The Court Of Public Opinion

Photographers often follow certain legal practices to protect themselves, but cannot be sure that they will work when challenged. One such example is using a model release to obtain a models permission to use photographs taken of him or her in specific ways. The good news is that the standard model release was recently put to the test, and it passed with flying colors.

In 2002, Russian tennis player, Anastasia Myskina, who then was 20 years old, posed for photographs by Mark Seliger. Seliger first photographed Myskina for the Gentleman’s Quarterly’s 2002 Sports issue and then photographed her topless. Myskina had signed a model release that said she consented to the use of her name and the pictures by the magazine and by others it may authorize, for editorial purposes.

After winning the French Open in 2004, a Russian newspaper published the topless photos. Myskina filed an $8 million lawsuit against the publisher, Conde Nast Publications Inc., Gentleman’s Quarterly and Seliger alleging emotional distress and economic injury.

The New York judge who presided over the case held that Myskina’s rights were not violated despite her insistence that she did not understand the signed model release and was not fluent in English at the time. Instead, the Judge stated that, absent allegations of fraud, duress or some other wrongdoing, Myskina’s claimed misunderstanding of the release’s terms does not excuse her from being bound on the contract. Nor can she avoid her obligations under the release because of her purported failure to read its contents.

Even though the photographer allegedly told Myskina that the topless photos were for himself, the Judge found that the oral agreement contradicted the plain language of the written agreement and was not admissible. The Judge then dismissed the case.

As a photographer, it is important to protect yourself as much as possible. Fortunately, the model release is one way that has been proven to be effective.

Take my advice; get professional help. PhotoAttorney

Copyright 2005 Carolyn E. Wright All Rights Reserved

More articles at article database

The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has dealt a blow to privacy advocates by invalidating a California privacy law. In litigation brought by the American Bankers Association and others, the appellate court overruled the finding of a trial judge that the California law could stand. Instead, the appellate justices found the law to be pre-empted in part by the federal 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

When a state law conflicts with a federal one, the federal law takes precedent. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled abortion to be constitutionally protected. No state may pass anti-abortion laws and have them enforced.

The question at issue in the California law was a section giving California residents the right to block financial institutions from selling their private information to third parties.

A San Francisco trial judge, Morrison C. England, Jr., had ruled the section conflicted with provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, but was not pre-empted because the federal law allowed for stricter state laws. The 9th Circuit court disagreed.

The case will be returned to Judge Morrison in the next 60 days. He will then determine whether any other provisions dealing with the sale of personal financial information are still enforceable. Given the appellate ruling, it is difficult to imagine a ruling upholding this section of the California law.

Notwithstanding these developments, approximately seventy percent of the California privacy law is still enforceable. Financial institution still must get permission from customers prior to selling or sharing your information with third parties.

You should be concerned about financial institutions selling your private information to others. With all the incidents of identity theft in the news, chances are you will eventually become a target. Banks should be focusing on protecting their customers, not making a buck off private information.

More articles at article database

While a number of topics are currently being discussed in the United States, one of the most controversial is that of the right to privacy. This hot button issue is made more complex in a post 9-11 environment. We struggle to find and maintain a balance between personal rights and public safety.

Most people would vigorously defend the right to privacy, feeling that the accessibility of too much personal information is not only an invasion, but morally wrong, and unconstitutional. After all, prior to September 11th, the United States had not been subjected to the overt terrorism that had plagued other countries.

The events of September 11th pervaded our false sense of security and caused us truly question if the enemy was in a far off country or our next door neighbor. In our post 09/11 world, the governments responsibility to protect Americans has taken on new meaning. In an aggressive effort to protect us from the threat within, the government has adopted a by any means necessary approach even if that means listening in to phone calls, reading emails, reviewing library records or scouring through websites. The recent foiled plot of airline bombings in Britain is an example of how invasion of privacy can in fact keep us safe. The individuals stopped for this heinous crime were discovered first by a tip but second from police monitoring private activity which included phone calls.

In the instance where a terrorism plot is averted because of the invasion of privacy there can be no argument to the validity of the practice. Yet, we also know that innocent people have had their privacy invaded when they did not pose a threat to national security.

The national debate over privacy has repercussions on a smaller level as well. Corporations and employees struggle with privacy issues in the workplace. Companies also are seeking to protect themselves from a different kind of terrorism that of legal and financial exposure caused by the actions of its employees, whether innocent or intentionally malicious.

Privacy is legally protected by the Constitution of the United States, and at the very core of Americas existence. As politicians, voters and special interest groups debate these constitutional issues, employees and employers seek to understand the rules of engagement within business.

Does an employee have privacy rights at work? How far can employers go in monitoring the activities of employees to ensure that they are protected from liability?

Employers not only have a right to monitor the activities of employees but a responsibility. Computer activity, including e-mails and phone calls can be monitored by the employer. In fact, some degree of monitoring is recommended. Emails are discoverable in legal action exposing employers to a great degree of risk. Even if the employer has a policy that expressly states that personal emails are allowable, the company still has a right to monitor individual emails.

Phone calls, except those placed on designated for personal use phones, can also be monitored. Call center and customer service employees are routinely monitored for quality assurance and training. There are however, federal and state regulations which must be adhered to which in many locations including notifying parties that the call is being monitored. Most employees will need to place or receive a personal call from work at some point in time. However, as a best practice, employees should use pay phones or cell phones when they must conduct personal business during the work day.

As we seek to balance privacy and protection on a national stage, we will undoubtedly make adjustments on a more personal level. We have already become accustomed to much of our lives being monitored through security cameras, electronic tracking and internet use so it is possible that what is now viewed as invasion will simply become normal. In the interim, it is wise to assume that what happens in Vegas, may not stay in Vegas!

More articles at article database

Identity Theft scams continue to flourish on the web. One that you need to be aware of and beware of is any site that seems to be selling high-demand items (digital cameras for instance) at a much lower (almost unbelievable) price than you can find on other sites or the manufacturers site.

Often the victims are told to pay nothing until they receive the merchandise. The person behind the scam uses the victims name and a credit card number belonging to another person to purchase the item at a legitimate site.

Once the item is shipped, the victim then authorizes his credit card to be billed or sends payment directly to the scammer. The scammer has now put you in the position of being in receipt of stolen merchandise while they get away with your money.

Another scam that still seems to be working is being contacted through e-mail by someone claiming to be from your credit card company, your internet service provider, Paypal, or Ebay.

The scammer will send a message stating that your account information needs to be verified because their files were hacked into, their database crashed or they believe that someone has tried to steal your account information and they want to verify your information in order to protect your account. The con artist then uses the information supplied to verify your account to run up fraudulent charges.

NEVER give personal information to a company, such as AOL or Ebay, that already has it. If you are suspicious about being contacted, contact the company yourself before giving out any personal information.

About The Author

2003, Your Free Credit Report Now

Author: James H. Dimmitt.

Get your FREE credit report online now and subscribe to our FREE weekly newsletter TO YOUR CREDIT.

Visit http://www.yourfreecreditreportnow.com for more information.

jimdim815@aol.com

More articles at articles host

Chances are good that you know someone who has been victimized by the fastest growing crime - identity theft. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reported that there were 10 million cases of identity theft in 2002 alone. Its estimated that someones identity is stolen every 79 seconds.

The bad news is with increasing amounts of personal information available to an experienced identity thief, it shows few signs of slowing down. The good news is that identity fraud is now a federal crime with stiff penalties for those who perpetrate these crimes.

Here are a few simple steps you can take now to minimize your risk:

1) Check your credit report annually, if not more often. Most victims of identity theft dont realize theyve been victimized until 14 months after the crime. By then the damage is done and you will spend a significant amount of time and money trying to correct it.

2) Keep your Social Security number private. Do not have it printed on your personal checks or drivers license. Do not share it with anyone, including merchants, unless they can provide a good reason for having it. Once someone has your Social Security number they have the key to unlocking your identity and using it fraudulently.

3) Shred offers for pre-approved credit cards that you receive by mail. Do the same with any receipts that contain account numbers or your Social Security number. Identity thieves are not afraid to go dumpster diving in order to obtain your personal information.

Identity theft has become the fastest growing crime because it is the most profitable crime. On average, the loss from identity theft is about $18,000.00. Taking these precautions now can you save you from becoming another statistic in the fight against identity theft.

About The Author

2004, http://www.yourfreecreditreportnow.com

James H. Dimmitt

James is editor of TO YOUR CREDIT, a weekly free newsletter. Subscribe to the newsletter by visiting http://www.yourfreecreditreportnow.com. He is also author of Identity Theft - How to Avoid Becoming the Next Victim! available at http://tinyurl.com/bc45

jimdim815@aol.com

More articles at www.articles-host.com