We recently talked (a lot) at Photohop World in Las Vegas, where we gave three seminars. We covered model release issues, copyright matters and a Vegas style buffet of other photo/legal issues. PSW was a very well attended blast thanks to in no small measure Scott Kelby and his staff from NAPP.
A significant number of attendees were current (or recently fired) ad agency executives, art directors and art buyers. While most of our materials are targeted to photographers, illustrators and models, we will shortly be giving seminars aimed squarely at those in (or attempting to get back in), the advertising industry. Many of these people have due to the economy, been let go by agencies big and small located in cities from right coast to left and all stops in between. Many of these skilled people are disheartened, disgusted, disgruntled or just plain angry. Most need to work and have mouths other than their own to feed.
We were approached by many ad people who regaled us with stories of ad agency incompetence akin to some of the matters discussed by us at the seminars. We always advise that creatives never, ever rely on an ad agency, publisher or media company to do anything to protect the creative. In that spirit, some suits from the agency side pulled us aside and provided us adult beverages and accounts of incidents, which they believed to be noteworthy. As one former exec told us, “Sometimes what is said in Vegas, must not stay in Vegas”. All stories intended by their respective speaker for public consumption. Proof that A. ad people can be every bit as dumb as photographers, illustrators: and
B a suit and tie afford no protection from stupidity. Quotes are not our words but those of our sources.
Submitted for your approval on the main stage, “Ad Agency Burlesque”:
1. Major ad agency, major prescription drug, household name, lots of TV and consumer print advertising. Model release prepared by ad agency, model signs release which prohibits any consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Ad agency is forced by model agency to pay more money upon its complaint over the prohibited consumer use. Agency pays big immediately so that ad agency’s client will not find out about the huge screw up. 5 years of usage about to expire and client wants to extend usage of successful consumer campaign. Ad agency contacts model who is now represented by another model agent. Model doesn’t want to do the ad going forward because he/she now regularly appears for a competitor company (not competing product) and such work “pays his/her rent”.
Client bypasses ad agency and contacts model directly to beg him/her to reconsider. Model tells client that, “Hey I never signed a release in the first place. I was tricked into the ad (maybe so, maybe not). My model agency got me some more money five years ago but I should have gone to a lawyer then and sued the (heck) out of you. Don’t call me again. You people are (expletive deleted)”. Client dumps agency after review of incident from point A and successful ad campaign dies an unnecessary and untimely death. No one at the ad agency ever read the (incorrect) release prepared by it and given to the model to sign.
2. Ad agency enters into extensive negotiations with a famous celebrity who is also a well known for legendary drinking binges. Negotiations break off only when client can’t/won’t meet celeb’s fee demand. Product? Alcohol. In the words of my ad agency source, “We dodged an atom bomb”. The people at the agency never checked on the celeb’s background…never..”not so much as pressing a Google button”.
3. Art director on set. Model is sent by well-known model agency. Art director gives an adult model release to be signed by a 17 year old. No one checks release. Ad ran, model was paid. 17 year old was not signed with any modeling agency at time of shoot. X months later model gets representation by a reputable model agency which examined his/her portfolio in connection with signing him/her. Model was asked who was signing releases on model’s behalf when model was a child given that model never had a professional agent. Model says “I signed all of my releases”. The model was immediately told to sue by his/her new agent and a lawyer was provided to the model for such purpose the next day.
There will be FIVE more real life scenarios posted tomorrow. We can’t make this stuff up. Stay tuned.
#1 by Matt Timmons on September 14, 2011 - 10:55 pm
That last one is a little BS. Unless I’m misunderstanding, the 17 year old model was sent by a model agency but not represented by that agency? I just think that it’s wrong to sue someone when they haven’t done anything to wrong the person suing. These two parties had an agreement to do a business transaction which they did, the money was paid and everyone was happy. Instructing someone to sue based on a technical flaw within an amicable agreement in which all terms were fulfilled is just greed and misuse of the system. If I were the judge I’d throw it out based on the fact that there was no loss due to the discrepancy. The ad agency should counter-sue the plaintiff claiming that he/she falsified their age.
My mom paid for my school pictures when I was a kid, but since she didn’t sign a release, I’m going to go get a lawyer and sue the school and the photographer for putting them in the yearbook.
#2 by Jack and Ed on September 15, 2011 - 4:42 pm
The 17 year old had not had any professional representation while doing several ads for commercial purposes. He/she had signed releases containing terms which no reputable agent (or parent) would have condoned. Merely for the privilege of “being seen”, the child worked for shall we say, well, well below market rates, indeed often, without receiving any fee. Upon retaining a legitimate model agent who reviewed these “slave wage” contracts, the model was referred to an attorney to make sure that (at least) what should have been paid by prior clients taking advantage of a child, was in fact paid. There are many child predators who seek cheap/free labor rather than sexual favors.
The law and the Courts exist in large measure to protect children. Children do not have the legal capacity (with rare exception) to contract because the law recognizes their inexperience and inability to make mature decisions. The advertisers and their agencies feasted on the child. They placed whatever model fees which should have been paid to the model, into their own pockets. The then child model, had elected not to tell his/her parents about the modeling work for fear of retribution or punishment from the model’s very religious parents.
Many 16 year old girls would gladly appear in a multi million dollar massive consumer campaign for say, McDonalds, The Gap or Target for the sheer thrill of it. At 16 Ed would have appeared without charge in any ads for the Jets or Mets. At 16 Jack would have no doubt done a freebie for say, Kodak. It is the obligation of a legal guardian or of a court to make sure that any such deal is in the best interests of the child and that the child is not being taken advantage of. Fortunately, there are child labor statutes in America. Had these “no pay” jobs been shot in India, Pakistan or some other place where children are exploited regularly we would all no doubt, be repulsed.
Ed