It's important to note the context here: she was done
with the shoot before they asked her to sign it. Aside from that being totally wrong (it's like handing someone a piece of food and demanding they pay afterwards), she was basically in little position to argue about it if she wanted to (without starting a legalese battle; she'd have to call in a lawyer or something) and it caught her unaware (there's a very real difference in people's moods before they start working, and afterwards - it's why these trickses tend to work well). It's not like reading a list of terms before you purchase a service or something. It was a "thanks, btw, sign this, please, and you can go" situation. This is why I blame the agency.
Steax wrote:Given the circumstances, I think it was entirely the agency being a dick. You do not make the material before asking them to sign a contract. It's true that this person should have been more aware about legal requirements and standards and how to smell suspicious activity, but she was volunteering for the effort (which means she isn't necessarily used to how the process goes). The burden of acting professional and lawful falls on the agency.
Oh indeed and it'll likely hold up in court for that kind of reason. Really though, unless the article is just poorly written, it doesn't even imply the deceived her into signing it. It says she didn't read it and assumed it was something to do with not using her full name. Now if they TOLD her it had to do with that I would imagine that she would have said "they told me it was only about not using my full name so I signed it". Which is what lead me to the question of "who blindly signs something without reading it OR knowing at all what its about"
edit: I agree that most people will not read a full contract out. But as I stated above the article makes it look like she just guessed at what she was signing.
Yeah, I see that. Well, articles exist to be sensational, and... yeah. I do think it was poorly written.