It may not be quite the same as your garden variety unpaid wages and misclassification employment lawsuit (read just about any national retailer), but top model Ginta Lapina is alleging she was duped into accepting $19,700 for a day’s shoot in Paris, when she was actually due six or seven figures, in a lawsuit she filed against her agency Women Management. Apparently even the definition of minimum wage is now subjective…
Ginta who? What? You’ve never heard of her?
Well, the 25-year old Latvian supermodel was in Paris for a shoot with Karl Lagerfeld (at least we all know who he is!)—the results of which were used in an international ad campaign for Schwarzkopf hair products. According to the lawsuit, “The Schwarzkopf Look 2014 Trends advertorial was NOT [billed as] an advertising campaign, and therefore, the models were compensated only for their time for the photo shoot but not for the usage of their image.” Ah— there’s the rub.
According to her lawsuit, Lapina was told the use of the Lagerfeld photos would be “narrow in scope” when they were actually used to market Schwarzkopf hair products worldwide.
Lapina, who claims in her suit that she is ranked 27th in model earnings worldwide by the industry site Models.com, states that “The Schwarzkopf products and look of advertisement are not of the caliber normally endorsed by a model of . . . Ginta’s stature in the industry and have diluted her ‘brand’ as a model for the haute couture and/or highest paying clients.”
Contractual gobbledygook aside, “diluted her brand”??? Don’t you have to be able to recognize a brand first before you can tell whether it’s been diluted? Let’s take some bets here—if Lapina were on the cover of a popular beauty magazine, would 90% of the world’s population be able to name her? Uhh…no. Giselle Bundchen, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell or even Linda Evangelista she’s not. And there’s a good chance that 90% of haute couture clientele would not base their haute couture purchases on whether Lapina strutted the stuff down the runway or a Lapina knock-off did. Just sayin’.
So let’s keep this baby to the issue of commercial usage rights, ok? (And c’mon, one has to wonder if—while the Schwarzkopf ads were not her “caliber”—would they have been if there’d been a six- or seven-figure payday attached to that print run? I’m guessing that might have improved her perspective.)
Just for good measure, perhaps, Lapina is also seeking a court order preventing Schwarzkopf from using her photos.
Needless to say, Women Management said in a statement that it is “surprised and disappointed” by the suit. How unusual. I have yet to read about an employment lawsuit where the employer is not surprised and disappointed…
The agency has, predictably, denied all the allegations saying it will seek all “appropriate remedies.” Not really sure what that would entail. It states that it has managed Lapina since 2008, when she appeared at the New York Fashion Show, and that just last year, she agreed to renew an exclusive management contract through January 2016. Lapina’s resume includes campaigns for Yves Saint Laurent and DKNY.
Oh, it’s rough at the top…I suppose that’s some consolation for those of us slogging away at lesser endeavors.
Dating Naked. Yes—that’s the title of a reality TV show. So, if you’re starring on it—what’s your first clue that you run the risk of having images of your-naked-as-the-baby-Jesus-self flashed around various media?
Twenty-eight year old Jessie Nizewitz, who starred in the show, is suing over just such a situation. Nizewitz alleges she was promised repeatedly by the producers at VH1 that her private parts would be “blurred out” when she was shooting a WWE-style wrestling move during the show’s third episode in May.
Really?
According to the $10 million lawsuit filed in Manhattan by Nizewitz’s high-powered lawyer, Matthew Blit, the runway model got naked—but with wet beach sand covering certain parts of her body—at the behest of the show’s producers. I’m thinking that’s their job. Surely you can’t be surprised by that?
Um, not so, according to Nizewitz. “I felt lied to, manipulated and used. I was horrified,” Nizewitz told The New York Post, explaining that she was brought to tears. Ok, pass the believability pills please…
That’s she’s upset, there can be no doubt—that she was duped—maybe. But come on—it’s a reality TV show—train wreck TV—this is what’s it’s all about. Getting naked in front of the cameras and expecting it to be risk-free? Isn’t that kind of like being “sort of pregnant?”
Unfortunately for her, the episode aired on July 31 with an unblurred-out crotch shot. At this point, Nizewitz became the butt of jokes on YouTube, Twitter and Tumblr, according to the lawsuit. And posters on the “Dating Naked” Facebook page noticed Nizewitz’s full-on nudity.
“I immediately started getting text messages. Everyone saw it,” Nizewitz told The Post.“One of the messages read, ‘So your money shot is on cable TV.’”
Perhaps the saddest outcome of all this is the reaction from Nizewitz’s family members. “My grandma saw it. I saw her this week and she didn’t have much to say to me. She’s probably mad. My parents are just annoyed,” Nizewitz told The Post. Again, reality (no pun) check: you’re on a show called “Dating Naked”. And we can only guess your contract said that, too—as opposed to saying you would be filming the next season of Downton Abbey, yes?
Nizewitz is also counting the failure of a “budding relationship” as part of the damage. She had been seeing someone for a month, and “He never called me again after the show aired. I would have hoped we could have had a long-term relationship. He was employed, Jewish, in his 30s and that’s pretty much ideal,” Nizewitz said. Hmm. Sounds like she summed him up about as much as a click on a JDate.com profile. Wonder if she even liked him…? At any rate, can we get a collective, “He’s just not that into you, honey”?
Nizewitz has reportedly worked for fashion designer and convicted pedophile Anand Jon, who counted a who’s who of Hollywood stars as his friends, including Paris Hilton and Jessica Alba. Personally, I would not be using any of them as references.
Nizewitz’s suit names Viacom, which operates VH1, and two production companies, Firelight Entertainment and Lighthearted Entertainment. “I think they owe me a huge apology,” Nizewitz said.
Oh, Gloria, where are you when we need you? It seems there are generations of young women who are growing up with the media endorsement of self-sexualization—(as I believe it’s termed)—thinking it’s consequence free. It’s not. Was Nizwietz used? Perhaps. Should her crotch have been covered? Absolutely. But can she claim naivete—I don’t think so. But hey—that’s up to her lawyer to argue.