The Court Of Public Opinion

Have you ever noticed how many warning labels are on things? As a child I always especially noticed the tag on the hair dryer because it addressed me directly: Warn children of the risk of death by electrocution. These warning labels are placed on products to protect the company from lawsuits from people who injure themselves with products, because the label warns consumers about potential risks or dangerous applications of the product. Many of the labels seem ridiculous with warnings such as do not ingest or do not place near open flame, but if the warnings were missing and you hurt yourself, you could sue the company for marketing a defective product!

The 1994 Safety Regulations on general product safety apply to both new and second-hand consumer products. Among the hundreds of products included are clothing, medicines, agricultural and horticultural products, DIY tools, food and drink, household goods, nursery goods, chemicals and pesticides, and motor vehicles. These rules require all suppliers of these goods to supply products that are safe when used in both normal and unusual-but-predictable applications. Taking into account all circumstances, if a product does not provide a reasonable level of safety it is considered a defective product.

A product that merely doesnt work, but also does not hurt anybody, does not qualify as defective. You can return such a product to the manufacturer or pursue action under law of contract, but without being dangerous this broken product does not qualify for a defective product lawsuit. Other circumstances, like the warning labels, are also relevant to determining whether a product is defective or not. If there is a label warning you of electrocution, you can reasonably expect to be electrocuted if you misuse the product.

Despite the large number of warning labels out there, there are still a good number of products that either a) do not warn consumers of reasonable risks or b) suffer from potentially dangerous manufacturing flaws. Sometimes the company knows their product is dangerous and defective and sometimes they are unaware of the risks, but either way defective products place your life at risk. If you or your loved ones have been injured by a product, seek legal council to determine if the product was defective. Suing a company for a defective product can both resolve the pain you have experience and protect other consumers from dangerous products.

More articles at articles database

In the past, the rule of the day was buyer beware. It was up to consumers to inform and protect themselves from irresponsible companies and dangerous products. Current law, however, is just the opposite. Now companies are legally required to provide reasonably safe products. If companies produce dangerous or defective products, consumers can sue them for the injuries suffered as a result. Strict product liability makes everyone in the production process, from component manufacturers to distributors, responsible for the safety of the product. This makes safe products a priority for both consumers and producers, which should be the ideal situation.

However, the mere existence of this law has not completely protected consumers from dangerous products. Often companies are not careful and let defective products slip through the production line, or they compromise the safety of their product to reduce costs. Defective products reach the shelves every day, where they can hurt consumers. When these products injure you, it is important to find a lawyer and pursue the company, both to claim the repayment you deserve and to protect other consumers from the defective product.

A product does not even have to be defective for its manufacturer to be liable under product liability law. If a product is merely unsafe to consumers, every company affiliated with the production, distribution, and retail of that product can be held responsible. There are four different ways to legally establish product liability for defective or dangerous products: negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and strict liability.

A company is considered negligent when it is responsible for providing a standard of safety and does not do so. This includes inaction as well as careless and intentionally dangerous practices. Breach of warranty occurs when a product fails to carry out the claims of a seller. Companies are obligated to fulfill any promises made to customers. Misrepresentation refers to the expectations consumers hold from a products advertising and promotion. If consumers are lead to believe, through advertising, that a product is safer than it really is, the product has been misrepresented. Finally, strict liability assigns the responsibility for safety to every step of the production and distribution process. If a product is defective and the defect injures a consumer, the company is strictly liable and responsible for the injury regardless of fault or intent.

A person only has three years to bring an action from the time they become aware of the loss, the defect, and the manufacturer. Any action that is taken has to happen within ten years of the time the goods were supplied. This creates a limited window for consumers to protect their interests, claim repayment from irresponsible companies, and establish justice for dangerous business practices. This area of law is very complicated and if you feel that you have been hurt or injured by any product you should contact a lawyer right away. An attorney will review your case and tell you from experience what you could expect from pursuing a lawsuit.

More articles at articles database

Depending on the circumstance, a model or property release may not be legally necessary. But getting one never hurts and it may help. It may make some people think that they can’t sue you (they can, even if their cause of action is bogus). If they do sue you, having a release may shorten the litigation and it could help you win. Even when you win, though, your defense fees can be costly.

In those situations when a release is not required, other legal issues may be presented when photographing a person, an animal or other property. These include trespassing, trademark, false light or invasion of privacy. All of this can get confusing. That’s also why it’s dangerous to take anecdotal advice.

For example, if one person has a fashion shoot in a national park and needs a permit, it does not mean that all professional photographers who shoot in a national park need a permit. While some stock agencies may require a property release for an animal photo, it does not mean that it’s legally required. It means that they are being cautious in this litigious society.

I recently photographed some huskies at a public park. I wasnt trespassing on public property, the dogs are not trademarked and I did not misrepresent them (also known as false light) in my photos. Further, since animals don’t have privacy rights like humans do, I did not need to get a model or property release from their owner. But I got one anyway. I asked the owner in writing for permission to use the photos. I did that that only to keep the owner from getting upset and to avoid any hassle with a stock or advertising agency.

What is often practical is not always legally required. To figure out the differences and to make the best decisions about what to do, talk to an attorney to discuss your particular situations.

Take my advice; get professional help.

PhotoAttorney

Copyright 2005 Carolyn E. Wright All Rights Reserved

More articles at articles database

In general, if property is visible and can be photographed from a public place, you dont need a property release to use the image in any manner. This exclusion to copyright law includes buildings located on the property, but not statues or other items that may have separate copyrights. There also are restrictions on some governmental property for security purposes, such as federal seals and insignia, and military or nuclear installations. But if the statue or copyrighted item has minimal presence in your image, your photo still may fall under the exclusion. Otherwise, you must get permission to use the image for commercial purposes.

Nevertheless, some companies have tried to prevent the use both commercially and editorially of photographs of their buildings or objects via trademark protection or contract law. Examples include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the lone Cypress tree at Pebble Beach, CA, and the Hollywood sign. While these attempts have been unsuccessful, they can be expensive to litigate. Is it worth it to you to spend thousands of dollars to test this issue? Thats a choice youll have to make.

If you want to avoid this battle, though, check the list of properties and objects collected by the Picture Archive Council of America that have been reported by its members to be allegedly protected. http://www.stockindustry.org/resources/specialreleases.html

On the other hand, photographers should protect their rights, too. Dont be intimidated from photographing what is within your legal rights. Check with an attorney to fully understand and exercise your privileges.

Take my advice; get professional help.

PhotoAttorney

Copyright 2005 Carolyn E. Wright All Rights Reserved

More articles at articles database

In general, you may photograph people when they are in public. The use of those photographs, however, can be restricted due to certain privacy rights. Privacy rights are recognized in most states, but are different for each one. Since its tricky to know what you can do, the safest approach to follow is the most restrictive one.

One right of privacy also known as the right of publicity is the commercial appropriation of someones name or likeness. It happens when the name or likeness of someone is used without consent to gain some commercial benefit, such as when a photograph of a person is used in an advertisement without the persons permission. That is why model releases are so important. It is evidence that you have the persons permission to use his image for certain purposes.

So what do you do when you travel to foreign countries to photograph the people there? Do you need a model release? What if the people dont speak English?

Nevada Wier has published thousands of travel photographs from all over the world. Her advice in her book, Adventure Travel Photography, is:

If you plan to use your photographs for publication or stock, I think it is wise to have signed model releases from any people you photograph in a foreign city, no matter what their nationality or what the shooting situation is. (Even though lawsuits aren’t currently common in the rest of the world, this might change.) Translate your release forms into the language of the country you’ll be traveling and photographing in. In more remote regions it is a bit trickier to get signed model releases, and not always appropriate. People may be suspicious, confused or frightened if they’re asked to sign a piece of paper. Use your common sense.

I couldnt have said it better.

Take my advice; get professional help.

Photo Attorney

Copyright 2005 Carolyn E. Wright All Rights Reserved

More articles at articles database

Financing a lawsuit provides monetary help when a person seeks legal remedy in a court of law, and does not have the finances to bear the expenditure. The expenses covered by lawsuit financing companies include attorney fees, medical bills, health care, rent and mortgage, food etc. Cases funded by lawsuit firms include personal injury, workers compensation, motor vehicle accidental injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product liability, breach of contract, fraud and others.

However, this should not be mistaken for a loan, as it is non-recourse. That is, the client does not have to repay the amount if he or she loses the lawsuit. The risk is undertaken entirely by the companies. A loan, on the other hand, usually has a definite payback schedule within a fixed period. As there is no way of determining how long a case will run, there is no rigid schedule of repayment followed by lawsuit financing companies.

These companies usually lookout for cases that have a strong chance of winning, in order to reduce the risk of losing money. They have an in-house attorney who studies cases, and decides which of those are more likely to win. Subsequently, they fix the amount that is to be provided to the client, according to his or her needs.

There are basically three types of funding:

1. Pre-settlement funding:

Companies provide funds before the verdict is announced. These are generally provided when the client, due to some injury or some other reason, cannot work and earn money to pay the fees. If however, the verdict goes against the client, the company does not retrieve the money.

2. Post-settlement funding:

Firms give money only after the lawsuit is settled. In such cases, however, they do allow partial advances.

3. Attorney Loans:

The firms directly provide the attorney a long-term credit that will take care of all the expenses incurred.

However, before accepting help from such companies, it would be wise to consider the terms of repayment, and options available. The terms include the flat fee and the recurring fee. One should make an exploratory survey of different companies, and choose the one that is the most suitable. However, the chances of getting such funding would be negligible, if a case has a higher probability of losing, because lawsuit-financing firms scrutinize each case very carefully before providing help. Generally, this kind of service is provided to only those whose attorneys are ready to bear the huge expenses, which the client cannot provide.

Some clients are often compelled to obtain lawsuit financing at a high cost. For example, they may either need to pay their medical bills, pay the rent or mortgage, or avail of health care facilities. If there is no other source of income, lawsuit loans are often the best option. It is advisable to involve your attorney in processing a lawsuit loan, since he or she may be able to find you a funding company that offers the best terms. An attorney will also be able to help you review the contract before you sign up with the lawsuit funding company.

More articles at www.articles-host.com