(supposed) Model's Image Removed from SPAMALOT Theatre

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 8:38am

I saw this article at the top of the site, and just wanted to post a thread about it.
The model's (who filed a lawsuit about having her picture on the SPAMALOT thing on the front of the Shubert) picture has been removed from the theatre.
I was wondering what is now replacing her "supposed" image.
Here's a link:
The Link

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 8:42am

I know...isn't that ridiculous?

[.LittleWing. 0224]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 9:11am

yeah, i walked by yesterday and it was down. it's now hands sort of hanging on to the edge of the wall or whatever it is in the image.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 9:12am

oh... does it look cool?

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 9:55am

I'm sorry but this chick is being really stupid...i mean if she wasn't getting payed for it then ok i understand simply right off a check...but please "punitive damages". What the fact that people actually get to see you? Lord knows i've never heard of her

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 10:52am

They should have left her picture there and superimposed David Hyde Pierce's face over hers. Or better yet, Christian Borle's . . . would that be a hoot???

Updated On: 2/16/06 at 10:52 AM

[jasobres]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 11:04am

Maybe they shouldn't have used that photo in the first place.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 11:47am

yeah, they actually shouldve used christian borle as prince herbert leaning out the window! "where are you, where are you, you should be here at this show..." :)

[showinoff]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 2:02pm

what is next is the bunny going to complain. I am sure it did not sign anything....

I understand her point, if it is legit. But, it is silly.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 2:20pm

I find it amusing because I've been to see the show 4 times, and never even noticed her---and wouldn't have cared if I HAD noticed.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 2:25pm

jasobres, the whole point is that the photo was legally taken by a photographer, was legally sold to the Spamalot people, and they used it in a completely legal manner. They took it down to avoid the controversy, not because the model was right.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:15pm

If she's a model then what is better than saying on your resume that you've were on the side of the Shubert theater as part of Spamalot. I would love to be up there.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:23pm

Im not sure I understood the article. Is it her face super imposed on someone else's body? I mean she should be aware that she posed for a photo in that manner unless it was photoshopped. But anyway, she should have been paid for use of her face.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 5:33pm

She was most likely paid for the photoshoot and forfeited her rights over the photo then. That's usually what is done.

[.LittleWing. 0224]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:08pm

for whomever asked how it looks... it looks fine. I actually like it better, its a bit funnier.

I'm glad they decided to avoid controversy and just take it down.

[Mythus]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:19pm

Mistress - they gave her a digital boob job.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:57pm

A very good one, might I add...

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 8:29pm

I find it bizarre that she complained a year later. When I was in NY February, 2005, it was a month before the show opened, and there were still props and fog machines outside on the sidewalk!

I doubt the show googled her image and posted it on there. they probably purchased it or received it from the photographer, so if the photographer was doing that without rights, then she should have taken up her problem with him.

[Killjoy]

Posted: 2/19/06 at 4:34pm

I don't suppose the photographer has the deep pockets that the producers of Spamalot have.

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 2/19/06 at 4:48pm

I'd kill to have my picture up at the Shubert Theatre.
Updated On: 2/19/06 at 04:48 PM