[stevebrot]

Pentax is doomed!!! (Ricoh too...)


Steve

[johnmflores]

Should we form a posse ?

Nah, I'm just sending them invoices.

[stevebrot]

Pentax is doomed!!! (Ricoh too...)


Steve

BTW...it was Munoz who is the entity accused of breach of contract. Ricoh can claim it was the unwitting purchaser of rights to publish the image. Copyright is held by Munoz, though not without restraint.


Steve

[Uluru]

Should we form a posse ?

Probably not, but rather stick to the point.
Only deal with accredited model agencies, and for the purpose of the job.
If the photographer in this case is guilty of something, the actress is totally out of line too, and does not know her job.
If she knew anything, she would deal with agency only, and through the agency only, and let the agency deal with this.
And we would know nothing about this.

[johnmflores]

If the photographer in this case is guilty of something, the actress is totally out of line too, and does not know her job.
If she knew anything, she would deal with agency only, and through the agency only, and let the agency deal with this.
And we would know nothing about this.

I cannot see any reason to point the finger at the actress in this case. By the report, she did not give permission for the photo to be used for commercial purposes and has in good faith reached out to Ricoh months before the complaint was filed.

The ball is now in Muñoz's court to prove that he had the rights to license the image to Ricoh. Maybe the facts will show him in the right. We'll have to wait and see.

[JimmyDranox]

There is something strange here, and I quote:

''However, Munoz refused to provide the photos to Specht and her public relations staff and later licensed her image to Ricoh in connection with its Pentax 645z camera, the suit states. Ads for the camera containing Specht’s image began appearing online on multiple websites, including those of Munoz and Ricoh, the suit states.''

It's hard for me to believe than an experienced photographer who has a contract, refuse to complain to the terms he signed for. Looks to me more like an attempt to draw attention to a less quoted actresses.

[RonHendriks1966]

For commercial use one always needs an agreement of use.

[fuent104]

Probably not, but rather stick to the point.
Only deal with accredited model agencies, and for the purpose of the job.
If the photographer in this case is guilty of something, the actress is totally out of line too, and does not know her job.
If she knew anything, she would deal with agency only, and through the agency only, and let the agency deal with this.
And we would know nothing about this.

This took place in Los Angeles. A person trying to make it here who is only willing to do shoots if signed to an agency will find it virtually impossible to get a career off the ground. Ricoh should at least have operated under the belief that the photographer had the right to license the image to them.

Based on what I have seen in this city, it is highly likely that a photographer would pull something like this. And, given that she will have to prove it in court, it seems unlikely that she would file paperwork against him without documentation to back it up.

I have experienced something similar in my work.

[Clavius]

That's just plain sloppy. As sloppy as shipping out gear with faults in them. Nice to see karma at work and they themselves being the victim of their faults instead of their customers for once.

[RonHendriks1966]

That's just plain sloppy. As sloppy as shipping out gear with faults in them. Nice to see karma at work and they themselves being the victim of their faults instead of their customers for once.

In the end we have to pay for these things as customers.

[Uluru]

That's just plain sloppy. As sloppy as shipping out gear with faults in them. Nice to see karma at work and they themselves being the victim of their faults instead of their customers for once.

This is photographer—actress mess. Because Ricoh did not have such a mess when advertising the K-3 — the photographer was different, the model was a talented dancer not a damn talentless actress, material filmed and photographed was also used to promote ballet school & theatre, and photographer most likely was a professional who knows his job.

[fuent104]

The photographer in this case may have known his job. It looks like the actress is alleging that the photographer intentionally misrepresented what was being done with the images. If the documents he signed with Ricoh stated that he had full rights to the image, they may not have been required to actually see his release from the actress.

[hjoseph7]

Ugh !

[fuent104]

what does that mean?