You are viewing diosa_en_disfra

Weird...

« previous entry | next entry »
May. 20th, 2008 | 01:53 pm

So I just received an email from Lara Jade Coton's attorney Richard A. Harrison. He sent me this:


Katie - I am an attorney representing Lara Jade Coton in a lawsuit
against TVX Films, a porn company that used a self-portrait of Lara on the
cover of one of its movies. The owner of TVX now claims that the model
in your photo on the cover of "The Uninvited Guest" is actually Lara
Jade Coton (suggesting that she posed nude and is somehow therefore not
so innocent, I suppose). Could you please confirm for me whether or not
the model is Lara Jade Coton? We are actually in the middle of taking
Mr. Burge's deposition in Texas, so if you could respond at your soonest
convenience it would be very helpful. Thank you very much for your
assistance.

Richard A. Harrison

Weird eh? So I wrote him back and told him that the woman on the cover of The Uninvited Guest is indeed myself. You'd think the tattoo and the moles would prove that, no? What a strange claim made by the owner of TVX.
News article: Teen sues over image used to promote porno flick

Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Share

Comments {15}

J.R. Blackwell

(no subject)

from: blackwell
date: May. 20th, 2008 06:14 pm (UTC)
Link

What is odd is that they 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.

I just. . .I really don't understand that particular line of reasoning.

Reply | Thread

katie

(no subject)

from: diosa_en_disfra
date: May. 20th, 2008 06:16 pm (UTC)
Link

I don't think her lawyer does either.

Reply | Parent | Thread

J.R. Blackwell

(no subject)

from: blackwell
date: May. 20th, 2008 06:30 pm (UTC)
Link

Okay, after reading more about it, I just think this company is very poorly run and staffed by morons. The responses they sent to her were amazingly foolish.

The odd thing about this is, that from her communications to them, they could have probabbly avoided a lawsuit by just pulling the picture on the product. If they just stopped using her photo and apologized, they might have gotten away with the mistake (if it was a mistake).

The fact that they continue to sell products with her photo is just amazingly foolish - espcially considering her age when she shot the photo. They are in hot water and from the weird straws they seem to be grasping at, they seem to know it.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Mav

(no subject)

from: chrismaverick
date: May. 20th, 2008 08:39 pm (UTC)
Link

well, maybe they think that while its is wrong to steal Lara's image, its ok to steal Katie's because she's not innocent, a legal adult, and also a Canadian. And Canadians totally don't have rights, right?

Actually, I imagine they're trying to argue that Lara poses for free in the public domain ALL OVER THE INTERNET and so just using one of her images for profit should be fine. The thing is, they'd lose that case too... but I think that's where they're trying to go with it.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Laura

(no subject)

from: printqueen
date: May. 21st, 2008 01:35 am (UTC)
Link

They did change the image, but i guess there are still some DVDs out there with it on. I believe they were pretty rude about it too.

Reply | Parent | Thread

christophrawr person

(no subject)

from: christophrawr
date: May. 20th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC)
Link


you're beautiful. your life has lawsuits! so so odd...

Reply | Thread

Bloody Foxtongue

(no subject)

from: porphyre
date: May. 20th, 2008 11:16 pm (UTC)
Link

I heard through the grapevine somewhere that her case is actually false somehow, like it's not her image in the first place or something to that effect. Good publicity either way, somehow, possibly. Oi. The internet.

Reply | Thread

katie

(no subject)

from: diosa_en_disfra
date: May. 21st, 2008 05:23 am (UTC)
Link

Ha, no I do believe it's really her image. I remember seeing it a looong time ago on her DA account.

Reply | Parent | Thread

i will hold you in my armchairs

(no subject)

from: oceanblues
date: Aug. 15th, 2008 07:33 pm (UTC)
Link

Hi really random comment out of nowhere but I saw it on DA a long time ago as well. I just... thought it was cool that someone else saw it... yeah...

Reply | Parent | Thread

Pat!

(no subject)

from: sxyblkmn
date: May. 21st, 2008 12:10 am (UTC)
Link

wow...

Reply | Thread

love you from the heart

(no subject)

from: yanatonage
date: May. 21st, 2008 12:40 am (UTC)
Link

This reminds me of a teleplay I am pitching, called "Katie West: Attorney at Law". There are lots of wacky scenarios like this one, but they all go unresolved and the protagonists get stoned and east sushi at the end.

Reply | Thread

katie

(no subject)

from: diosa_en_disfra
date: May. 21st, 2008 05:21 am (UTC)
Link

i love it.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Laura

(no subject)

from: printqueen
date: May. 21st, 2008 01:32 am (UTC)
Link

i read about this on the 'you thought we wouldn't notice' blog. people on there were suggesting she was just attention seeking, guess she was pretty serious. weird that they would claim she was on the uninvited guiest though, when it would be so easy to disprove. What right would that giove them to use her images anyway?

Reply | Thread

Laura

(no subject)

from: printqueen
date: May. 21st, 2008 01:37 am (UTC)
Link

http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=334

Reply | Parent | Thread

Antdevamp

Please enjoy your lawsuit TVX

from: antdevamp
date: May. 27th, 2008 08:51 pm (UTC)
Link

I am positive they have no idea what a video image right is or how it could be enforced monetarily. What a delicious education is coming for them!

Reply | Thread