Is it wrong....
..... to ask for a Playmobil recreation of this??
A Russian former model is suing Universal Pictures for allowing actor Jon Favreau to crack one off to a picture of her in a bikini in the film Couples Retreat. According to the New York Daily News, Irina Krupnik got a bit of shock when she found out a 2001 snap of her taken when she was 21 had resurfaced as "an X-rated prop" in …
..... to ask for a Playmobil recreation of this??
' Thomas Mullaney, who thundered: "The image of an older married man pleasuring himself to the picture of someone who was closer to the age of a child is disgusting. It was a swimsuit ad, not pornography." '
Amazing how that lawyer's mind works.
"We could say 'younger than him,' or... we could say 'closer to the age of a child...'"
(Paris, cos she's closer to the mental age of a child.)
"not well received by critics" == shit film
. . . usual demands for link to offending picture (to see if one could actually crack one off looking at the pic) or Playmobil.
If El Reg can publish a copy of the photo then it would be very much appreciated!
(Alternatively, a playmobil recreation would suffice!)
<-- Paris - obviously.
If anyone wants to know how "wholesome" she is, she got her baps out for Perfect10 Magazine apparently.
(try here, she's about 1/2 way down) http://www.nudecelebforum.com/t1101-p12-perfect-ten-magazine.html
That's Irene Krupnik, not Irina Krupnik.
but I haven't got that far yet.
why not i say... 10mil... sounds like her astute lawyer has come to the rescue... give them hell i say.. why not go for more...
I love these sorts of stories... i assume "no win - no charge"... fight for justice and please think of the children.
Whats that joke about 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
time for a pint....
"The image of an older married man pleasuring himself to the picture of someone who was closer to the age of a child is disgusting"
Well, I happen to be married to an older woman, but I know men who actually have regular *sex* with a woman who is closer to the age of a child than them (if only by a few weeks).
Won't someone think of the people who are closer to still being children than we are?!
No, of her, not him.
Shes complaining that the photo was used as wank fodder in a film, when its probably been used that way privately anyway.
Perhaps if she didn't want photos of herself going around, she shouldn't have posed for the advert.
... reviwing the comments from this story. Permission should have been sought under the circumstances. I guess they didn't ask because they already guessed what the answer would be...
what kind of sicko gets aroused by half naked, young, but safely adult members of the opposite sex?!?!?
Actually, it's me isn't it, I'm the sicko all along :/ curse you god for making me this way!
"curse you god for making me this way!"
Did she sign a model release ? Did it say something like "any purpose" and "perpetual" and "paid work" ? Well dear, hard luck.
"The image of an older married man pleasuring himself to the picture of someone who was closer to the age of a child is disgusting. It was a swimsuit ad, not pornography."
Ahhh haa hah ha ha.
I dont know whos right !!!!!
she made her picture public
but if it was me i would be pissed off !!!
Good luck to whoever is gonna figure this one out
If she (and her lawyer) really really believes no-one ever got turned on by, let alone spanked the monkey to, pictures of her in a bkini then she's very - VERY - sadly deluded! or just extremely naive about the male gender!
Or of course they're just trying it on for some easy cash... ;-)
Model's sign over all rights to the photos in exchange for money. I doubt they'd even open this open-and-shut case.
"If you're a good-looking young woman, you don't want anyone leering at you or fondling you..."
Don't do a swimsuit ad then!
With the hitting the paedophile button.
"closer to the age of a child"
She was 21 for crying out loud, the vast majority of females in porn are younger than that, but lets hit the paedo button and get everyone all riled up.
Surely the photo is held with the publishing company and any use of it will incur royalties so she will recieve a big fat cheque, no need to sue?
Typical merkins claiming to have had their reputation tarnished, she couldn't have had that much of a good reputation if she had to pose in a swim suit!
Photo or it didn't happen :-)
By far most photographers will simply pay models a flat fee, and all subsequent use will line the pockets of whoever owns the copyright (it *won't* be the model). Otherwise it would simply be a 'mare keeping track of it all...
or people might, for instance, download them, print them out and then go to crack one off over them in the bogs to liven up a dull Friday afternoon
Presumably she waited to see if the film was going to be a success.
Something tells me that Little Miss Shocked-And-Indignant will become substantially less shocked and indignant when it comes to the inevitably substantial settlement cheque.
And that lawyer should be shot for trying to insinuate paedophilia into his argument. She was 21, FFS! Closer to the age of a child, my arse.
Paris, because it's all about the money, beeyatch.
That is all.
"If someone did in Central Park what they showed in Couples Retreat, they would be thrown in jail."
Uhh... yes. That's because there's a difference between someone actually masturbating in public, and someone pretending to do so in private. See how that works?
Presumably this guy is also outraged by people being murdered in movies - after all, if someone did that in Central Park, they'd be thrown in jail, right?
What an idiot.
That tale, given the perverse capitalist gold digging, should have started .... A former Russian model rather than "A Russian former model" as she has obviously been converted/subverted/perverted/elevated to the worship of $Bills.
Krupnik. That's kinda Jewish surename. When Russian Jews change one star on the flag to fifty, they do so to be called just "Jews" without adding "Russian". But they suddenly realise that they are again called "Russians" in the land of emigration, being pwnd by the more matured Jews for their own little greasy profit. And no strange this is, 'cos she's got what she wanted, but she was probably too shy to ask/too stupid to believe in the ways the newcomers are oftenly exploited before leaving the country.
Same thing about almost every case mentioned in connection with people from this country who went abroad, no matter whether it's Google or Wall St. company people.
The most funny wordplay thing, I think, is "Russian" mafia. 99 percent of its crue members have nothing in common with the Russians except that they can speak the language.
And... I think you're surely right, amfM, "A former Russian", considering $Bill.
And, 10M for a bikini photo? What the hell is she talking about? Kind of tax-free advertising job?
2 downpressa @ prec
"oftenly exploited before leaving the country" -
oh, thanks a lot. must read "after leaving the country", sure. thx again yodo.
"If you're a good-looking young woman, you don't want anyone leering at you or fondling you"
So you wouldn't let a "modelling agency" post pictures of your scantily-clad self on the internet. Besides, is she good-looking? Inquiring minds want to know.
People are misunderstanding this comparison, I think. I agree it's stupid, but what the guy meant, I think, is: someone who was closer to the age of a child THAN TO HIS AGE. She was 21. A child is 16, say, so he was over 26. Big deal. For what it's worth, when I first met my wife, she was closer in age to a 9-year-old than to me. Shocking.
Also, if someone did in Central Park, or pretty much anywhere for that matter, what they showed in, er, any film featuring one or more murders, I guess, which is quite a lot of films, then they would be thrown in jail. So please give me ten million dollars.
As for violating her privacy, I don't suppose many people would have recognised her in the film, but by publicly threatening to sue in this fashion they've really gone balls-deep with that one, though I don't see how it's Universal Pictures' fault.
Come on guys! There's no IT angle. At least show us the pic so we can see if she's worth cracking one off over! ;)
"Wot, no pic? ... Come on guys! There's no IT angle. At least show us the pic so we can see if she's worth cracking one off over! ;)" .... Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 12th March 2010 15:37 GMT.
For goodness sake, AC, you really must pay more attention for that has already been provided ... in spades. Please see the earlier post here, "NSFW" .... Ian Emery Posted Friday 12th March 2010 14:07 GMT
Probably. And if that's a swimsuit ad, they've short-changed buyers by nicking the top half.
That's Irene Krupnik, not Irina Krupnik.
Nicely Suitable For W..... I'll get me coat.
due to her "successful career as a make up artist" she felt the real need to make more money, ... sorry i mean defend her image usage rights
"The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, accuses NBC Universal and Universal Pictures Co. of soiling her "wholesome image""
And here I thought it was Favreau who was soiling her image. I guess it's all in the wrist.
...where 100,000 people also abuse the photo for the benefit of the internet. :D
Give it to me! I must have it, and eat it too!
I see that her lawyer thinks it's different for an 'attractive young woman' to get unwanted attention than the rest of us. Breaking news : it's no different, and none of us are entitled to attention from someone fitting our own personal definition of 'hot' or to magically block those who don't..
.... of Cosmo and the Littlewoods catalogue back in the 70's...
Isn't it amazing how possible rightful, "bloody cheek", turns into, "evil bastards who deserve to pay", when there are big rewards for the picking. Of course I'd likely play the same given half a chance, though I doubt anyone could do $10m worth of damage to my reputation. I'm not sure it's possible to do $10m worth of damage to anyone's reputation.
Frankly, I think she should take it as a complement, play it for all it's worth, rather than end up looking like an opportunistic money grabbing has-been.
Clement Attlee with a moustache drawn on his chin. Now you're talking. Biggest sex symbol this country ever produced.
Does Attorney Mullaney know that he's actually suing the noted Attorney Franklin "Foggy" Nelson...? If he's not careful, he'll have Nelson's partner Matt Murdock coming after him, and NO ONE wants that!
(Frankly, this sounds just like the sort of trap that Wilson Fisk would set up for Murdock -- threaten his partner to draw him out...)
...and it's so sad that that was the first thing that I thought when I read the article...
@Gulfie -- ". Permission should have been sought under the circumstances. I guess they didn't ask because they already guessed what the answer would be..." Actually, I would guess that they didn't ask because the article says that they bought the photo from a stock photo house, who presumably already had negotiated the rights when they bought/licensed them from: A-- the photographer who has a signed model release from the model, or; B -- from the model herself, who hired the photographer.
@AC 14:09 GMT
"Typical merkins claiming to have had their reputation tarnished..." Uh... the article said that she was Russian. I realize that we all look alike to you, but...
"If someone did in Central Park what they showed in Terminator, they would be thrown in jail", thats why they call em movies genius.
Sorry honey, but if a pic of you is in a "stock photo" database, it means you've already waived all rights to it.
And you know it.
So this is just a publicity stunt.
Of course, you may not realize that the publicity is not for you. Your picture was a prop in a film, now your name is a prop in a headline-grabbing gesture that has no legal chance to go anywhere, but might just get a lawyer a name.
Meanwhile, the only thing you will have managed is that, by calling attention to your name and pics, there will suddenly be a lot more guys cracking one off to you.
I hope you like soggy spotlights.