Genre Model Sues Magazine for Gay Harassment

Jennifer: Is seems you have personal knowledge of the case - even know Ben. So let me explain it to you. Scenario 1 (your case): Ben did what is referred to as a test shoot with a photographer. Ben did not sign any model releases allowing for these images to be licensed or used. Ben has a good case. The case however would be based on unauthorized use and he should be compensated regardless of the nature of the magazine that used those images without permission. But that is not what he is saying. His argument is that the images where used in a gay magazine and that is what hurts his image. That IS homophobic. Scenario 2: He did sign a model release and the photographer had every right to license the images. In that case he has no legal claim and his statements are again simply homophobic. So if you are friends with Ben, as you allude to, tell his lawyer to build the case on unauthorized use of images and drop the "My life is over because gay man cruise me" BS. Joe

People Ben has done nothing wrong. Yes, he was in Playboy, but thats a magazine with nude GIRLS. He was fully clothed in a suit for that. And he never shot for Abercrombie. He was booked for it but never went through. He has some "sexy" pictures, but hes a male model and most have good bodies and may shoot shirtless ads. He was not consenting to his photos being in a gay magazine. He shot for Rick Day for free to help Day with his portfolio only and in return Ben could use the pictures for his own portfolio. Day did not have permission to use the photos to gain profit and especially not to endorse anything, putting him in the wrong. Ben is not gay and hes not homophobic. If he wanted to shoot for a gay magazine he would, but he didnt. Does that make him wrong?... no! There are plenty of jobs that models turn down simply because it does not follow the career path that they intended, but that does not mean that they are against whatever they were asked to shoot for.

If Genre doesnt have a release, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Genre has been around long enough to know this, and if the spread was produced "out of house", it should have been accompanied by appropriate documentation. If the model signed an appropriate release, HE has no argument. Unless very narrowly worded, releases give BROAD permission for usage. If the photo was nude or semi nude, the model had to realize that they might be used in a sexual context. If he was posing for Genre, he had to realize that the sexual context would be of a homosexual nature. Models have virtually no say HOW their image will be used, they just give permission for the usage, they accept payment and shut up. If he is such a worried straight, he shouldnt take his clothes off for the camera, because even if all the print media follows the rules, pretty much anything goes when it comes to the internet, and ANY nude or semi nude shot of a man will find its way to publication on the Internet

This idiot needs to build a bridge and get over it. If you're going to work in a predominantly gay business, it's basically if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. The firefighters are a mess too. It's a gay pride parade for crissake, everyone is having fun. My straight friends don't sue me every freaking time I flirt or play with them. They know I'm just having fun.

As a photographer, I find it reprehensible that the magazine would use the images without a release on file. In defense of the model, I would like to point out that anything said by the lawyer is legal speak intended to win a case, and doesn't necessarily reflect the plantiff's actual feelings on the matter. Also, I'd like point out that advertising geared towards gay men often borders on the sexually explicit (read: pornographic), and I can understand where a model -- gay or straight -- would prefer not to have his image tied to a lube or phone sex ad in a national publication. Lube ads in "straight" publications are not nearly as visually overt.

Whatever your opinion, just talking about this guy is giving him plenty of free press. Here's an idea: let's bury this story along with this guys career before it's to late.

This is utter crap. Go check out his MySpace page. In one, he's holding up his shirt so we can see his nipples, and has a very provocative smile. But he's not trying to look lustful.... Right. Unless the photographer has indulged his talents for Photoshop, I'd say that whatever he's got is probably legit, and that "poor Benjamin" is just trying to make some money.

Scott, Any model who was a "Playboy" model who goes to a gay magazine like "Genre" and has their picture taken, and then turns around and say they did not consent to having those pictures used is a liar. What I want to know, is how were the pictures taken if he didn't consent to them? And if he is so morally objectified by them, why do the "Playboy" shoot. I stand by my original post. And I stand by my criticism of the San Diego FD. These are people sworn to protect all people. If they can't look beyond their own prejudices for the sake of city ordinance, how can we expect them to look beyond it in a split second of a life-saving moment like a fire? Prejudice is wrong. And time has shown that offering milk and cookies to the bigots of the world doesn't work. Sometimes you have to bring the hammer down. As for your hypocrisy claim, you speak for yourself, not for me. NOONE speaks for me, and you'd do kindly to remember that.

Some clarification would be very helpful. Is he suing for being harassed, or is he suing because his photos were used without permission? If his photos were used because he had given permission for them to be used, then isn't that just a risk any model takes when they put photos of themselves out in public? Hard to feel sorry for someone who has exploited their own looks and body with racy photos and then didn't get the kind of attention they really wanted. I wonder if the women who saw his photos and treated him in the same manner as the gay men allegedly did, would that be an issue for this model - and would he be suing the magazine then?

Massing was no on the cover of Genre - he was inside. Did the reporter do their research?