Can anyone give me a bit of advice??

[Lolly Badcock]

Hi,

Can anyone advise.....

I worked with a photographer for my first ever shoot over a year ago now and as a result a website of me was set up which i obvioulsy understand is legally fine as a model release was signed.

My concern is that it is advertised as " The official site of Lolly Badcock" absolutely everywhere on the net and the title as advertised and promoted is completely untrue.

As many of you know i am working on my own site - www.lollybadcock.com- which will be my official site.

Can they use " The official site of Lolly Badcock" ??????????

This obviously effects my site and this site does not reflect my standard of work or what i see an exceptable standard of a website as a whole.

Any comments would be appreciated
Cheers
Lolly xxx

[bigboy]

many other models have suffered the same fate, amanda dawkins, fleur rose spring to mind

[Joe A]

Lolly..

Could you email me please and I'll give you some answers privately You don't have an email address on your BGAFD profile, or I would have emailed you.

[myson]

Hi Lolly,

I'm certainly not a solicitor, lawyer or any form of "legal eagle" so don't take this as legal advice in anyway, it's just my "take" on the matter.

Have you "officially" sancioned this website or do you "officially" condone this website as " The official site of Lolly Badcock"?
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be asking here so I would guess you could?? have a strong case to instruct the website owner to remove that phrase.

Obviously they have the right to use the photos they took of you as you were paid and signed a model release but you are not questioning that.

I will bow to the greater knowledge of others in this.

Maybe some legal advice would be necessary Lolly, try the Citizens Advice Bureau as a first stop.

Good luck

Myson

[Jonone]

I don't know where they stand using words like 'Official' and 'Authorized'. As far as customers are concerned they should be put-off by the absence of your contact details which would usually be a feature of an official site, and given that there will come a point where the pics won't be updated and they look old, then it might be an option to let it 'fizzle out' and in the meantime use various forums etc to question its authenticity.

[ecucamman]

I would check the wording of the release form. Several I have used over the years have an exemption in them as follows

"and agree that no such wording shall be concerned to be attributable to me personally unless my name is used I also promise that provided my name is not mentioned in connection with any other wording attributed to me personally not to prosecute or to initiate proceedings"

i.e., the photographer can use the image, but not attribute statements to the model (under her name)

[Joe A]

Jonone..

Diplomacy is what's needed... Not attack it on forums. that's why I asked Lolly to email me

[Raven]

Hi,

Drop me a line and I will give you some useful info....have been through this to help another young model in a very similar position.

[Jonone]

I wasn't suggesting an aggressive 'attack', more just challenging the notion of it being 'the official' site ie Lolly disassociating herself from it.

[one eyed jack]

Hmm....I would suggest extreme vioence is a recourse for being cheeky...Bust the muthafucka over his head with a frying pan its a lot cheaper than going to court.

...But then you might want to take that under advisement.