In 2013, model turned lawyer Bassil A. Hamideh sued Dolce & Gabbana, claiming that the company misappropriated his likeness and breached their contract.  He claimed that Dolce & Gabbana’s rights to his images expired in 2003, yet they continued to use them in May 2012 for purposes of gaining profit.  In 2018, male model and actor Jason Olive sued General Nutrition Centers (GNC) when GNC continued to use his image and likeness after their right to do so expired. Olive was awarded a sum of $1 million dollars as a result. These two cases show agencies and companies continuing to profit off a model’s identity without their consent even after their rights and contracts expire. 

There are recommended methods of protecting a model’s right to publicity. The first step is to make sure every personal release and right to publicity license is in writing. Each part of the release and license must be discussed and detailed, and this includes how a model’s name, image and likeness will be used.  A company may not deceive a model into signing the release and license by misstating how they will use the model’s name, image and likeness .  

An example includes a model who signed off on their image being used for an insurance company, but this company used this model while promoting insurance for AIDs victims which the model did not have.  The model was able to sue as a result. Another similar case was presented in which a model’s image was used for educational purposes claiming she was HIV+.  This specific model, Avril Nolan’s image was to be used for an article written about musical interests yet it became a stock image turned for completely different purposes. What went wrong here was when the photographer sold this model’s rights to The Division of Human Rights who then utilized this stock image as ‘representation’ for HIV+ patients. The result was emotional and mental distress for the model.  The reasoning given to take down such use of the image was because this representation of the model was inaccurate and gave her an image of having a “loathsome disease”.  The latter is quite wounding to actual HIV+ patients but the inaccuracy of such a statement made towards her stands.  She is not an HIV+ patient and such statements should not be made without consent of the person. Whether this also affected her relationships with family, intimate partners, etc. is unknown but most importantly her identity was stripped in this specific case. Fortunately, Nolan did not sign a release for her image to be sold or used, therefore her ability to sue and win the case was in her favor.