Posted on 07/20/2005 12:53:29 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
And if you can't trust a photographer who wants to take your picture topless who promises to never show 'em to anyone, whom can you trust?
SD
A lotta times, that doesn't even work on gals who speak English fluently.
Or so I am told.
LOL! Sad, but true.
Doesn't change the fact that a professional working for a legitimate magazine lied to her outright. Pretty scummy.
Which one's Myskina?
hehe! Horse Face... :D
Yeah, I clicked on the thread certain it was either Kournikova or Sharapova. This one is just ugly.
Argh... Link doesn't work. Is she the blonde in the Canon commercials?
Nothing a good dentist couldn't fix.
the link isn't working?
You have to right click on the link and select "Copy Shortcut" then paste the address in the address bar in the browser, then click enter. If you try to click the link it forwards to their home page instead.
find out if i can post the picture here i will... it doesnt show breasts but it shows a side shot of her butt... she is on top of a horse. Actually I dont think it is a dirty picture. Kind of an artsy picture.
And upon further review, she ain't half bad.
do you think the mods would pull it if i posted it here?
I actually like the pictures... They dont seem "dirty" to me, reminds me of old paintings.
Why risk it. If anyone wants to see them, they know what to do.
I assume it was not admitted by the defendant (photographer). And the problem is that anyone can sign a contract and later claim that they had some oral side-deal. If such claims were admissible, no written contract could ever be enforced without a full "he-said-she-said" jury trial. In order to promote commerce, the courts have held that a written contract is enforceable even when one party claims their was an oral side-deal that was different. (There are a few exceptions to the rule, but not many.) This sometimes let unscrupulous people get away with things they shouldn't, but the alternative is worse.
yep they can figure it out. :D I have ine of them as by desktop wallpaper right now. :D
Yeah, baby.
That's what I'm talkin about.
Love you Anna.
My reading of the article was that the oral agreement was not in dispute. I could well be in error on that point.
If there is a dispute, you are absolutely 100% correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.