Firefighter to Sue Over Photo Claiming He Was at WTC on 9/11

gloobag

Not sure where I stand on this one. I can see where the firefighter is coming from, but on the other hand, he did sign a release.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27O_jwnpKJU

magicbastarder

seems fairly clear cut to me. if he hadn't become a firefighter, it wouldn't be an issue. the fact that he became a firefighter is incidental.

sineadw

Ouch.. that's a nasty one.

challengemaster

Lol, apparently both those guys seem to think Photoshopping a photo makes it illegal....

At a guess, over 90% of advertisements are now CGI or atleast digitally altered.

The way I see it:

He had the photo taken, signed a waiver saying the photographer can transfer the copyright / licence the photo / use for advertising / etc etc

The photographer then gives the photo to the ad company with a licence to edit it for advertising or similar...

Nothing illegal done, and all are either covered by copyright/licencing or the waiver.

Tough shít. You're a firefigher, now man the fcuk up

randylonghorn

So signing a waiver allows them to do what the hell they like with your image?

Or not?

If not, how much is too much?

If they had 'shopped out the fireman's helmet and replaced it with a WWII Nazi one, dressed him in an SS Sturmführer's uniform, and captioned it "I support the coming of the Fourth Reich!", would that be too much?

Or would it take the donkey, the midget and the nudity mentioned in the video before people would say "too much!"?

Where is the line?

I don't think most of us on this side of the pond appreciate how truly tasteless and offensive this ambulance-chaser's ad is in the US, especially to members of the FDNY and their families. I doubt there's a day goes by that this guy doesn't have to endure embarrassment and humiliation as a result of this ad. We're not talking about a 'shopped in busty blonde and a bit of good-natured ribbing about the size of his fireman's helmet here!

Tbh, I think it would probably be better for photographers everywhere if this guy wins his case, and gets the ad withdrawn.

Otherwise, from now on when a waiver is thrust under someone's nose (in the US certainly, and it will eventually spread) they will be submitting it to their lawyer and looking for all sort of additional clauses to protect themselves.

These type of contracts have always relied on a certain degree of mutual trust that there were certain reasonable limits re: taste and decency which would be observed. If it appears that this can be breached at will without recourse to the courts, those in front of the camera will become much more nervous about what they sign.

The guy in that video on the left, Joey Jackson, is like a parody of your "typical american lawyer". Rockstar should give him a radio station in the next Grand Theft Auto game. The man is mad to sue over it!

gloobag

I think the lawyer on the right hand side in the video is spot on when he says, that morally it's wrong, but legally, there isn't much of a case there.

Despite that, I hope a precendent is set and the firefighter wins. They mention in the video that the law firm in question has been caught out for being shady in the past, and that ad, in my opinion is disgustingly exploitive of others misfortune.

the_syco

Agree with the fireman. It's not a case of the photo being doctored that he seems to have a problem with, it's that it makes him look like he was at the Twin Towers.

Since then, he has had to explain to everyone that this was a photo that was doctored. Not exactly a "Stolen Valor Act" moment, but as every firefighter that worked at the Twin Towers are seen as heroes by many, anyone pretending to be one should get harsh treatment if found out to be a fake. And as he didn't become a firefighter until 2004, every firefighter who was at the Twin Tower would see his face, know he didn't fight there, and be hostile against him.

Linking a face to a big event like the Twin Towers, with that face having no actual link to the Twin Towers, esp not as a firefighter, is dumb.

magicbastarder

randylonghorn wrote: »

So signing a waiver allows them to do what the hell they like with your image?

if you're a model, should you be consulted on the use of your image for every reproduction of that image after, even if you've signed a model release form?

PCPhoto

surely he is entitled to sue for emotional distress in the US
(the point mentioned above)
being a firefighter - other firefighters will view him as a "cheat" - because of the image and the fact that he was not a firefighter at the time of 9-11.

randylonghorn

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you're a model, should you be consulted on the use of your image for every reproduction of that image after, even if you've signed a model release form?

No.

Take the post as a whole, rather than just the first line of it, and I think you will see what I'm driving at.

There is IMO a big difference between reproduction, or even reproduction with 'shoppage which changes the context in a benign or neutral way, on the one hand, and, on the other, reproduction which changes the context in such a way as to associate the model with something which was not originally envisaged or discussed and which any reasonable person might assume had the potential to be offensive to the model or to cause emotional distress or to lower the reputation of the model in the eyes of reasonable people.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that it will be the easiest line to draw, especially in law, but I think it's reasonable to argue that such a line should exist; that there is such a thing as "too much".

I actually think, as I said, that if the principle that there IS such a thing as "too much" is not upheld, however they manage to define or tie it down, that it will ultimately be to the disadvantage of photographers, in that people will be far more reluctant to sign waivers without multiple caveats and protective clauses.

L31mr0d

Heh, reminds me of this episode of friends:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxp6SggoLTQ

As has been said, if he was an actor or model still he'd probably be loving the publicity. But he just happened to go into the profession he modeled for. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Still, I'd say the ad will be pulled anyway, given the already shaky PR of the source company running it.

magicbastarder

randylonghorn wrote: »

There is IMO a big difference between reproduction, or even reproduction with 'shoppage which changes the context in a benign or neutral way, on the one hand, and, on the other, reproduction which changes the context in such a way as to associate the model with something which was not originally envisaged or discussed and which any reasonable person might assume had the potential to be offensive to the model or to cause emotional distress or to lower the reputation of the model in the eyes of reasonable people.

the ad is for a service which is neither illegal nor would have caused an issue had the model not joined the FDNY; so he's a victim of circumstances, but the law cannot act simply because he happened to subsequently start a career which the photograph might impinge on.
he modelled for the shot, he got paid for it, he was happy for the money presumably, and he (or his agency) probably didn't put in any clauses stating the image could not be used for certain campaigns.

sometimes life can be tough.

K_user

“Intentional infliction of emotional distress” was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form of assault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when the threat was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault, but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form.

The man may have signed a release and in 99% of cases he has signed away his right to the image, but there are limits.

If I were to photograph a male model against a blue background, then use photoshop to insert him into a playground scene, making reference to him being a paedo…well that would have real consequences in his life.

This man was a model, the image was changed, but the topic for which the image is being used is an emotional and sensitive one and it is having a real life effect on this mans life.

magicbastarder

if you sell the copyright of a photo in its entirety to a third party, and do not attach any conditions to the use in the sale, do you think you should be allowed dictate the use of that photo several years later because it does not suit your current career?

listen, i get that it's very embarrassing for him. i get that the lawyers are ambulance chasers. but the law is not there to simply protect people from hurt feelings.
everything about the conception, execution, sale and subsequent use of that photo would appear to be legit.

sheesh

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you sell the copyright of a photo in its entirety to a third party, and do not attach any conditions to the use in the sale, do you think you should be allowed dictate the use of that photo several years later because it does not suit your current career?

listen, i get that it's very embarrassing for him. i get that the lawyers are ambulance chasers. but the law is not there to simply protect people from hurt feelings.
everything about the conception, execution, sale and subsequent use of that photo would appear to be legit.

^ What he said.

Tough on the model but really not their fault that he became a firefighter afterwards.

mdebets

magicbastarder wrote: »

if you sell the copyright of a photo in its entirety to a third party, and do not attach any conditions to the use in the sale, do you think you should be allowed dictate the use of that photo several years later because it does not suit your current career?

listen, i get that it's very embarrassing for him. i get that the lawyers are ambulance chasers. but the law is not there to simply protect people from hurt feelings.
everything about the conception, execution, sale and subsequent use of that photo would appear to be legit.

The problem in the original post has nothing to do with the copyright (the rights of the photographer). The problem was about the rights of the model, that is pictured in the photo.

magicbastarder

he signed the model release form. he signed away control over the use of the image. his tough.

mdebets

magicbastarder wrote: »

he signed the model release form. he signed away control over the use of the image. his tough.

You have read the model release and know all its conditions?

randylonghorn

Maybe that's how it will play out, we will have to wait and see what the court actually decides.

But if that's the outcome, I know I for one would never afterwards sign an unconditional waiver or release.

(Now, before those on here who know me IRL point it out, no-one would want to use an image of an ugly baxtard like me anyway ... but that's not actually the point.)

And I would advise anyone I know to do likewise, should the issue ever arise.

See, that's the thing, magicbastarder ... sometimes people win their point in law (which tends to be a blunt instrument at the best of times) but the consequences are not actually what they would wish for. Sometimes life can be tough like that.

magicbastarder

mdebets wrote: »

You have read the model release and know all its conditions?

it's a reasonable assumption to make that he signed away the rights, otherwise this would not have become an issue; that ad would have been pulled.

the_syco

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/faked_fireman_ad_pulled_gVfstYgvXAxT8pa8B9cL8O

A Manhattan ad agency yesterday scuttled a 9/11 ad featuring a grimy firefighter gripping a photo of the World Trade Center's charred remains under a banner declaring, "I was there" -- because he really wasn't.

This comes a day after The Post reported that firefighter/model Robert Keiley -- who didn't join the FDNY until 2004 -- thought he was posing, helmet in hand, for a generic educational ad.

The Photoshopped shot appeared in an ad campaign for Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, a law firm representing 9/11 victims that was ripped by a judge last May for siphoning off too much settlement money in fees.


"We issue a sincere and deep apology to firefighter Keiley, and this ad will not run again," said John Barker, president of ad agency Barker/DZP.

But law firm senior partner Marc Bern insisted it did nothing wrong.

"It was all appropriate, due to the release signed by [Keiley]," he said. "We are trying to help the victims of 9/11."

Keiley’s attorney, Keith Sullivan, called for more action.

“While we appreciate the ad company accepting responsibility, we need to ascertain who doctored the photograph so this never happens again,” Sullivan said.

Dodgy law firm uses dodgy picture...

randylonghorn

Well, that solves this one, though it doesn't answer the legal question.

Though the cynic in me says that the law firm were not as confident of winning any case as they claim, given their rapid retreat.

magicbastarder

it was the ad agency who had the rapid retreat; the law firm were more defensive of their actions.

jaybeeveedub

two things occur to me....

firstly the attorneys involved are not ip attorneys... one is a criminal defense attorney! as such they spend most of their time arguing about the photoshopping of the image.... this is a sideline issue however... their moral objections are based on the fact that the model would now be perceived as having been there... this was not achieved by the removal of the helmet but by the addition of the text... " I was there "

thus the argument becomes may an ad agency add text to an image to allow it fit the purpose of their ad... If the the answer to that was no, then the stock photo Market would collapse overnight...

seems pretty clear cut both morally and legally to me...

and ad to promote legal access to a relief fund, ( for first responders who have been denied assistance and healthcare by the federal government because they were not on duty at the time) using a photograph legally taken and insignificantly altered of a model, with an "actors" disclaimer. They would have won hands down in court.

jaybeeveedub

oh yes the second thing... what exactly is it they are saying is immoral...

randylonghorn

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

thus the argument becomes may an ad agency add text to an image to allow it fit the purpose of their ad...

No, it becomes "may they do so (without specific permission) in a way which any reasonable person might assume had the potential to be offensive to the model or to cause emotional distress or to lower the reputation of the model in the eyes of reasonable people".

I haven't read every post (though I read most the other day).

I reckon the model should win and have the ad pulled. His image is being used in a way which is having implications and causing distress in his everyday life, and causing him grief amongst work colleagues.

They could have used anyone else's image, and I wouldn't pass any remarks, but intentionally using a current serving fire officer for such an advertisement is a blatant diregard for the officer's personal life.


If I was shooting a model, and she changed her top or such quickly in front of me, and I took a sneaky shot of her tits, and uploaded it online, there'd be uproar. Regardless of what model release she signed, no matter what it said, the photo would be pulled and I'd get a hefty fine or prison sentence, no doubt.

Chances are I'd never take a professional photo again. This model's personal life is being significantly and directly affected by the ad. It should be pulled.


All in my own opinion of course.

jaybeeveedub

randylonghorn wrote: »

No, it becomes "may they do so (without specific permission) in a way which any reasonable person might assume had the potential to be offensive to the model or to cause emotional distress or to lower the reputation of the model in the eyes of reasonable people".

to be honest that's just a longer version of the same sentence and one which is negatived by signing a release....

if specific permission were required, what happens if the model moves house... and all of sudden the image becomes worthless because he cant be contacted because we want to use the ad to promote saving cats, and we think he might hate cats and be offended by the use of the image.

how could it possibly be construed as lowering him in the eyes of right thinking members of society...?? he was doing nothing illegal or immoral... there was no false aspect to contend with as he was playing a role, and therefore by definition it cannot injure his reputation, only that of firefighters as a class.

it is not legally possible to assume what would be offensive to a person, hence the right thinking members of society test...

jaybeeveedub

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't read every post (though I read most the other day).

I reckon the model should win and have the ad pulled. His image is being used in a way which is having implications and causing distress in his everyday life, and causing him grief amongst work colleagues.

They could have used anyone else's image, and I wouldn't pass any remarks, but intentionally using a current serving fire officer for such an advertisement is a blatant diregard for the officer's personal life.


If I was shooting a model, and she changed her top or such quickly in front of me, and I took a sneaky shot of her tits, and uploaded it online, there'd be uproar. Regardless of what model release she signed, no matter what it said, the photo would be pulled and I'd get a hefty fine or prison sentence, no doubt.

Chances are I'd never take a professional photo again. This model's personal life is being significantly and directly affected by the ad. It should be pulled.


All in my own opinion of course.

what happens then if you pay a model €1000 plus your costs for a photoshoot for a bridal magazine and she gets divorced.... should you then pull that ad from all magazines and editorials because she is caused embarrassment by something which she did after the fact?

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

but intentionally using a current serving fire officer for such an advertisement is a blatant diregard for the officer's personal life.

i got the impression that the reason they used the photo was that they wanted someone dressed as a fireman, not because he's a fireman himself.

if he signed a release, the law will be blind to his career choice. as it should be.

Borderfox

The guy did his modelling job, got paid, signed his release and now his friends are slagging him so he goes to one of many lawyers in the states that take on any sort of case no matter how slim the chance of victory. Take the medicine

Stories like this make me glad not be working in the states, over here I have had only one instance of being threathened by a solicitor over the possible publication of an editorial picture (I received a written apology from the guy)

Rodin

They removed a helmet, and put in a picture of the 9/11 rubble. INTO HIS HANDS. In my opinion, this is no longer the same image that the man in question gave his consent to use.

the slogan is also a blatant lie, attributed to this man. I think his action should be successful.

Borderfox

The only thing escalating this is the 9/11 issue, other than that there would be no problem with it.

magicbastarder

Borderfox wrote: »

The only thing escalating this is the 9/11 issue

and the fact that he changed career to a firefighter - i understand it was taken before he became a firefighter in 2004, but am open to correction?

magicbastarder

Rodin wrote: »

They removed a helmet, and put in a picture of the 9/11 rubble. INTO HIS HANDS.

the FDNY is intimately linked with 9/11 now; it's not a slanderous thing to do, to link a photo of a firefighter with the date. the issue here is not the picture he's holding, it does not radically change the photo or turn the content completely on its head; the photo itself does not imply he was there, it is the text which does this, and it's the text he has an issue with. but the text falls outside the scope of the model release, and it's common practice in advertising to portray your models as being someone they are not.

he *might* have had a chance at sympathy if they'd portrayed him as someone who had done something immoral or criminal; the funny thing is they did quite the opposite.

Rodin

Borderfox wrote: »

The only thing escalating this is the 9/11 issue, other than that there would be no problem with it.

I think there would still be a problem with it, but yes he's only complaining because of the context he finds himself in

Borderfox

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

Rodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

the FDNY is intimately linked with 9/11 now; it's not a slanderous thing to do, to link a photo of a firefighter with the date. the issue here is not the picture he's holding, it does not radically change the photo or turn the content completely on its head; the photo itself does not imply he was there, it is the text which does this, and it's the text he has an issue with. but the text falls outside the scope of the model release, and it's common practice in advertising to portray your models as being someone they are not.

he *might* have had a chance at sympathy if they'd portrayed him as someone who had done something immoral or criminal; the funny thing is they did quite the opposite.

The text doesn't imply he was there. It's stating he WAS there, as per the ad agency.

magicbastarder

Rodin wrote: »

The text doesn't imply he was there. It's stating he WAS there, as per the ad agency.

it's an ad. it's not a statement of fact.
most ads you see on telly feature actors just *pretending* that their lives are much better because they use teeth whitener.

Rodin

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's an ad. it's not a statement of fact.
most ads you see on telly feature actors just *pretending* that their lives are much better because they use teeth whitener.

I didn't realise you were allowed to blatantly say 'I was there' even if you weren't.

Just as well I work in a real job, and not advertising

challengemaster

Rodin wrote: »

I didn't realise you were allowed to blatantly say 'I was there' even if you weren't.

Just as well I work in a real job, and not advertising

Freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want, doesn't mean it has to be true, or that people have to believe it.

IIRC there was a massive incident relating to 9/11 where a "survivor" or alleged family member, or some such who was claiming they were there started a support group and so on, so forth, until this thing was massive. Turns out she wasn't there at all.

I also love how you think you're better than others with your "real" job... :rolleyes:

Rodin

challengemaster wrote: »

Freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want, doesn't mean it has to be true, or that people have to believe it.

IIRC there was a massive incident relating to 9/11 where a "survivor" or alleged family member, or some such who was claiming they were there started a support group and so on, so forth, until this thing was massive. Turns out she wasn't there at all.

I also love how you think you're better than others with your "real" job... :rolleyes:

I don't recall saying I was better. I am however not allowed to publish lies.

jaybeeveedub

Rodin wrote: »

They removed a helmet, and put in a picture of the 9/11 rubble. INTO HIS HANDS. In my opinion, this is no longer the same image that the man in question gave his consent to use.

the slogan is also a blatant lie, attributed to this man. I think his action should be successful.

all acting is a blatant lie....

also if you airbrush a model... remove blemishes, wrinkles etc you substantially alter the image.... can the model now prevent you using it because it's no longer the same image she signed a release for....

jaybeeveedub

Rodin wrote: »

I didn't realise you were allowed to blatantly say 'I was there' even if you weren't.

Just as well I work in a real job, and not advertising

of course you are.... you can say what you like in an ad... you do realise there is no such person as Tony the Tiger.... and frosties aren't grerreat