Emily Ratjokowski is claiming that while making the “Blurred Lines” video with Robin Thicke, he fondled her. She made the allegations in the book My Body, set to drop next month. She wrote: “Suddenly, out of nowhere, I felt the coolness and foreignness of a stranger’s hands cupping my bare breasts from behind. I instinctively moved away, looking back at Robin Thicke.”

“He smiled a goofy grin and stumbled backward, his eyes concealed behind his sunglasses. My head turned to the darkness beyond the set. [The director, Diane Martel’s] voice cracked as she yelled out to me, ‘Are you okay?,’” the book states.

“I pushed my chin forward and shrugged, avoiding eye contact, feeling the heat of humiliation pump through my body,” she said. “I didn’t react – not really, not like I should have.”

Do you automatically have a right to your own image? Copyright is on trial as Ratajkowski continues to fight back against the photographer Robert O’Neil who sued her and her company—Emrata Holdings—for sharing a shot he took of her outside a Manhattan flower shop on IG Story.


Stories delete automatically after 24 hours. A New York federal judge, Analisa Torres, ruled that her IG Story could be a fair use of the image, and sent the matter to jury. The supermodel had moved for summary judgment, arguing that there isn’t a valid copyright in the photo, and O’Neil did not suffer damages. She also sought sanctions and attorney’s fees. O’Neil moved for summary judgment. 

Torres found the photo meets the “extremely low” standard for originality required for copyright protection, and is allowing O’Neil to seek damages, but she also found that it’s premature to determine whether or not the photo was fair use. Both were denied motions for summary judgment. 

“A reasonable observer could conclude the Instagram Photograph merely showcases Ratajkowski’s clothes, location, and pose at that time — the same purpose, effectively, as the Photograph,” writes Torres in the order, which is embedded below. “On the other hand, it is possible a reasonable observer could also conclude that, given the flowers covering Ratajkowski’s face and body and the text ‘mood forever,’ the Instagram Photograph instead conveyed that Ratajkowski’s ‘mood forever’ was her attempt to hide from the encroaching eyes of the paparazzi — a commentary on the Photograph. … And, the Court declines to opine on the newsworthiness of Ratajkowski’s battles with paparazzi compared to other events the documentation of which courts have found to be fair use.”

Torres also notes that the photo disappearing after 24 hours is a factor. “[I]t is much less likely that someone might take the Photograph from the Instagram Account rather than licensing it from Plaintiff, compared to that same risk if the Instagram Photograph was permanently on the Instagram Account,” states the order. “Moreover, assuming Ratajkowski wished to critique paparazzi, she chose the comparatively insubstantial option of Instagram Stories rather than the Instagram Account main feed.”

Torres also ruled that Emrata should not be a defendant in the case.

The photographer has also sued Gigi Hadid, a company named Ali G. over a Nick Jonas and Priyanka Chopra photo and others. 

Speaking of IG shares, Ratajkowski shared the first shot of her son on IG Friday in Stories.