Davis Images wrote:
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030511photog0511p3.asp

This is yet another old case, this time almost four years old.  Might I suggest that if you are going to post these cases, that you not caption them as if they were brand new.  Instead, put a title like:  "Interesting oder case about a college professor's topless photos."

Just a suggestion.  This is old news.

Leo Chan wrote:
old news to some but news to others. i for one found this interesting. does anyone know what's the outcome of this?

Exactly Leo.
People get so bent out of shape if a newer poster doesn't take the time to search the forums to see if something has already been posted...
I knew nothing about this case (nor do I really care) but, it's "new" news to me.

T H Taylor wrote:

Exactly Leo.
People get so bent out of shape if a newer poster doesn't take the time to search the forums to see if something has already been posted...
I knew nothing about this case (nor do I really care) but, it's "new" news to me.

Hey T, I am glad you're with me.
Here is what a little google can do:

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/ca … harassment

The case was settle for about 10% of the original amount. I wonder how much credibility the student's case has if it is settled for that amount?

dgold wrote:
The article...oldie but goodie.
The student, Hume, was immature and misguided both in her lawsuit for a 3 million dollar payday attempt, her discrediting an accomplished professor and professional photographer and her decision to pose topless for the professor/photographer/artist.
I fault the professor for not having a signed Adult Professional Model Release(there was no mention of such in the article).

Here we go again.

Why?  There was no intention of publishing the pictures. 

The purpose of a release is to acquire consent of a model to publication.  That's all.  It is not an all purpose document.