Way back in May 2007, young female photographer (and aspiring fashion photog) Lara Jade Coton put a plea for help up on Flickr. One of her photos (that she had shared on DeviantART) was being used as an American porn boxcover — reprehensibly, it was not only used without permission but it was also a self-portrait she’d taken on a family vacation when she was only 14. As I was writing for the SF Chronicle at the time, I investigated the story and even went so far as to get the porn company’s owner on the phone, who I asked and quoted in Lara Is Not A Porn Star. It’s a really crazy article; the details I reveal about their marketing only made it crazier. After my column went online, Lara emailed me to state that the owner of TVX films had lied to me in the article. His reaction to Lara and the world at large was to state that that Lara was an attention-seeking scammer and commented to me along the lines that she should not only be grateful for the “exposure” but that her image was what had caused sales on the DVD to slip. Very little comment was given to me on the fact that his company was using a photo of a minor to sell adult material.
Bob was a real charmer on the phone. Very old-porn-industry, and proud of it. Down even to the details of what was to become Lara’s lawsuit, he was just like the characters I dealt with during my (successful) lawsuit over the unauthorized use of my own name and brand. Unlike me, Lara is not pro-porn.
On July 31, Lara sued TVX Films and her lawyer sent me their press release as soon at it was ready. In May 2008, nearly a year later clearly the case was underway: I saw that on model and photographer Katie West‘s LiveJournal, she posted that Lara’s lawyer had contacted West. The owner of TXV claimed that a photo used on the cover of a novel called “The Uninvited Guest” was actually Lara Jade Coton. Lara’s lawyer asked if it was West on the cover, and Katie confirmed that yes, it was West on the cover posing nude, and not Lara. LJ user Blackwell wisely commented, “What is odd is that they [TVX] seem to think that if she did pose nude for you that gives them the right, or more of a right, to steal her image.”
So it comes to me as no surprise — and it’s great news — that this morning the news hit saying that Lara Jade won her lawsuit against TVX. Lara is indeed *not* a porn star (and neither am I).
A UK woman has won $A132,000 in damages from a US porn film company that used a holiday photo of her as a 14-year-old on the front cover of one of its X-rated DVDs. Lara Jade Coton, now 21, was a keen photographer when she took the self-portrait of herself at the seaside town of Blackpool wearing a top hat and a ball gown, UK media report. She later submitted the photo to an “arty” website but was “horrified” when she learned three years ago from a friend the photo had been used, without her knowledge or consent, as the DVD cover photo and face art for a sexually explicit film called Body Magic.
It was billed by Hustler as one of its “highest rated movies”.
Ms Coton and her parents complained to filmmakers TVX Films, of Texas, but the firm’s president Bob Burge dismissed her claims and accused her of perpetrating a scam. (…more, news.ninemsn.com.au)
See also:
* Tamworth photographer wins £82,000 damages over porn DVD image (sundaymercury.net)
* Photographer Lara Jade Coton’s professional website (larajade.co.uk)
It makes no difference to the case, which I’m certainly glad she won, but — that is a really good picture. If that’s indicative of her work at fourteen, she must be one hell of a photographer these days.
Not only should they pay her for the damage done. They’ve used the image of a minor to sell porn films! Isn’t that punished? I guess it is.
Anyway, I’m glad she managed to win her lawsuit.
It surprises me that the damages were that low given the behavior of the CEO. It is the type of suit that could easily have ended in a huge settlement, not the $150K is chump change.
The West issue would not have been relevant as to liability, but could have made a huge difference on the issue of damages.
If the company has any sense they will pay up quickly and be thankful for their good fortune.
All power to those who are strong enough to go into porn and survive, also to those who decide that’s not their thing and fight back if their work gets abused. And all shame to any company who blatantly rips off someone’s work and uses it in their marketing campaign. Art for art’s sake is allowed to be derivative, but when someone’s marketing department just rips off someone else’s work and refuses to even talk about compensation, that’s so far over the line we should all shun them.
Good for her. It’s just too bad it took so long.