Modelmayhem.com

Model Mayhem, El Segundo, CA. 295,266 likes 346 talking about this. ModelMayhem.com is the #1 casting website for professional models, photographers, makeup artists, stylists, designers and digital. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. 12-56638 (9th Cir. 17, 2014), was a judicial opinion written by Judge Richard R. Clifton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the district court's dismissal of diversity action alleging negligence under California law. Jane Doe was a member of modelmayhem.com, a networking website owned by Internet Brands.

Do you plan to have your best photo shoot ever? Perfect. This guide is meant for you. It has amazing tips on what to expect, the challenges and how to overcome them and emerge a perfect model of the day. The main challenge when preparing for and during the photo shoot would be ever running out of ideas which may happen to you and your photographer considering you are posing all day.

As a model, you should be willing to discuss any particular pose with your photographer so that both of you can agree on what to change and in what situations. That will make the day very productive because you will be confident with what both of you are doing.

As a model, the photographer will expect someone with a perfect skin and a great physic in general. However, most of the times this is not the case since some models do not have an idea of what is expected of them.

If you are an inexperienced model or this is your first time modeling or maybe you have been in this industry and you want to perfect this art, the information here has got you covered. Check out this impressive to do list as a model to make your photo shoot day less stressful.

Expectations of a model before and during the photo shoot

1. General appearance

It is very important to note that as a model, you should never present yourself for a photo shoot with unwaxed eyebrows, a dry skin, body hair or tan lines. Although they can be corrected in post-production, the best would be fixing them before the photo session. You may think that removing hair in photoshop would take minutes, but that is not the case and so if you want the best, then remove your hair prior to the shoot.

2. Healthy skin

There is a lot you can do as a model to have that perfect skin and can really make a big difference in time spent by photo editors in photoshop. That will give your photographer an easy time. Did you know sleeping fewer hours can lead to unhealthy skin? It is important to note that you should sleep for at least 8 hours to avoid wrinkles, fine lines and lackluster among other skin problems.

If you think you can drink all night and have a photo shoot the following day, you are so wrong. This for sure will make your skin to have some kind of red spots on your face. If you have acne problems which can also cause those red spots, try to use a good moisturizer twice a day a week before the photo shoot.

3. Body hair challenge

You may think that body hair is a minute problem that you can easily get away with but that’s not the case. Imagine yourself as a young gorgeous model with facial hair? This does not sound interesting at all. It would be a perfect idea to remove them but you should also consider the timing. The best results can be achieved if you remove them at least two days prior to. This is because when you remove them, they tend to form red spots. Remember to wax your eyebrows as well, although they are not as troublesome as the body hair it would be better to take care of them at least two days to the shoot.

4. Healthy looking eyes

The beauty of a model is crucial. Healthy looking eyes can do wonders for the final results. For this day to be successful, do not dare show up looking tipsy because there is nothing that can be done. This is because alcohol makes your eyes shinier and the blood vessels because more prominent.

5. Smooth Lips

You should always ensure that your lips are smooth because dry lips are a problem that no photographer would love to fix in post-production. If you live in a cold location, you may have nothing much to do. However, you can control this by avoiding cigarette smoking and application of balm every now and then just to cover up the problem.

What to do the actual day

Always make your mirror your best friend and stand there as you perfect that look in your mind or from the photographer just to see how your body shapes. This is a good way to see what the camera can see. Ensure your poses create a good separation between your limbs and your body.

It is quite understandable that you are tired of posing all day but you have to ensure that your eyes are not rotating too much. The best would be to follow your nose line to keep your sight in control position. Every model should be knowledgeable about light; you can ask which is your key light and ensure you do not block it with your arm.

Hairstylist and makeup artist

For a successful modeling photo session, you must have a good cooperation with these two professionals. A good makeup will give you the confidence to put your face forward. You do not have time to sit for hours for your make up to be done every now and then for the whole day. Remember you are posing for about 10 to 12 hours and all this time you are expected to look gorgeous and different. So, how do you achieve this without straining?

Check out these makeup tips for a quick face makeover without giving your makeup artist a hard time:

These things take time and the respective developers will communicate release and update timelines as needed (or not at all). It's recommended you visit the mod page often to check for the newest release.(7) All mod files must come from official sources: All mod files must come from official sources. Unofficial file shares (Like Dropbox and Mediafire) can carry the risk of malware.

1. Choose long-lasting wear

Since this is a long day event, it would be advisable to use oil-free primers and very little moisturizer on your skin. This is important because if you apply too much cream or lotion, the foundation will slip and smear. Awful right?

2. Hydrate your body

Drink a lot of water throughout the day. Your body and most importantly your skin needs hydration. Your skin will be balanced and it will be ready for makeup if you choose to have a makeover in between the sessions.

3. Use light liquid foundation

Since modelling all day may take a toll on you, a light liquid foundation will be a good cover-up instead of using the standard foundation. It will also be of great help if you are posing in difficult areas such as sunspots.

4. Humidity effect

Allow your makeup artist to pamper you for the day. Waxed based foundation has an all-day fabulous look effect. It usually comes in a cream formula and it’s water resistant as well.

What to do with your hair

People tend to forget their hair while posing for photos but for a model, you can be sure that this is not something you can easily get away with. There may be no rules on what looks best and that may depend on your personality and the advice you get from your hair stylist you should put into consideration.

If you are a model with long hair, if it’s not given a professional touch, it may prove to be very troublesome. However, you have to learn how to play around with it even when there is no professional hair stylist near you. All the hair positions whether it’s your up, hair on one side, hair in front of your shoulders or any other hairstyle, it will determine on the look you are trying to achieve as a model.

Location and transport

The choice of location will determine the success of that particular photo shoot and the means of transport that will be most effective. That may be challenging but these tips will guide you to choose the best.

1. Timing

Since you will be working the whole day, if you or the photographer choose an outdoor location, you might as well consider that there will be a flow of passersby and it’s obvious you do not need them in your background. To avoid such distractions, both you and your team can choose an indoor location when people are busy during the day and for morning and evening sessions you can do them outside since the flow of people will have reduced.

2. Privacy

This is another thing to consider depending on the type of photo shoots you will be having. If you choose an outdoor public site, it is important to have a place you will use to change your clothes in between the sessions.

3. Accessibility

Put into consideration the place chosen for the photo shoot. Depending on how the area is accessible, that is what will determine the means of transport. If it’s a place you will be forced to walk, make sure the necessary arrangements are made so that you will not be worn out even before the shoot begins.

Bottom line

Getting a professional assistance in every aspect is what a model posing all day needs. It will relieve the model from any stress whatsoever and this is good so that all concentration is put on the modeling activities. The professionals, on the other hand, will ensure everything is done with perfection.

Tags: Model mayhem, modeling, top models

Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. 12-56638 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2014), was a judicial opinion written by Judge Richard R. Clifton of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversing the district court's dismissal of diversity action alleging negligence under California law.

Jane Doe was a member of modelmayhem.com, a networking website owned by Internet Brands. Another user lured her into a fake audition and then drugged and raped her, recording it for a pornographic video. In 2012, Doe filed an action against Internet Brands alleging liability for negligence under California law based on that failure to warn.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that Internet Brands was not liable for informing users, such as Doe, of potential dangers as they were protected under the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA),^[1] a landmark law, protecting web hosts from suit over libelous material that they carried but did not write.^[2]

In 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, instead ruling that the claim was not barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In February 2015, however, the court withdrew the 2014 opinion, and set the case for reargument in March 2015.^[3][4] In May 2016, the panel again held that Doe's case could proceed.

The resolution of this case is expected to have large implications for precedent on the liability of websites arising from user activity.^[5]

Background[edit]

Plaintiff Jane Doe posted information about herself on the website modelmayhem.com. She alleged that in February 2011, two men used the site to lure her to a fake audition, drug her with a benzodiazepine, rape her, and record the acts for a pornographic video. She alleged that the owner of the site Internet Brands knew of the criminal activity, and failed to warn her or other users of the site. She filed an action against Internet Brands alleging liability for negligence under California law^[1] and sought damages no less than $10 million.^[6]

In 2007 Emerson Callum and Lavont Flanders were arrested and charged with luring and victimizing at least five women in a scheme similar to the one they used to lure Jane Doe. They contacted these women through internet modeling sites including modelmayhem.com to participate in a fake audition for a fraudulent modeling contract.^[6]

Modelmayhem.com was purchased by Internet Brands in 2008 from original developers Donald and Tyler Waitt. In August 2010, the Waitts sued Internet Brands for not paying them, Waitt v. Internet Brands Inc., No. 10.cv.3006 GHK (C.D. Cal. 2010). In response, Internet Brands claimed that the Waitts failed to disclose an ongoing criminal investigation into Lavont Flanders, which might expose Internet Brands to later civil suits. ^[6][5]

In December 2011, Emerson Callum and Lavont Flanders were convicted of sex trafficking in Miami.^[7] In February 2012, they were sentenced to 12 consecutive life terms in prison.^[8]

Court proceedings[edit]

The District Court[edit]

Doe filed a complaint against Internet Brands claiming they should be liable for the acts of Callum and Flanders for two reasons;

• They failed to warn Doe about the rape scheme despite her relationship to them as a modelmayhem.com member.
• They possessed requisite knowledge to avoid future victimization of modelmayhem.com users by warning users of online sexual predators, specifically the rape scheme by Flanders and Callum.^[9]

In August 2012, the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed her claim on the grounds that Internet Brands was immune from prosecution under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c) (2012).^[9]

Citing Julie Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., 175 Cal. App 4th 561, Judge John F. Walter concluded that based on 'well-settled authority', Internet Brands did not have a duty to warn its users of harm. They were 'absolutely immune' from liability in this case. The interpretation of the court was that the CDA grants immunity to all web-based service providers for civil claims brought by a user for harm caused by another user. Referencing Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) the court further concluded that immunity still applies even when there is actual knowledge of the alleged tortious conduct.^[9]

The Ninth Circuit[edit]

In February 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Communications Decency Act did not bar Jane Doe's claim, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.^[1] In February 2015, however, the panel withdrew its opinion and agreed to rehear the case.^[3][4]

Throughout the opinion the court makes a distinction between Doe's failure to warn claim, and Section 230 of the CDA that provides liability immunity for website proprietors for content posted by a user. Jane Doe's negligent failure to warn claim did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as the 'publisher or speaker' of any information provided by another user, therefore it falls outside of section 230(c)(1).' ^[1]

The Ninth Circuit discussed two main public policy intentions of Section 230. The first, and in their opinion core intention of section 230(c)(1), is the protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of material. This allows a website proprietor to remove some offensive content without making themselves liable for content they did not remove. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Doe's failure to warn claim does not discourage 'Good Samaritan' filtering.^[1]

Another intention of Section 230 highlighted by the Ninth Circuit is to, 'avoid the chilling effect upon Internet free speech that would be occasioned by the imposition of tort liability upon companies that do not create potentially harmful messages but are simply intermediaries for their delivery.' Michelangelo Delfino et al. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376, 387 (Ct. App. 2006). To this the court concluded that the 'chilling effect' was marginal, and barring Doe's claim would 'stretch the CDA beyond its narrow language and its purpose'. Citing Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1101-03 (9th Cir. 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that the CDA does not provide general immunity against all claims derived from third-party content.^[1]

The court addressed arguments made by Internet Brands, and dismissed them as not analogous:

• In response to Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2009), 'The purported tort duty does not arise from allegations about mishandling the removal of third party content. Nor is there a contractual duty arising from a promise distinct from tort duty arising from publishing content.'^[1]
• In response to Doe II v. MySpace, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 561, 573 (Ct. App. 2009), 'The tort duty asserted here does not arise from an alleged failure to adequately regulate access to user content.'^[1]
• In response to Lansing v. Southwest Airlines Co., 980 N.E.2d 630, 639-41 (I11. Ct. App. 2012), 'There is in our case no employer-employee relationship giving rise to a negligent supervision claim.'^[1]

In February 2015, the Ninth Circuit panel withdrew the September 2014 opinion and agreed to rehear the case.^[3][4] In May 2016, the panel again held that Doe's case could proceed.^[10][11]

Communications Decency Act[edit]

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) 47 USC § 230, was enacted by congress in 1996 in response to the Internet boom. The CDA policy was defined as a means to foster continued development of the Internet. The main policy intention was to protect websites from liability for content submitted by their users. 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.' ^[12]

The CDA does not protect websites when they are the 'content provider'.^[13] In MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com, No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G, (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004), the court rejected the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that Section 230 did not apply because the defendants wrote the disparaging content themselves.^[14]

In Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit rejected Section 230 immunity. The court concluded that Roommates.com elicited discriminatory information from the users with their content management filters.^[15]

In the majority of cases the courts have upheld Section 230 immunity, taking a broad interpretation of the CDA.^[13] The case of Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com is unusual since Doe's claim did not intend to hold Internet Brands liable as the 'publisher or speaker'.

Future[edit]

Jeff Herman, the plaintiff's lawyer, was quoted as saying, 'This a landmark opinion and a major victory for victims of sexual abuse because for the first time ever websites can be held liable for failing to protect their users from a known danger. I think it has far-reaching implications for the Internet.' ^[8][16]

There has been criticism of the appellate court decision. Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman and lawyer Venkat Balasubramani stated that this decision seems contrary to Section 230 and all cases that have previously dealt with the issue. Goldman fears that this ruling will imply websites are liable for allowing people to talk to each other. Balasubramani believes this will cause networks to self-censor and over-censor.^[5]

Jane Doe stated that she was horrified when she found out that modelmayhem.com knew that Flanders was actively prowling the site for victims a year earlier, and hadn't warned users. She stated that she doesn't care about the money in her suit, but that she wants all websites to be accountable for educating naïve people about known dangers.^[5] California law imposes a duty to warn a potential victim of third party harm when there is a 'special relationship' to either the person needing to be controlled or the potential victim. Internet Brands will likely contest their 'special relationship' with Doe.^[1] Also, Internet Brands specifically denies the alleged assailant contacted Plaintiff through the website. ^[9] Internet Brands also states that '[the] Plaintiff does not even plead that Internet Brands' alleged failure to perform in accordance with any legally recognized duty is the cause of her injuries. She can not state claim for relief in the absence of a causation allegation.'^[9]

See also[edit]

• Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008).
• Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008).
• Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F. 3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009).
• Dart v. Craigslist, Inc. 665 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009).

References[edit]

1. ^ ^abcdefghij'Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. 12-56638 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2014)'(PDF). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
2. ^Snead, David. 'Appellate Ruling in Model Rape Case Raises Questions on Websites' CDA Defense'. W. David Snead, Attorney + Counselor. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
3. ^ ^abcJane Doe no. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., no. 12-56638 (9th Cir. Feb 24, 2015).
4. ^ ^abc'Ninth Circuit Agrees to Revisit Ruling in Model Rape Case'. The Recorder. February 24, 2015. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
5. ^ ^abcdHill, Kashmir. 'Modeling Website Didn't Warn Users Rapists Were Preying On Them'. Forbes. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
6. ^ ^abc'Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. CV-12-3626 JFK (PYX) (C.D. Cal April 26, 2012) Complaint'(PDF). ABC 17 News. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
7. ^'Model Networking Site Must Face Rape Victim's Lawsuit'. FBI. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
8. ^ ^abGullo, Karen. 'Two Men Sentenced to Multiple Life Terms for Enticing Women to South Florida to Engage in Commercial Sex Acts While Under the Influence of Date Rape Drugs'. fbi.giv. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
9. ^ ^abcde'Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., DBA Modelmayhem.com, No. CV-12-3626 JFK (PYX) (C.D. Cal Aug. 6, 2012) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss'. Santa Clara University Digital Commons. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
10. ^Proctor, Katherine (May 31, 2016). 'Raped Model's Suit Against Website Revived'. Courthouse News Service. Retrieved June 1, 2016.
11. ^Jane Doe No. 14 v. Internet Brands, Inc., no. 12-56638 (9th Cir. May 31, 2016).
12. ^47 U.S.C.§ 230
13. ^ ^abGesmer, Lee. 'Two Recent Decisions Show the Strengths and Limitations of the CDA'. Mass Law Blog. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
14. ^'MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com, L.L.C. No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G, (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004)'(PDF). Digital Media Law Project. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
15. ^'Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008)'(PDF). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
16. ^Herman, Jeff. 'Court Says Communications Decency Act Does Not Shield Website from Liability in Sexual Abuse Negligence Case – Jane Doe No. 14 v. Model Mayhem'. Voice for Victims - Herman Law. Retrieved 30 October 2014.

External links[edit]