Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Model settles lawsuit over sexy jewelry ad Model Advice

Did you hear about that Model who settled her lawsuit over sexy jewelry ad? Well she did not read the fine print regardless of what money she has won. I am not trying to be rash, but it is a buyer-beware situation. Moaning and stroking herself suggestively on a bed, no matter if she has jewerly on or not is a choice. I did a jewerly ad, where I had to be in a thong, and a male actor was involved. But I got a script ahead of time and I knew what was expected. I think aspiring models forget that they have the right to leave. Say No, and just get up and walk out the door, before something bad happens. We all make mistakes. But especially if you are filmed, be careful and please be pickier about the jobs you say Yes to. And always ask yourself and the people involved with the project, " can I see a script ahead of time," and "where will this be distributed?" Know everything whether moaning or not, before you accept a modeling job, you might regret. You do not want a miscommunication to lead you to court. I am trying to figure out how she found the job and met with these people. I hope it wasn't Craigslist.


From the National Jeweler Network.

October 29, 2008

New York—A New York model has settled a $5 million lawsuit against a jewelry company over an Internet video advertisement that she claimed tarnished her wholesome image by depicting her in a pornographic way, according to The Associated Press.

The AP reports that the 37-year-old model, a married graduate student in elementary education who is unnamed in the lawsuit, and Szul Jewelry Inc. came to an undisclosed settlement.

A Manhattan judge filed a notice of the settlement last week, according to the AP.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2007, was over Szul's "Rock Her World," advertisement, which showed the woman in lingerie and a diamond necklace, moaning and stroking herself suggestively on a bed. The segment ends with the Web address, Szul.com, flashing across the screen.

According to the AP, the video attracted more than 700,000 hits before being removed from the Internet in January.

The plaintiff claims that she did not "consent to or authorize the use of her likeness, picture, image or name to simulate a female having an orgasm or otherwise experiencing sexual pleasure," according to a previous AP report.

She contends, according to the report, that three-quarters of the commercial contained a comedic story line with the premise that an average guy can get a woman excited by placing a necklace on her, and that she was later told to sit and feign excitement for a few seconds while the man put the necklace on her.

According to the AP, a lawyer for the model said his client is "pleased," while Szul said it was a "miscommunication between parties."

No comments: