O.o

[bladespark]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/
http://digg.com/design/Underage_Photographer_s_Work_used_for_PORN

Hardly surprising that porno companies would have sleazy business practices. But I really hope somebody comes up with a way to sue them but good, even given my normal distaste for lawsuits.

Comments

[loweko.livejournal.com]

The "inform authorities she was under 18 at the time" route seems like her best option, given from her comments no lawyer is willing to take her case on at affordable rates.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

There's been considerable argument about that. Apparently the company claims that it's not illegal to have her picture on the cover, even if she's under age, it's only illegal if she herself acted in the film. Or so they say. I don't actually know the law.

[wolfmare.livejournal.com]

Actually, I believe that would fall under "exploiting a minor" unless they had her parents' consent for the pic to be used, as well as proof she had been paid for the photo. So she has grounds to sue.

And actually, I followed the links, and only one still showed the cover with her picture. The other's didn't, or no longer carried the DVD.

[bladespark.livejournal.com]

She's said that the company was replacing the website photos and such with the older image, but that the DVD itself still had her image on it.

I agree...

[vortexgrey.livejournal.com]

I have to side with wolfmare and loweko that she has grounds to sue. Based on the comments left on that page, she has multiple legality grounds as to why what they did was illegal. It's her photo (not in the public domain), they are making profit, she's underage, and they didn't receive her consent, so, with that in mind, she has ample evidence of their illegal use of her photo. And even if they are NOW changing things, that doesn't erase the fact that people saw and the company profited, so she has a lawsuit in the bag from my perception.