When movie star Cameron Diaz was 19-years-old, she had some topless pics taken. No big deal. Now, however, her breasts ARE a big deal.
When Diaz was 19 years old, she posed for John Rutter, a well-known photographer. It was a trade out deal -- she didn't pay him. A few pics were topless, and Diaz claims she never signed a model release. That means Rutter couldn't sell those pics.
Eleven years later, just prior to the release of
"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle," Rutter contacted Diaz and offered to
sell Diaz the pictures from that shoot for $3.5 million.
Diaz contacted the cops, Rutter's apartment was raided and his computers were seized. Prosecution experts testified at trial that Diaz's signature on the releases found in Rutter's computers, etc. He is currently serving a four year prison sentence.
The moral of the story: If you are going to take topless pics, remember that your model might someday be really famous. GET THAT RELEASE FORMED SIGNED!!! Otherwise, if you try to sell those pics, you may wind up topless with Mr. Rutter in cell block #9.
I think the moral of the story is (1) don't blackmail people and (2) don't retroactively forge signatures on releases.
Posted by: Danny Barer | October 25, 2006 at 05:47 PM
You are right, there are not many roles for mid-aged actresses....
Posted by: Anea | October 24, 2006 at 01:20 PM
Cameron's career will fade quickly as she nears 40. Michelle Pfieffer was a much better actor and she's invisable.
Posted by: Mike Barer | October 24, 2006 at 09:53 AM
Cameron's career will fade quickly as she nears 40. Michelle Pfieffer was a much better actor and she's invisable.
Posted by: Mike Barer | October 24, 2006 at 09:53 AM
I think the likely difference is that VF didnt' call her up and say "if you don't pay us x million we will print the photos of your hiney"... and she had signed a release for the photos they took of her to be released. Unlike the icky photog who tried to blackmail over old photos of her boobs... I am sure without the bribery she wouldn't have been nearly as bothered - after all her boobs were at least 10 years younger in those photos :)
Posted by: Anea | October 23, 2006 at 08:17 AM
It's interesting that she made a big deal out of topless pictures when Vanity Fair printed a picture of her bottom a few years back.
Posted by: Mike Barer | October 21, 2006 at 01:50 PM