Cops and copyright.

Robert Kennedy · Aug 5, 2003

I saw this article and it got me thinking...

Judge Seals Cameron Diaz Modeling Photos
Tue Aug 5, 7:03 AM ET

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Photographs of Cameron Diaz (news) taken at a private modeling session about a decade ago, before she was a star, were ordered sealed by a judge.

Judge Alan Haber ordered the photos and a videotape sealed Monday, saying Diaz has a right to privacy of her own body. He set a Sept. 12 hearing in Superior Court on her request for an injunction against photographer John Rutter.

Diaz, a co-star of the two "Charlie's Angels" films, wasn't present at the hearing. Afterward, lawyers for the 30-year-old actress and Rutter wouldn't discuss the contents of the videotape.

Diaz didn't sign a photo release, and a release produced by Rutter is a forgery, her publicist, Brad Cafarelli, said last month.

No criminal charge has been filed against Rutter.

Rutter's lawyer, Michael H. Weiss, declined comment Monday. Diaz's lawyer, Paul Berra, didn't return a phone call for comment.

The photographer told the syndicated news program "Inside Edition" in mid-July that he'd contacted Diaz's lawyers to offer them the photos before he sold them to any media outlets.

"This was a negotiation for a right of first refusal with Cameron Diaz's lawyers," Rutter said. "A few hours after her lawyers offered to buy the photos my place was raided."

The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office confirmed that Rutter's apartment had been searched. The warrant was issued in an investigation "involving an incident where Cameron Diaz is the alleged victim," said spokeswoman Jane Robison.

Now, here is what I am thinking (O.k. besides, "Can I see?"):

How can the cops legally raid this guy when the question is about a model release?

First off there IS a release. Diaz's people say it is a fake. Secondly, the guy made a legit offer. They did get the right of first refusal. Now, this guy is probably no saint, but I am wondering here what warrants the cops raiding your place because of some confusion regarding a model release?

Any insight here? Or is it a case of fame buying muscle?

Donald Miller · Aug 5, 2003

The basis for a search of the premises is open to conjecture at this point. Obviously there is a lot of blame being placed by both sides. In order for the police to have conducted a search (if it's legal and I'd bet that it is) the judge would have been presented compelling evidence by the attorneys for the plaintiff that would have caused the judge to consider that to disregard a search request would have placed the plaintiff at an enhanced point of risk. Beyond that who knows?

Thomassauerwein · Aug 5, 2003

I'm assuming that their was nudity involved. And I have to say that the person that was photgraphed should always have the right of refusal. To go to them and try to extort money is desporate and unethical. I've photographed the nude for 15 years now and always gotten a signed release from the model. Yet if I decide to publish an image shot 12 years ago we always contact the person first and if they say no, it "is" frustraiting, but it's no different than a relationship heading to be sexual then one of the partners deciding at the last second to back out. It has to be respected! In Camorens case she is a public figure and needs to respect/protect her future. The truth is if the image/film was so important then Rutter could have re-done it with a willing person, so I'm guessing that his real motivation was simply to cash in on her celebrity status. If that is true and their agreement is not mutal then he has brought this on himself.

Robert Kennedy · Aug 5, 2003

My concern is that Rutter IS saying he offered first refusal, and that he is saying he has a release.

Does that warrant cops invading his home/workplace?

Donald Miller · Aug 5, 2003

Robert Kennedy said:
My concern is that Rutter IS saying he offered first refusal, and that he is saying he has a release.

Does that warrant cops invading his home/workplace?

It is one thing to contend a fact not yet entered into the courts determination and another to have the court rule on the validity of that contention.

inthedark · Aug 5, 2003

I agree with Robert, it worries me that the course of action was to raid the place, after Cameron's lawyers agreed to pay. In other words, they didn't even try . . ."no, please." And exhortion "coverage" if that is what it was, should be extended to everyone and usually no one gets police interruption until after a crime is committed so to speak or it is clear one is about to be committed. Hmmm, maybe they thought the pics of Cameron could be considered weapons of mass destruction. Tee hee. :grin:

Thomassauerwein · Aug 6, 2003

I can't quote law, locally their was an incident where a photgrapher photgraphed a mother and young daughter together, the lab he took the film to called the authorities, they raided, taking film, prints and computer systems, essentially putting this studio out of buisiness for 8 months until the case was dropped with no appoligies. In dispute was the age of the young daughter being unable to give consent. This took a wonderful situation and ruined it. As far as Cameron is concerned we don't know how high the photographers demands were or his attitude in dealing with the actress. It could have been considered harrassment. her body and mind is her market and she has every right to protect herself from his " weapons of mass distruction" to her career. We can discuss legal semantics all day long but the truth is we have responsibilities to the people we work with. To satisfy our concepts and our pocketbooks we need to cultivate good will and reward their participation, not use it to extort.

Robert · Aug 6, 2003

Robert Kennedy said:
My concern is that Rutter IS saying he offered first refusal, and that he is saying he has a release.

Does that warrant cops invading his home/workplace?

Worse thing he could have done. Now it sounds like extortion. Think about it. Somebody phones you up

" I've got naked pictures of you. Give me money or you'll see them in the papers"

I'm not saying that's what he did but it wouldn't take very much for a good lawyer to get the police to look at it like that. He then is in the position of proving his innonence.

Tom Duffy · Aug 6, 2003

The standards, at least in theory, for a magistrate to issue a search warrant are fairly stringent. Wonder if the lawyers had a tape of an extortion attempt by the photographer? If so, there should have been sufficient cause to arrest him, as well.
Very strange; I'll guess we'll find out on Sept. 12. Inquiring minds want to know...

Eric Rose · Aug 6, 2003

I would suspect it's all about money. She has it, and he doesn't. Therefore she has power and he doesn't. Hence she gets sympathetic treatment from suits. If they make a mistake she has enough money to make it go away, if they didn't then they are heros.

On the other hand if he didn't have a release then he's an idiot.

blansky · Aug 6, 2003

I don't think she has a long leg to stand on.

The reason a photographer has a model release in the first place is so that he has the right to sell the pictures that he has taken. When the pictures were taken he must have paid her in some manner. If down the road she becomes rich and famous he has every right to sell the pictures. That is the slippery slope that actors etc must go through, when they are living through their salad days, is whether to pose or not.

The pictures are a commody and the photographer has the right to contact the subject for right of first refusal. If she decides that she doesn't want to pay for them he has the right to sell elsewhere. That may sound like extortion but it is still legal.

The choices that she made when being photographed are coming back to haunt her. But they were still her choices. Even if she didn't sign the release, she should have known better. THese things have a habit of coming back to bite you in the ass.

If the release is in fact a forgery then the pictures should be returned to her or destroyed. However determining that fact is not easy. Signatures change and lots of experts disagree on authenticity.

As for the search warrant it sounds like we are not getting enough information. Even in LA I don't think the judge would allow one on just on the information that we have been given.

Michael McBlane

blansky · Aug 6, 2003

Thomas:

I lived in LA for seven years and I agree about goodwill etc but there still exists an underbelly of scavengers and parasites that live off the naive and hopefull innocents that show up every day to try to be a star.

At some point they need photographs taken and there are hundreds of photographer that live off this type of work. If some are succesfull at getting girls to disrobe they give the girls their pictures and keep the negatives for years, just in case.

In some cases they girls, and also guys, will pose nude just for the money. Unfortunately they will usually later regret it but they made the choice and they now have to live with the consequences.

MIchael McBlane

Thomassauerwein · Aug 6, 2003

Well Micheal, what you say is the reality of it.

blansky · Aug 6, 2003

I just thought of what might have changed the dynamic here.

Perhaps this photographer was an old boyfriend whom she had allowed to photograph her while they were messing around or shoot some nudes of her. If, in this case she knows that she never used him prorfessionally, and therefore, never signed a release, then she could set the wheels of justice going.

1. That would mean that the release is a forgery.
2. The initial call to her would look a lot like extortion.
3. She could go to the police about it.
4. The police then could possibly get a search warrant

I'm not sure but this seems like the only scenario that makes sense to me.

Michael McBlane

Aggie · Aug 6, 2003

Eric Rose · Aug 6, 2003

Possible the reason Cameron is so pissed is that she can't make the money from the sale of the photos. I am sure if she offered her "services" to Playboy or the like she could demand a pretty penny. If the photog sells them he pockets the change, not her and her agents, lawyers, hangers-on etc. Two many people being cut out of the pie.

Maybe I'm being to cynical, but I tend to side with the little guy until proven guilty.

It just kills me that so many people are so interested in what these people do. Look at the media circus over this Kobe thing. I'm sure millions of dollars are being spent to cover this initial court appearance. Who cares?!! Spend the money on feeding the poor or something. Anyway I've spouted my pinko views before and got shot down so I'll just leave it alone.

RAP · Aug 6, 2003

Who the hell is Camaro Dayze anyway?

I agree, I certainly do not waste my time reading the rags, except those I wipe my greasy hands with, let alone go to see their movies, not even on cable.

blansky · Aug 6, 2003

Eric:

You Canadians are sooo cynical yet , somehow, nice.

And yes keep your socialist commie pinkie views to yourself, before you get invaded next. We have plenty of soldiers down here just sitting around, you know.

Michael McBlane

Jorge · Aug 6, 2003

EricR said:
It just kills me that so many people are so interested in what these people do. .

That is what it boils down to, who really cares, other than Diaz if we get to see her boobs or not? Why is this news? Aside from the issue Robert raised which has not been part of the news, I could not give a rat's ass what this people do..(but if the pics do come out, someone please send me the mag... :twisted: )

Jeremy · Aug 6, 2003

Michael,

you're supposed to keep that hush-hush... don't you know we're just letting them operate their own country before we run out of natural resources... eh?

Ed Sukach · Aug 6, 2003

I've been reading this with more than the usual interest.

Offhand, I think that the lawyres representing the photographer would have more than a passing interest in the search warrant - those are not usually issued withut "Probable Cause" - and I wonder what was "probable" here.

An "Invasion of Privacy" - as stated, that would seem to indicate a breach of CIVIL law ... not "criminal" ... and it is one thing to photograph someone without their permission or knowledge ... but unless there is some attempt to make these public, I don't think the idea of "invasion" would hold.

There is the usual yellow rag syndrome here ... there is not enough information supplied to form any kind of coherent opinion. I can't, for the life of me, imagine any judge issuing a search warrant for simply having nude photographs of someone - anyone - at least if they are over legal age. There has got to be more to the story.

Hmmm ... a thought. Has Ms. Diaz's popularity been waning lately - and might there be some incentive to GET HER NAME in front of the public...? You think ... maybe...???

RAP · Aug 7, 2003

How much money did she get for Charlies Angles 2, I think $20 million? That is as obscene. That is more money then say 10 average Americans make in a lifetime, not to mention Africans, Mexicans and other people in poverty stricken nations. How many movies has she made?

Aggie · Aug 7, 2003

blansky · Aug 7, 2003

Her age is 31. I don't believe this is about underage kids, but about extortion.

I believe a person who uses a photographer for pictures and signs a release then loses all control over the use of the pictures.

However if these were indeed done by an old boyfriend, and he did call to try to extort money then he's in trouble especially if he forged the model release.

Without the release even the sleazy tabloids will not publish the pictures.

I also believe a person, even an actor, has the right to privacy, in their own home (bedroom) and the right to privacy in public restrooms etc.

If her old boyfriend did take racy pictures of her I believe she still has the right to not expect them published. No publication has the right to make money off of you, without you receiving payment. That is what copyright laws are all about.

The only recourse for old boyfriends to get back at old relationships would be to distribute them on the internet. This was done by the sleazeball that broke into Pamela Andersons house and stole her honeymoon videotape. After they were on the internet then the tabloids picked them up as being "news" and avoided any payment. She sued but I don't recall what happened because I was too busy watching the tape.

Michael McBlane

Ed Sukach · Aug 7, 2003

blansky said:
I believe a person who uses a photographer for pictures and signs a release then loses all control over the use of the pictures.

Not quite. There was a landmark case where a model posed for what she understood to be "Bedding" - matresses, sheets, etc., advertisements. She was paid, as agreed, signed the usual model release - and found her image on a number of "XXX" rated Video Casette boxes at her local Video Rental Place a few months later.

She sued, claiming a breach of Good Faith (an essential element in all contracts) and WON BIG, and immediately.

A model release is a contract allowing the use of one's image within the bounds of legality and "good faith" - not a license for the holder to run roughshod over anyone.

I'm wondering about this entire deal. Didn't the same thing happen to Madonna ... and that worked out very well for her ... I know that Madonna's PR people had a few discussions about her early nude photos, and their final decision was "So what?".

BTW ... when I sell a photograph I'll always send a cut of the proceeds to the model... as a token of "good faith".

Cops and copyright.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency