Fk

Gaoshang Xiongshou
03-16-2010, 08:59 PM
Help me out here... she signed a release, and that company owns the picture, so they can do whatever they please, right?

Can this suit stand in court?

Musclepapa John
03-17-2010, 12:01 AM
Help me out here... she signed a release, and that company owns the picture, so they can do whatever they please, right?

Can this suit stand in court?


There are varied types of stock photography agreements:

Royalty-free (RF)

"Free" in this context means "free of royalties (paying each time you use an image)". It does not mean the image is free to use without purchasing a license or that the image is in the public domain.


Pay a one-time fee to use the image multiple times for multiple purposes (with limits).
No time limit on when the buyer can use an image.
No one can have exclusive rights of a Royalty-free image (the photographer can sell the image as many times as he or she wants).
A Royalty-free image usually has a limit to how many times the buyer can reproduce it. For example, a license might allow the buyer to print 500,000 brochures with the purchased image. The amount of copies made is called the print run. The buyer is required to pay a fee per brochure, usually 1 to 3 cents, for additional prints. Magazines with a large print run cannot use a standard Royalty-free license and therefore they either purchase images with a Rights-managed license or have in-house photographers.

Rights-managed (RM)

(sometimes called "licensed images")


The value of a license is determined by the use of the image, which is generally broken down along these lines;

Usage: (e.g. Advertising - "Above the Line", Corporate - "Below the Line" or Editorial - "News Media")
Specific Use: (e.g. Billboard, Annual Report, Newspaper article)
Duration: (e.g. 1 month, 2 months, 1 Year, 2 Years etc)
Print Run: (e.g. up to 10,000, up to 1m)
Territory: (e.g.; USA, Europe, UK, Germany, or whatever combination of territories are required)
Size: (how big is the image to be used - 1/4 page, 1/2 page, full page, or double page spread)
Industry: (Industry type - e.g. Consumer Electronics, Marine Engineering, Financial Services etc)
Exclusivity: (Exclusive, or Non Exclusive)


The terms of the license are clearly defined and negotiated so that the purchaser receives maximum value, and is protected in their purchase by a certain level of exclusivity.
Rights-managed licenses provide assurance that an image will not be used by someone else in a conflicting manner. The agreement can include exclusivity, and usually recognises that this represents added value. Not all Rights-managed licenses are exclusive, that must be stipulated in the agreement.
A Rights-managed image usually allows a much larger print run per image than a Royalty-free license.
Editorial is a form of rights-managed license when there are no releases for the subjects. Since there are no releases the images cannot be used for advertising or to depict controversial subjects, only for news or educational purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_photography

Musclepapa John
03-17-2010, 12:03 AM
I'd think her photo was Rights-Managed and as such could indeed hold up in court due to mismanaged use.


Help me out here... she signed a release, and that company owns the picture, so they can do whatever they please, right?

Can this suit stand in court?

Musclepapa John
03-17-2010, 12:06 AM
I was humored a bit by her claim that she did not expect wanking to occur as a result of her bikini model image. Isn't the desire to be found sexually attractive what motivates bikini modeling and what it is marketed for?


Help me out here... she signed a release, and that company owns the picture, so they can do whatever they please, right?

Can this suit stand in court?

Tre
03-17-2010, 12:44 AM
It's doubtful that she'll be able to prove any significant damages.

GX, you're spot-on - it's highly likely that the release she signed completely indemnifies the rights holder.

And if this suit was filed in California, forget about it - film makers can do whatever they want here. If you pay a person to have sex with you and film it, then no crime has been committed.

Musclepapa John
03-17-2010, 01:06 AM
You gotta luv all these suits and countersuits over copyright even involving dancing babies:yep:


Universal Could Have To Pay Up For Demanding Dancing Baby Video Be Removed From YouTube

Erin Geiger Smith | Mar. 1, 2010,

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4b8c38987f8b9a984d740700/youtube-dancing-baby.jpg
Like so many mothers before her, Stephanie Lenz thought her friends and family might enjoy seeing her toddler. So she uploaded a video to YouTube of her son dancing to Prince. Universal, Prince's label, demanded that the video be taken down. In 2008, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued Universal of behalf of Lenz, claiming that Universal's failure to consider whether there actually was any copyright infringement before demanding a take down violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.