Model sues Spamalot producers over photo

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=83492

Oh puh-lease.

---

Oh, for the love of God.

---

If that story is true, how the hell were the producers stupid enough to use a picture that prominently without consent??

IT would be the producers fault, and she does have a valid point and suit,

There are similar lawsuits out there on behalf of the girls who are featured in the Millie and Hairspray logos. Everyone can tell that's not Sutton, but go look at "Marissa".

The story with both young ladies is that they posed for pr mock-ups of future promotions, in the early stages of development for both shows. They were paid for their time that day, but were not properly compensated(nor told their likeness would be used) for eventual advertising, etc.

Well I hope she wins her suit.

I think i'll sue them too. I'm sure that was my Cow!!

---

If I were a girl and were obviously flat chested as this model is naturally, I'd be glad for the "enhancement". "Object of ridicule" my ass! This girl is associated with a box office smash not to mention a record breaking show for the Shubert. I pray to God she sticks to modeling and NEVER tries for a "backup" career on Broadway...no producer will touch her....She and Donna Murphy would probably have a lot in common...

---

Technically, the producers aren't really at fault. They hire a seperate company to create all the displays, marquees, etc. for the outside of the theatre.

She does have a valid suit the pathetic thing is this statement.

"Defendants' use of Carla's likeness depicts [her] in a foolish, unnatural and undignified manner, and tends to hold her up to public ridicule and contempt," the suit says. It calls the use of the image, "shameful, willful, malicious and unlawful," and claims it has greatly damaged her career and caused her "great anxiety of mind, humiliation, and mortification."

This happened with the taster choice man as well. They did not get the right releases in order and well they owed him money for using his image as an advertisment all those years!

There is an article in the Post about this as well. I think the lawyers need to do some more research though. They are claiming her picture must be a character from the show and they picked the Lady of the Lake. She does not resemble the Lady of the Lake at all, and they said she's played by Lauren Kennedy who is a brunette, when on the billboards she is a blonde. But also, they say about her being in the likeness of a witch. Well the witch scene is no longer in Spamalot and has not been since Chicago. If a person was walking by the theater and saw that picture, would you think oh she looks like a witch? she looks like one of the French women if anything.
But , if they used her picture without her consent she has a valid complaint. She just needs her lawyers to do some better research.

It seems she has a legitimate suit, particularly if the picture was taken in a joking moment, AFTER the shoot was completed. (As she claims.) However, going on about it portraying her in a "unnatural and undignified manner" is just silly.