Comments on: Anti Ratner Rally Draws a Crowd

By: DJ

DJ — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:32:48 +0000

As far as “clients” and “employers” go: Meer was never paid by Getty or anyone for those pix. She did that so-called “photo shoot” one day in the park as a favor for a friend of a friend who was a photographer. The guy in the photo with Meer was also a friend of hers. They signed a release for the photographer the day of the shoot. Then the photographer later went and sold the pix to Getty. The only thing Meer received was copies of the original pix from the photographer. In the end, it was a favor gone bad.

By: gus3

gus3 — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:07:54 +0000

J’hn1: Personal images of models fall under a different copyright category. For a similar parallel regarding misrepresentation, I suggest a Google or Yahoo search of “Jessica Alba lawsuit”.

The photos convey the idea that Meer supports the development project. She lives in or near that area, and the project damages HER interests, including personal interests. She now has to explain to her friends and potential employers that she does NOT support the project. She may also be eligible for property devaluation compensation, if the project goes through.

Further, for her employer to sell rights to her image without informing her of how it is used, especially when used against her own interests, could constitute fraud (financial gain through false pretenses).

Suddenly, the financial liability doesn’t look so black-and-white, does it?

JZ: Seven square blocks is enough to include the back yard, the front yard, both side yards, and those of several thousand neighbors.

By: slinkybender

slinkybender — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:32:38 +0000

Hey, this country was built on real estate.

By: JZ

JZ — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:24:23 +0000

Er, sounds like NIMBYism to me…

By: J'hn1

J'hn1 — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:53:36 +0000

Well, i suspect that her agency will be a little reluctant to send her out again (as they should)
If she wants to make a “couragous stand” she should be able to do so.
She should, however, be charged full price for that stand against her client (the developer) and Getty (who is her employer)
Being able to use free speech against her employer and its clients does not reduce in any manner the right of those employers and clients to be dissatisfied with her deliberate injury of their interests. Nor their right to express that dissatisfaction in any legal manner to include firing and blacklisting as deliberately damaging the client’s interests after cashing the check.

By: Sol

Sol — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:23:43 +0000

@William

Agreed. Every time I leave Manhattan (North, East, West, South, doesn’t matter), I think to myself: The only way to clean up this mess is to demolish and start over. I’ve never understood why people are so excited about Brooklyn. It’s just another dingy, litter-strewn outskirt on par with, say, Albany or Philly moreso than New York.

By: William

William — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:40:02 +0000

Destroy, then Develop