Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn
I can't believe that this is even an issue. Any well written model release should give the company any and all rights to the content in perpetuity for every medium that will ever be invented including licensing it to others and using the model's name and likeness for any reason whatsoever.
|
Well, that's the issue; it sounds like the defendants' release (or the one signed by Vicky Vette, at any rate) isn't well written.
If it were
clear that the model release conferred all the necessary rights in question to the defendants, then this case likely would have been dismissed already. That's what this ruling was after all; a denial by the court of a motion to dismiss entered by the defendants. Since the court allowed the case to proceed, it stands to reason that there's at least
some question as to whether the language of the release at issue is sufficient.
It's hard to say without seeing the actual complaint that Vette filed, but with the talk of "endorsement," I'm guessing that this is a "right of publicity" claim. Anybody have a link to the complaint itself?