Flashermac Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 No professional photographer does a shoot of any kind without first getting a model release. It just doesn't happen. Looks to me like somebody is getting the shaft here. __________________________ Man guilty in Cameron Diaz topless photos case LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A photographer who took topless pictures of actress Cameron Diaz before she was famous was convicted on Monday of charges stemming from what prosecutors said was a bid to blackmail the "Charlie's Angels" star for $3 million (1.7 million pounds). John Rutter, who was accused of faking Diaz's signature on a 1992 release form and telling the actress he would publish the steamy, bondage-themed photos if she did not buy them back, was convicted of attempted grand theft, forgery, and perjury. The 42-year-old photographer, who had been free on $250,000 bond, was taken to jail immediately after the verdict was read, leaving his mother sobbing in a courthouse hallway. The jury of seven women and five men deliberated for about four hours before finding him guilty on all three counts. Rutter, who faces more than five years in prison when he is sentenced on September 15, testified at the trial that he believed the signature was genuine and that he was giving Diaz the opportunity to keep them out of circulation. Outside court, defense attorney Mark Werksman portrayed the case as a dispute between Diaz and Rutter that the powerful movie star had won with her wealth and fame. "This was an epic battle between a rich and famous celebrity and a hard-working photographer," Werksman said. "She brought some very powerful and enormous interests to bear against him." He added: "John is devastated by this. This is the blackest day of his life and the bleakest." Though Los Angeles authorities have in recent months promised to crack down on crimes against celebrities, prosecutor David Walgren said Diaz was given no special treatment. "We don't tolerate forgers and criminals who seek to take advantage of celebrities or anyone else," he said. "Had the victim been anyone other than Cameron Diaz, he would have been prosecuted in the same courts, in the same manner and with the same diligence." Diaz during her testimony acknowledged posing bare-breasted more than a decade ago when she was an unknown 19-year-old model, but said she never signed the release and felt betrayed when Rutter tried to sell them during a meeting in June 2003. The California-born actress, who shot to fame after starring opposite Jim Carrey in the 1994 comedy "The Mask," was not in court for the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 "...Diaz during her testimony acknowledged posing bare-breasted more than a decade ago when she was an unknown 19-year-old model, but said she never signed the release and felt betrayed when Rutter tried to sell them during a meeting in June 2003..." Isn't it implied consent here? Maybe the issue is forgery? What I never understood was the Pam Anderson video...supposedly it was stolen, but was still allowed to be sold...? Same with the Tonya Harding video...though frankly, I think these women ahd a lot to do with selling it, as in it was their intent...HmmmCameron Diaz in Bondage...? I'd buy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 Google and you'll find some of the pics, maybe even a short video clip. In the video clip, you can hear the photographer (or whoever) giving her instructions to act sexy as she moves around with her boobs out. She is quite obviously on a modelling job, which means she must have agreed to do it. As to the forgery, maybe the guy lost the model release and figured he could get by with a faked one -- since she clearly had posed willingly and had been over 18. No way he would have made such a video without getting releases before hiring professional models. I agree with you on the stolen videos thing. I think a plumber found the Pam Anderson cassettes when he was working in their house ... and simply walked off with them. Also, those Paris Hilton videos her ex-boyfriend sold. There was obviously no intention for them to be made public at the time -- thus no consent by the persons depicted sucking and shagging. Never know what will happen in a court of law. The system is just plain loony. http://www.fleshbot.com/archives/deep-inside-cameron-diaz-017317.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 You don't think the Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson videos were sold without them knowing? IMO it was all a publicity stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm with Red on that...even Howard Stern told Pam that on his show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted July 26, 2005 Report Share Posted July 26, 2005 Flash - I was a proffesional photographer for 7 years, and was horny as hell. Sometimes you DON'T ask for a release form, if you do they then think, "Shit - he's going to sell these photos" and the steamy session ends. I have a box full of hot photos I can never publish, 1 girl semi famous, the rest faded into history but not my mind. I can;t publish them (lucky them) but I also got to take them when mentioning a model release would have had them stop. I guess he did the same thing, took some hot photo's, masterbated at night over them when lonely, and then when she hit it rich realized he needed a release or he couldn;t sell them! Faked it, got caught! DOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCgringo Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 I think the point in court was that he asked for money NOT to publish them. Extorsion........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 when it comes to celebrities, who really gives a shit. be it their pic, opinions or income.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted July 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 Huge Heffer was noted for taking nude photo sets of potential starlets. Then if they did become a hit, he'd run them in Playboy. I remember a couple trying to sue -- Suzanne Somers was one -- but he had the model releases all signed and proper. I was a magazine editor for several years in Bangkok. I naively took it for granted that all the pics the company had in their morgue were properly released and all. Then one month I used a photo of a gorgeous gal on the cover. (She was a mom rachawong, as I recall -- daughter of a lesser prince.) A few days later the publisher's wife told me she had had a call from the woman. I thought, "oh sh*t ..." Fortunately, she was thrilled to be on the cover and wanted to know how to buy some copies of the magazine. I promptly posted her about a dozen. The photos had been taken by a then famous Thai photographer as part of a fashion shoot a few years before. I asked the boss's wife, "You have a model release on these, don't you?" She replied, "Oh, we don't bother with that in Thailand." There was a fantastic assortment of photos in the files which could have been used for advertising and all sorts of things by making money in a photo bank. But the idiot company did not have a release from any single one of the models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted July 27, 2005 Report Share Posted July 27, 2005 I believe it! DOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.