The Victoria's Secret model's legal team claims the lawsuit is nothing more than effort to 'extract' money from her, after she posted her candid picture on Instagram without the photographer's consent.
- Apr 3, 2019
AceShowbiz - Model Gigi Hadid has asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit filed against her by a photographer after she posted his picture on Instagram.
The catwalk star was threatened with legal action in October (18) after she shared a paparazzi photo of herself on Instagram after finding it on Twitter, and bosses at Xclusive-Lee Inc. subsequently sued her in January for failing to license the image from them or get their permission first.
The legal representatives for the 23-year-old, who removed the picture from her page days after uploading it, have now filed paperwork in which they have asked a judge to throw out the lawsuit, which they describe as nothing more than effort to "extract" money from her.
"It is an unfortunate reality of Ms. Hadid's day-to-day life that paparazzi make a living by exploiting her image and selling it for profit," the documents read, according to The Blast. "It is one thing for paparazzi to take advantage of Ms. Hadid by surveilling her, taking photographs of her every public movement, and selling them for profit. It is quite another to demand damages based on an Instagram post by the very person whose fame the paparazzi sought to exploit in the first place."
They also claim the agency doesn't have the copyright of the photograph in question and deny Gigi did anything wrong, insisting that she made no money off it.
In the lawsuit, Xclusive-Lee Inc. bosses claim they own the rights of the snap, which was taken in October 2018, and say the model should know better because she was sued for similar reasons in 2017, but settled that case quickly. They are seeking all profits she made from the image and an injunction preventing her from using their work again.
After receiving the legal warning last year, Gigi vented her frustration on Instagram, writing, "For someone to take a situation where I was trying to be open, and sue me for a photo I FOUND ON TWITTER (with no photographers name on the image), for a photo he has already been paid for by whatever outlet has put it online (!!!), is absurd (sic)."
