In a previous life, I worked for a multi-national that made a lot of profit from adult magazines. When I was seconded ‘downstairs’, one of the weirdest days took place when a model booked for a naughty photoshoot turned out to be not quite what she seemed in her portfolio.
The face was the same, the measurements matched, hair — check, eyes — check, 20cm scar on upper torso - come again?
The result was lots of surprised faces in the studio. As it turned out, most of the photos in her portfolio showed her with some sort of prop, a scarf or a feather boa draped over her, whilst the others were angled or showing her back.
What to do? It was too late to book another model, and her minder was of the Mafioso kind — enough said.
In the end, one of the make-up artists went to the nearest DIY shop, bought some Polyfilla and mixed it with foundation. This was then applied and the photoshoot went ahead.
The magazine editor was livid and withheld the model’s fee. What’s the legal position on that?
Michael Scutt writes:
"There are two potential angles to this. On the one hand the magazine could have rescinded the contract for misrepresentation, if they’d asked the model in advance had she got any scars or disfigurements that weren’t obvious. However, if they hadn’t asked those sorts of questions then the rule of caveat emptor (buyer beware) applies.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if the model sued for breach of contract. Surely it would have been easier to have re-touched the photo subsequently? I’ll never look at a packet of filler in the same way again."