Manhattan judge says photographer can distribute Russian tennis player's topless pictures

Newsday.com ^ | July 19, 2005, 8:07 PM EDT | Larry Neumeister

[Ignatz]

NEW YORK -- A Russian tennis player and French Open winner cannot stop a New York photographer from distributing topless pictures taken of her during a magazine photo session in the summer of 2002, a federal judge says.

Anastasia Myskina was 20 years old when the photographs were taken by Mark Seliger, according to facts outlined in a written decision by U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey in Manhattan.

[TheBigB]

Nice abs.

[Mr. Jeeves]

OK...so how much do we have to pay Seliger to not publish them. ;)

[July 4th]

See post #5.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Very high disappointment factor here. Very high

[blackie]

Close enough, Gunny ~ Thanks! :)

[TheBigB]

It's the the headline, isn't it? I knew it. ;o)

[Fierce Allegiance]

Well, YEAH!

[TheBigB]

Heh, heh...

[SBprone]

She's breathtaking.

Skinny for sure, but a radiant beauty.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Eye wash:

[Constitution Day]

Dang.

[SBprone]

The topless shot with all the makeup just destroys her looks. Without all that schlock makeup and lighting and goofy posing she is a major babe.

[SBprone]

Anna, on the other hand, looks better with makeup.

[Fierce Allegiance]

Anna, on the other hand, looks better with makeup period.

[Ignatz]

She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions.

• She agreed to have topless photos taken of her
• She claimed not to have seen a contract she signed
• She understood enough English to know what "take off yer shirt, baby" meant.
• She probaly had an interpreter, at least, or her agent on-site

  Sounds like she's suffering from "morning regret" to me.
  That shouldn't put her above contract law.

[SoothingDave]

She appears to have been taken advantage of, signing an agreement in a foreign language that contradicted the clear verbal agreement. She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions. Letter of the law over its spirit. I'm also not sure that the photographer's agreeing to a verbal contract that contradicts the written one isn't fraud.

It's pretty well-established law that written contracts supercede and void any verbal ones. Taking the terms of an agreement someone signed over the terms claimed in a verbal agreement is a no brainer.

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.

SD

[TommyDale]

She looks like Cher, BEFORE all the plastic surgery to fix the ugly. I don't conder that "breathtaking", more like "upchucking".

[highball]

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I believe in laws. I'm just not sure that she wasn't taken advantage of due to her language problem. The judge didn't think so, but I don't always trust their, um, judgment.

If she was assured that the pictures could only be used for one purpose, and that is admitted by all parties, I'd call it a "verbal rider" to the written contract. Don't think I'm somehow advocating an overthrow of contract law with that statement.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I believe in laws. I'm just not sure that she wasn't taken advantage of due to her language problem.

I'm sure that was part of the problem, but that's not really an excuse. She's 20 years old, right? That's old enough that she should know what she is signing and should know that written contracts rule. Most even explicitly state that they contain the entire agreement and there are no verbal or side agreements.

If she isn't smart enough to know these things, someone in her employ should be.

(Personally, I think GQ should never use someone like this, if this is how he handles their assignments.)

SD

[highball]

If she isn't smart enough to know these things, someone in her employ should be.

Exactly. That's why I said she should have had better representation - at the very least, her agent or manager should have either reviewed the contract or referred it to someone familiar with the language. I'm surprised that a professional athlete wouldn't have somebody like that with her at the shoot.

(Personally, I think GQ should never use someone like this, if this is how he handles their assignments.)

Also agreed. The photog may be technically correct on the legality, but there was at the very least an intent to mislead her. Pretty slimy.