The Digital Difference wrote:
There is a photo shoot.....the model is paid.....she signs a model release.

The model sends emails saying that she wants to see some images from the shoot.

Images are sent.

Model uses an image or gives image to someone who creates a poster promoting her as the winner of some contest.

Can she do this without my expressed permission?

Thanks.

Forrest Egan wrote:
Easy...that depends what the model release said.

a "model release" protects the photographers use of the images...thats all.

for the model to have any rights to use the images, she would have to be granted license in some regard by the photographer..

so your easy answer doesnt really apply...

The Digital Difference wrote:
There is a photo shoot.....the model is paid.....she signs a model release.

The model sends emails saying that she wants to see some images from the shoot.

Images are sent.

Model uses an image or gives image to someone who creates a poster promoting her as the winner of some contest.

Can she do this without my expressed permission?

Thanks.

no

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
i don't see why, because the rights to use the images default to the photographer.

California has recognized a common law right of publicity. Melvin v. Reid, 297 P. 91 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1931); Strickler v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 167 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. Cal. 1958); Slivinsky v. Watkins-Johnson Co., 221 Cal. App. 3d 799 (1990). Elements of California common law right of publicity are: (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. Eastwood v. Superior Court, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (1983). Mistaken or inadvertent use remains actionable under California common law. Id. The common law right of publicity does not have a post-mortem duration. Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 603 P.2d 425, 425 (Cal. 1979). Lugosi requires lifetime exploitation as a condition of post-mortem rights.
Common Law Right of Privacy     CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 3344 & 3344.1 (West 1999). 70 years postmortem; backward reach of the statute: 70 years prior to 1/1/1985. § 3344.1 is the only real source of law creating a post-mortem right of publicity, at least and until the California Supreme Court modifies Lugosi and announces a new rule for the common law post-mortem right of publicity. The Ninth Circuit imposed liability for an imitation of plaintiff's voice in a song used during a television commercial. Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988). Portrayal of a character in a theatrical work will not ordinarily endow the actor with publicity rights in the character itself, but use of a likeness of the particular actor in the role of the character can infringe the actor's right of publicity. White v. Samsung Elecs. America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992). Under California common and statutory law, two actors' from Cheers raised issues of material fact as to whether defendant violated their publicity rights by creating animatronic robots based upon their likenesses and placing these robots in bars modeled upon the set from the television show, thus precluding summary judgment. Wendt v. Host Intern., Inc., 125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1997). When faced with a right of publicity challenge to his or her work, an artist may raise as affirmative defense that the work is protected by the First Amendment, if it contains significant transformative elements or if the value of the work does not derive primarily from the celebrity's fame. Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 58 U.S.P.Q.2d 1823 (Cal. 2001).
Common Law Right of Privacy     California has incorporated into its common law all four types of invasion of privacy. Shulman v. Group W. Prods., Inc., 955 P.2d 469 (Cal. 1998) (intrusion); Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Ass'n, Inc., 483 P.2d 34 (Cal. 1971) (public disclosure); Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974) (appropriation); Kerby v. Hal Roach Studios, 127 P.2d 577 (Cal. 1942) (false light).
Statutory Right of Privacy     California's privacy statute recognizes the appropriation tort. It does not recognize the tort of intrusion (but see CAL. CIV. PROC. § 527.6 (West 2000). CAL. CIV. CODE § 1798.53 (West 1985) is a special statute partially codifying the right to privacy when one without authority discloses personal information contained in state or federal government files. CAL. CIV. CODE § 1708.8 (West 1998) creates civil liability for certain types of intrusive prying into one's personal affairs for the purpose of photographing or recording those private activities. The statute defines two separate torts of intrusion, the first a "physical" invasion of privacy, the second a "constructive" invasion of privacy.
Remedies     §§ 3344 & 3344.1: Damages, punitive and exemplary damages, and reasonable attorney fees. $750 minimum or actual damages plus profits.
Aspects of identity included     §§ 3344 and 3344.1: name, voice, signature, photograph and likeness.

The Digital Difference wrote:
Thanks to all for the replies.

It's not like I'm going to go after this model or anything.....but this situation just brought this concept to mind.  She's a good person and probably didn't realize that what she was doing was wrong.  However, I am going to bring it to her attention before she pisses someone off by doing this.

Much appreciated!  :-)

Yes, but the image is yours. You get money or credit.
if you dont get either, you wuz robbed.