Nice try. Well, not really. Iggy pop did not state any of the things you say he states.
Really? I may just be a simple space chicken from Alpha Centauri, but;
Phineas said:
Congratulations! You now have a contract signed under duress.
Iggy Pop said:
That sure sounds to me like Iggy is saying what Phineas thinks he's saying.
"This" - meaning, "Renegotiating a contract while one party is tied up is considered a threat".
I got curious, so I hit the Google. Under California law, we have the following that I found on a law firm's website;
To claim the defense of signing under duress, a party must show that assent or agreement to the contract was induced by a serious threat of unlawful or wrongful action. He or she must also show that they had no reasonable alternative but to agree to the contract. Blackmail is an example of duress.
Here in California we also have the "reasonable person" thingy where laws are defined by what a "reasonable person" would assume. And, well, I imagine that it wouldn't be that hard to argue that your average woman would consider being tied up by someone who was then flipping the script a threat, and at the very least they have no reasonable alternative if they have to rely on the other party to, y'know, at the very least untie them.
And furthermore, back when this post was a thing, I did an impromptu poll on my Instagram. I said to my audience of roughly two thousand followers, "You go to a shoot. The producer decides to renegotiate your contract while you're tied up. Is this a threat?"
I don't remember the exact numbers (somewhere in the double digits), but with the exception of two dudes who were neither photographers/producers nor models,
everybody
(including a handful of models) responded that yes, it was a threat, which sounds to me like a "reasonable person" would come to the same conclusion. At the very least, if this case went to trial, all it would take is one woman on the jury and there's no way this dude is getting found not guilty.
So yeah, under California law I'm pretty confident in stating this would be considered duress, and that I'd be giving a serious side-eye to anyone who tried to argue that it wasn't. All the victim has to do is reasonably (there's that word again) believe they're in danger, and, barring the producer pulling a knife on her, this is as close as it gets in a situation like this.
Yes, he goes on to say "it's probably not a good idea regardless", but IMHO that doesn't negate the first half of the comment. And speaking personally, I can't imagine seriously taking the "it's legal, so it's ok" stance on something like this, especially not if you want to keep a steady supply of models coming in. You scare one enough, legally justified or not, and your ass is getting called out on Twixxer or whatever the hell it's called now and your business is done.
That said, the store's gone, so good riddance I guess?
Edit: As an aside... I know at least one model whose security escort(s) consist of some actually dangerous people. Like, convicted felons. She feels safe enough with me that she'll shoot at my place without bringing security at this point, but I can guarantee you that if I took that as a sign that it was ok to cross her, I'd be waking up in the trunk of a car, Pulp Fiction-style. Do
NOT fuck with these girls. You may get away with it in the moment, but if you screw with the wrong one you're going to wish it was just the legal system you were dealing with and they're not going to care if a court wouldn't consider it duress or not.