Model sues Spamalot producers over photo

[AnnaB]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:38pm

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

[Isabella2]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:40pm

woah that's crazy. i wanna see the picture. anyone seen it?

[Chrysanthemum62001]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:47pm

Oh puh-lease.

[AnnaB]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:55pm

I'm pretty sure it's this one

[gavrochegirl]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:58pm

Oh, for the love of God.

[Luckydave14]

Posted: 1/24/06 at 11:59pm

I've never even noticed that.

[Tag]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:01am

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

[ALWrules]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:12am

(Cues God Bless America)

Yay for suing!!!

[DefyingEDCT]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:15am

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

[respeck]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:18am

Well don't Producer's buy things like that from companies who own the photos? Models get paid for these things, and then who ever took them owns them. It's not as if the just did a Google search for her. I'm sure they paid someone for it.

[Pinaud]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:20am

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.

[BSoBW3]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:23am

And here I was always assuming that the producers hired someone (a model or ensemble member, friend, etc.) for that pic.

[Tag]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:41am

Well I hope she wins her suit.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:45am

Do these model sign contracts that state specifically what the pic will be used for, or its intent? If they sign a contract that releases their rights to their image, no matter what it may be used for in the future, then they need a better agent, but that's it.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 12:47am

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

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:25am

I don't own the Hairspray coffee table book, but I think I remember while browsing it in the bookstore that Marissa JW said she was thrilled when she found out she was going to be the logo for the show...
So, what kind of lawsuit could be pending over that show???

[NYC_or_Bust]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:34am

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...

[Elphaba]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 1:37am

apparently she can't succeed on her own, so she'll take the easy road.....

[Jon]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 6:42am

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 9:02am

Well at least now she has a name....

[Karma76]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:05am

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!

[kim1061]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:13am

i can see her point.

[Cabchic]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 10:23am

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.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:04am

I don't think that if I saw this woman on the street, I'd recognize her as "the woman on the Spamalot billboard" (or if I did, think of it in a negative way). I don't really see how the picture is humiliating or mortifying to her.

[erikaamato]

Posted: 1/25/06 at 11:15am

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.