wow.. so many BTSS and perverts in here.
i suppose that even if we don't know them, they might be famous elsewhere. and $85k in endorsements? it might sound puny but that might not be her main income.
but the judge's ruling is quite stupid.
she wasn't even in Singapore at that time. how would she know. this is something the judge overlookedThe court pointed out that Wong seemed to have given Wang the go-ahead when she passed her photos over, and that she took over a year to sue the salon.
the quality of the shots are different. if the judge knew squat at all, i think he/she should just hire a bystander for all his/her family portraits, and for his/her kids wedding photographs"The photographs were taken for (Wong) in public and similar shots could have been taken by bystanders and posted on social media," the judge added on Friday, reported ST.
Wow, someone here smarter than a high court judge $$$ quoted is for "publicity endorsements" since she's claiming unauthorised publicity using her photos, not for work, performance or investment returns. The shop owner should get a model release if the photos were taken by them or their photographer but this is not the case. She is giving the photos out of her own free will to the shop for what??? for the owner to admire privately in her room at home??? If she doesnt want the photos to be used publicly, could have just said so clearly in words or in writing. Wants to use the gowns for free & then want to get "cut" of money that she thinks can be or have been earned from the publicity made, thats all there is to it.
Last edited by s1221ljc; 5th February 2012 at 04:37 AM.
i may not know the reason for why she passed the CD, and neither was it revealed. so i didn't make a hoohah over it. neither one is free of fault. but firstly, the shop should have made an agreement with her on the use of the images.
even if you aren't a celebrity, and you found out that people are using pictures of you for their own personal gain, how would you feel? this is the world of business and everything is about money.
Its an interesting case here. Who owns the copyright to the photographs?
1) The photographer?
2) The singer (model)?
3) The designer of the clothes? (which in this case is the shop)
Could have precedence for future cases.