Photographer Sued for $28 Million

[Browncoat]

The photo above is of fashion model Hailey Clauson, age 15 when this photo was taken.

The photographer, Jason Lee Parry, is named in a lawsuit filed by the teen model's parents, along with clothing store Urban Outfitters and others for $28,000,000. Here are some links to the story:

Fashion Photo Sued by Model's Parents
Jason Lee Parry Defends Himself
Photog Defends Racy Photos of Teen Model
Parents Sue Urban Outfitters

My opinion: This is more about the money than anything else. Basically, the parents are miffed that t-shirts were sold and they didn't get part of the paycheck. It would seem that the photographer has all of his i's dotted and t's crossed as far as releases are concerned, and that all photos were signed off on by the parents during the photo shoot.

She's a teen model posing for high fashion clothing lines such as Calvin Klein and Gucci, and they have been selling sex using teen models for many years. However, I'm also a father. I can't for the life of me imagine letting my own daughter participate in something this provocative. As a photographer, I also can't imagine posing any young girl like this. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

All that said, I don't think the photographer is at fault here. If anyone is to blame, it should be the parents.

 

[stamatisg2002]

If they signed for the photos and the photographer got the parent consent, I believe the parents will be accused for parent negligence if the photos judged to be innapropriate for a minor...

 

[Carolina Photo Guy]

These shots were taken a year ago. I cannot believe that this moron posed this KID is a way that is of interest to a pedophile and then tries to defend this crap.

Does a CHILD have to be showing his or her privates for a picture to have prurient interests? As far as I am concerned, this pedographer should be run out on a rail.

The fashion industry has too long been in the forefront of sexualizing children and trying to make this a matter of mainstreaming. This debauchery towards children needs to be

addressed harshly right NOW.

But thats just me. I don't think that children need to be made into adults. Just let them BECOME adults in their own time.

 

[Glassman]

If the information is correct and the parents did consent to the photo then the photographer is not to blame. I'm sure he took many different shots over the course of the shoot and for whatever reason (though it is beyond me) liked this one. But the parents are who should of and from my understanding did consent to the final decision for the photo to be used. Thus they are the ones to blame and their suit is a pointless.

As for the photo itself. It is distasteful but by no means illegal. Ethic are something that has to be decided not as a large collective rather as a local issue within communities and families. What one sees has ethical other may not and who is to say one point of view is more correct then another.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

I agree with Pete on this one, even if this was just one of many images taken during the shoot, it is crap and the photog (used lightly) shouldn't have pressed the shutter on an image that is offensive.

Most photographers work so hard on perfecting camera and exposure mechanics, quality image composition and for a so called pro to display crap should be offensive to all of us.

 

[stamatisg2002]

I think that the parents are to get the full blame since they gave their consent. They should have known what was coming next. Part of the blame is on the phographer since he chose the particular photo. Oh, well, everything depends on each person's personal ethics to judge it. Personally I think that the parents won't get a dime from the case...

 

[RickSawThat]

The photographer typically does not choose which shots are used it's the ad agency and the client. I'm sure there was an art director at the shoot, why isn't he named in this suit as well? So only the photographer get's named? Not the parents who allowed it? Not the ad agency? Not the client?

I don't agree with asking a 15 year old model to pose in such a way but the lawsuit I also do not agree with. Over the years ther have been so many similar lawsuits and images but yet the ad world keeps pushing images like this...

 

[RickSawThat]

Just re-read the posts looks like the parents are also suing the store.....

 

[Carolina Photo Guy]

Those of you that seem to feel the pedographer is blameless, should read these reports carefully.

He has stated that HE owns those shots. No one else. There-for, HE is the one shopping the sale of HIS images.

In short, in MY opinion only, he is shopping what can constitute images of prurient interest. In effect, child pornography.

As far as I am concerned, this guy is nothing more than a porn peddler being protected by the law.

Of course, I am being far too subtle!

 

[Glassman]

Pete while the photographer may own the photographs, and I don't understand why he would use or keep photos such as the one in question. Their is still the pesky issue of the subject being a minor and thus the parents are responsible for her actions. Thus legally for him to release such photos for commercial purposes requires parental consent. Thus begs the question why did the parents consent to this?

While we all agree that the photo is of poor taste. Many questions still exist. Who actually chose the photograph for release? If the parents consented to the release why is the photographer left to blame? And do any of these actions equate to illegal activity? Generally speaking it would be a stretch to say this photograph fits the laws definition of child pornography. And as I said again legalities and ethics are two different topics that need to handled by different entities.

 

[Sambr]

"Ouch"

 

[Browncoat]

Thus begs the question why did the parents consent to this?

Their daughter works for one of top modeling agencies in the world, and she's a walking paycheck.

Who actually chose the photograph for release? If the parents consented to the release why is the photographer left to blame?

Generally speaking, it would be a multi-step approval: a rep from the ad company would be the ultimate deciding factor, but the photog, parents, modeling agency, and even the model herself would've been involved in the decision-making process. The parents have included the photographer in their lawsuit because he owns the rights to the photos. They are ticked that this image was put on a t-shirt and sold. Perhaps they were expecting billboards and magazine spreads.

As for the child pornography nature of this photo, I personally don't see it. Yes, this photo is suggestive and in bad taste. Yes, the intent was to convey sexuality, especially if you look at the photographer's portfolio and other work. But more than anything else, the child porn label was slapped on this as a PR stunt.

 

[Will V|Photography]

I don't get what all the fuss is about. She's 15 and looks 20. I know that doesn't really mean anything but if she looked young I could see an issue. Though the legal age of consent in the U.S. is typically 18 (different in certain states), there are many places around the world where the age of consent is 16 and some places even 14! Also, the fashion industry's use of "underage" models in provocative poses is nothing new. Just because this one shot is getting so much media attention doesn't mean anything. There are worse pictures out there of younger models and as long as it's in an ad then nobody says anything. So, no, I do not agree that this should be construed as "child pornography". As for the case, well, it doesn't have a leg to stand on and will probably be thrown out. If releases were signed then there is nothing to support the parent case.

Sad, twisted, but true. Honestly, this is nothing compared to 11/12 year olds getting hitched in arranged marriages to 30-somethings in the Middle East and other parts of the world. I'm not saying this photo is "right" but it's certainly not as terrible as some of you are making it out to be.

 

[Ruidoso Bill]

It just illustrates what some will do for the $ and we wonder why the morals of our kids are going down. Crap is Crap, even if someone is making big bucks for it. There is basically a worldwide degradation of what is considered morally acceptable. I always think giving something like this the wife or daughter test, this one would flunk that test for sure.

 

[Carolina Photo Guy]

My moral compass is not dictated by the whims of fashion. Nor is it swayed by other people or circumstances.

Those of you that do not have a problem with this situation is just fine with me. Seriously, no worries.

How-ever, I do NOT bend when it comes to my core values.

As far as I am concerned, this picture taker is nothing more than a purveyor to pedophiles.

I am just sorry that this seems to be so hard for others to grasp.

There is nothing more for me to say.

 

[Will V|Photography]

Allow me to digress. I am in no way saying others are wrong, nor am I saying that I am right. Just in the grand scheme of things this photo is quite tame. I've seen some disgusting photos put out there (as advertisements nonetheless) that make this shot look like Sesame Street. It's a sad and disturbing world out there...

 

[John101477]

This is explains some things but is a little sickening in itself IMO.
COPINE scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few years back on another forum someone posted a picture of a man (think cave man meets modern homless man) holding a child in front of him. The mans neather region was hiddin behind the kid but the kid was most deffinitly on display. Many shouted abuse among other words that seem to be banned on this site lol but it legally passed all of the issues that define it some how and became a pretty controversial piece among photographers. I dont completely understand it so if I do any kind of a shoot with a minor their parents are there.

 

[AxeMan - Rick S.]

There are a lot of wrongs with this whole thing. Bottom line: sex sells and "people" have pushed the envelope here. With our judicial system as messed up as it is, now they are going to push that envelope too. As immoral as this shot is, this is nothing but a moneymaker and free press for all parties involved, whether it's positive or negative.

If the photographer wanted to pose the model that way I really don't have a problem with that. Not saying the pose is acceptable. What I do have a problem with is he shot her spread eagle. I think there were other angles he could have shot her at to get the effect he was looking for. This is one of those photos that should have been deleted in post processing or not taken in the first place.

I want to blame the photographer for letting the photo out. WHAT was he thinking? wait, I know, sex sells, what a shame. Funny what greed can do to a persons rational thinking process.

 

[rkat]

I'm older, so probably out of touch, but just don't see why any retailer would be interested in this photo. As a photographer I'm interested in the legal issue -- how can the parents sue for something they (apparently) authorized. If they can, where does that leave photographers?

 

[Browncoat]

...where does that leave photographers?

Well, that's the $28 million dollar question. I haven't seen any recent updates on this story. I would think that the actual photographer will get a pass, because this is clearly just a money grab by the parents. He has all of his releases and legal legwork completed, so it would ultimately come down to whether or not the parents settle out of court or not.

I keep going back to this photographer's body of work, which features a lot of provocative photos of young women (girls?). He clearly likes to see how far he can push the envelope. I wonder if this lawsuit will make him back away from that line or if he will continue to push.