Reviewers Recommend
Charlotte Sins Is SlutwomanCharlotte Sins Is Slutwoman - review by Captain Jack
Director: Ricky Greenwood
Starring: Eddie Jaye, Christian Wilde, Christian Clay, Chad Alva, Vince Karter, Codey Steele, Charlotte Sins, Jimmy Bud, Nade Nasty, Lawson Jones, Leo Vice, Katrina Colt, Derek Kage, Ace Hardz, Ken Feels, Ivy Ireland, Mighty Dee, Henry Heston. Read review
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 410 > False Advertisting.
AuthorPost
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 1:31PM
Question,
I know a solo model who no longer models (and hasn't for quite some time), but they keep re-releasing old photos of her with new dates at the bottom.
I know they can do whatever they want with the pictures, but from a consumer perspective, if I join a site that promises weekly or monthly updates, and the updates in turn are simply re-hashed old photos, do I have any legal recourse?
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 1:35PM
You want to take legal actions against websites that hosts older pics. Sounds like a waste of time. It's better to do some good research on a site before you join them.
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 1:38PM
Well, my reasons run a bit deeper than that. I have not joined the site. I know the model personally. It just sucks for her because she no longer lives that life but the webmaster would have his members believe she is still a part of the site, even producing a fake "diary" type blog that he actually writes, not her.
On a different note, please don't pee in the porn pool, some of us are trying to have a relaxing swim.
RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 1:44PM
I don't doubt it.
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 1:50PM
I seriously laugh everytime I see your avatar. Good ole Gary B.
 
killbillvol69 All-Star Supporter
All-Star Member

^Lucy Pinder
18648 Posts
4/08
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 4:20PM
I don't imagine anything can be done about them using the image, but there may be something shifty about them claiming the image is current - I'm not sure though.
I'm going to recommend that ADT user pornlaw come here and take a look at this thread.
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 4:26PM
ok. It is pretty obvious that he is reusing old photos, as the "star" of the photos is on public record as saying she stopped doing it a long time ago and only shot with the guy for one week.
ninja1
Senior Member

2940 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jul 7 2009 : 6:00PM
I don't understand what is the real issue. Are you concerned about subscribers getting bamboozled? Or are you concerned about folks (wrongly) believing your friend is still in the skin business? I wouldn't worry about subscribers. We're a naturally suspicious bunch and operators of paysites are a naturally shady bunch. So, only the true noobs are gonna get duped and they don't matter because they don't know any better (recent pics vs. recycled pics) so no harm done.
pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05
Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 12:38AM
It really depends on what the content is and where it was produced. If its hardcore and it was produced outside of California she might have a lot of options.
If its softcore and produced outside California there's little she can do as long as she signed model release agreements. She may have some rights in regards to the site posting a blog and pretending to be her. However as for the pictures, if they used a standard model release they can bascally do anything they want with them. Including altering them, ie., making her looking like a transexual. They could sell the pics off to an escort site as well and make it even worse.
I would advise her to seek the advice of a lawyer that understands the industry. More information is needed to provide more sound and specific advice.
Michael
www.AdultBizLaw.com
www.2257Safe.com
StillHope
Deactivated User

"You didn't say Car Ram Rod"
149 Posts
2/06
Posted - Jul 8 2009 : 2:24AM
Thank you for the insight, the content of course was produced in good ole' Canada.
I do not mean to be obtuse, but the question was not what they are doing with the pictures, nor even a violation of her rights, but the rights of the subscriber. I know once she signed a model release they can do whatever they want with the pictures.
Let me pose it as an analogy.
I buy a brand new car and the salesman puts in writing "This is a brand new car, it has never been driven before"
I am an idiot and don't check the odometer before buying it. I notice when I get home that the car has 100,000 miles on it. But the salesman put in writing it has never been driven before, what are my options?
Same situation, I sign up for a site, and am promised weekly updates both pictures and a blog (diary). So, ok, I join up. After about month 5, I notice all the new photo sets are indeed old photos from month 2, etc... The site was never advertised as an archive site. Any recourse? Just wondering.
As far as the diary, since technically she was playing a character and not herself, I guess he could say that he "took over the role" when she decided to quit the website, so I am pretty sure no dice there.
I know, I know...



Jump To: