NEW YORK – According to model Nicole Forni, she and photographer Joshua Resnick had a deal: The pictures Resnick took of a lingerie-clad Forni during a photo shoot in January 2013 were not to be used in an “adult-oriented, pornographic or obscene manner.”

The problem for Forni is the written agreement she signed with Resnick apparently contains no such limitation on the distribution of the images.

One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to know discrepancies between oral and written contracts have a tendency not to end well. It’s probably also safe to say disputes between models and photographers are not exactly rare in the adult industry – or in any other sector of photography, for that matter.

In this instance, the reason the misunderstanding between photographer and model has come to public light is Forni’s images did, in fact, wind up on adult websites, box covers and escortin forums.

To say Forni is less than thrilled would be an understatement. Outraged and embarrassed, she has filed a lawsuit against Resnick, accusing the photographer of breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent inducement.

“She was mortified,” said Forni’s attorney, Michael O’ Shea. “Modeling is being able to promote yourself with a certain amount of respect.”

While one might dispute O’ Shea’s rather limited definition of “modeling,” you can certainly understand Forni’s horror over unwittingly becoming the cover girl for titles such as Horny Housewives of Dubai and Vixen in Vegas.

Of themselves, however, outrage and embarrassment aren’t actionable legal claims. In order to recover damages from Resnick, Forni must persuade a court the verbal agreement Resnick allegedly violated actually existed in the first place, and further, that the verbal agreement should override the contradicting terms of the written contract she signed. This will be no easy task, given the undisputed existence of a written instrument covering the agreement between Forni and Resnick, legal experts say.

“Cases like this reinforce the need to use proper legal documentation in the production of any media,” attorney and First Amendment expert Larry Walters told YNOT. “We’ve seen countless cases where models claim that producers have exceeded the scope of how they thought the content – or their persona – would be used. But in the absence of a clear, written contract, you’re left with a swearing match in court.”

Lacking any clear proof of the oral agreement other than her own testimony, Walters said the jury’s decision will be “based on who sounds more convincing, and who shows up for jury duty that day.”

Regardless of which party prevails, Walters said the case represents a clear lesson for people who find themselves on either end of such agreements: Put everything in writing, down to the very last contract term, spell out every aspect of the agreement in detail, and never rely on oral contracts.

“Verbal agreements and free internet legal forms won’t cut it,” Walters said. “There are many different categories of rights that can be transferred (or retained) in a media production, and both parties need to reduce all the details to writing.”

Had Forni and Resnick taken such an approach, presumably Forni wouldn’t be the new face of Middle Eastern porn, and Resnick wouldn’t be getting dragged into court. Irrespective of who eventually prevails in this case, avoiding the whole mess in the first place would have been the biggest win for both parties.