Photographer convicted, and rightly so

Since Scott's been laying out opinions on may things in law, I figured I should comment on an issue in the world of professional photography.

First, read this.

My analysis:

John Rutter, the photographer, made several huge mistakes and did several things wrong. Some of these things got convictions, others are part speculation.

1. He shot images of a semi-nude person, but failed to either keep the model release in a safe place or get one in the first place. A release is important in this sort of work, because publishing a nude photo of someone is going to cost you if you don't have permission. It's very easy to sue on the grounds of defamation of character if someone publishes your image without clothing and a release, unless you were out in public like that. Then I suppose it just serves you right.

2. He took pictures of an aspiring actress with very little clothing and, once she's gotten rich and famous, he tries to have them published. That's predatory, and downright cheap.

3. He offered to sell the images back to Diaz for several million dollars, threatening to publish them if she wouldn't. That's blackmail, and if his threats were false, theft.

4. He presented a release with a forged signature. That's forgery and fraud. He should have known better as he should have been involved in its drafting.

5. He said in a civil case that it was real, when it wasn't. That's perjury.

I might have missed a few mistakes, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that a bad businessman is getting what he deserves: up to six years in jail. John Rutter is not an artist, he's a con-artist with a camera.