| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2005 04:58:38 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 05:13:21 PM · #2 |
They shoulda gone to shutterstock : )
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 05:31:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by bod:
They shoulda gone to shutterstock : ) |
LMAO! |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 05:43:10 PM · #4 |
5% of profits is incredibly high. I wonder how they figured that. I won't be surprised if this gets reduced though. Funny story considering how household the image is.
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 17:43:35.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 05:49:18 PM · #5 |
| It is absolutely unbelievable that this guy didn't know he was on the label. At the very least, somebody he knew had to say something to him about it. It's just a story to milk money out of a big corporation. Another example of how our legal system is totally screwed up. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 06:17:08 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is absolutely unbelievable that this guy didn't know he was on the label. At the very least, somebody he knew had to say something to him about it. It's just a story to milk money out of a big corporation. Another example of how our legal system is totally screwed up. |
How do you figure? They never offered to comensate this man for all these years for his services. If I offered someone money to use their image if I had a use for it and then never told them I used it and never offered to pay them when I did use it I would be morally and legally wrong. In this case the coffee company is definatly in the wrong. If they weren't making money off the model's likeness then they never would have put it on the can in the first place. Why should he not be compensated?
“I do beans.â€
Message edited by author 2005-02-01 18:18:04.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 06:48:18 PM · #7 |
5% of the company's profits is absolutely ridiculous. You could never in a million years attribute 5% of that coffee's profits to the photo used.
It is most certainly a milking machine to obtain money from a large corporation...absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 06:56:45 PM · #8 |
If you get a model release is it something general or does it have to be tied to something specific. For instance if I took a picture of someone on the street, had them sign some simple release, and then went on to use it on a major national ad is that kosher? Or would I had to have gone back to that model to setup some additional contracts? How far does the release take you?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 07:16:50 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
It is absolutely unbelievable that this guy didn't know he was on the label. At the very least, somebody he knew had to say something to him about it. It's just a story to milk money out of a big corporation. Another example of how our legal system is totally screwed up. |
How do you figure? They never offered to comensate this man for all these years for his services. If I offered someone money to use their image if I had a use for it and then never told them I used it and never offered to pay them when I did use it I would be morally and legally wrong. In this case the coffee company is definatly in the wrong. If they weren't making money off the model's likeness then they never would have put it on the can in the first place. Why should he not be compensated?
“I do beans.†|
There's a huge difference between compensation and $15million!! |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 07:25:18 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dsb_mac:
If you get a model release is it something general or does it have to be tied to something specific. For instance if I took a picture of someone on the street, had them sign some simple release, and then went on to use it on a major national ad is that kosher? Or would I had to have gone back to that model to setup some additional contracts? How far does the release take you? |
Normally to use an image for commercial purposes that will generate money (like in this case) you will need a specific release and the model would need to get some sort of compensation.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 07:25:26 PM · #11 |
The high amount may well work against him in an appeal -- feelings, like those expressed here, of the company being gouged may lead to an overturning.
At the very lest, I would expect the amount to be lowered. After all, he and is attorney (in their offer of $4.8M to settle) stated what he considered it was worth.
David
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 07:28:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by dsb_mac:
If you get a model release is it something general or does it have to be tied to something specific. For instance if I took a picture of someone on the street, had them sign some simple release, and then went on to use it on a major national ad is that kosher? Or would I had to have gone back to that model to setup some additional contracts? How far does the release take you? |
That's not the point in this case. The man was a professional model who was photographed for the part and then never informed that they had chosen his image and resultantly never paid.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
It is most certainly a milking machine to obtain money from a large corporation...absolutely ridiculous. |
I will repeat, the man was a profesional model. His likeness was used for 19 years internationally without compensation. How much do you think they would have had to pay him or any other model over that amount of time had they been forthright and paid him up front? Certainly not 15M, but consider it would have been a small chunk plus interest, the man would be sitting on a nice retirement fund at the moment. Or perhaps had he been paid as he was supposed to he could have invested that money over the years and been quite wealthy by now.
On a parallel had someone asked me to take a picture for them and not paid me because they stated the image did not suit them and I found out years later that they had been using that image all along I would sue them simply based on the malice and deception involved. And I'm not a person who would sue under most circumstances.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 07:54:13 PM · #13 |
| Damage awards are not just tied to just compensation, but often include "punitive damages," which are a punishment intended to create an incentive for the corporation to reform its law-breaking ways. The other option would be to jail the corporate Directors ultimately responsible for the illegal activity, and I can guess that most of them would rather pony up a few million bucks to buy their way out of prison. |
|
|
|
02/01/2005 08:04:22 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That's not the point in this case. [ |
I know it's besides the pt here but was wondering about it in general.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2005 08:16:15 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by dsb_mac:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That's not the point in this case. [ |
I know it's besides the pt here but was wondering about it in general. |
A truly general release would let you do just about anything with it -- that's the whole point. But that's apparently not what the situation was in this case ...
Also, if I sold a photo to a multinational corporation for a few million bucks,* I personally would feel obligated to compensate the model anyway ... kind of the way the store owner who sells a winning lottery ticket gets a small cut too.
*It's considered rude to laugh until you've finished the whole paragraph : ) |
|
|
|
02/02/2005 02:11:35 PM · #16 |
Also mentioned here:
//www.overlawyered.com/archives/001964.html
Great site for this kind of thing |
|
|
|
02/02/2005 02:19:09 PM · #17 |
$15 million after taxes he will not be able to afford a lbs of beans :P
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 02:45:53 PM · #18 |
It's a right decision.
They never had the model release. It's another case of they shot some test shots, told the model they were not going to use him, and then snuck the photo in (partially his face too, so that you can't really recognize him as w whole) and not pay him because he probably ask for a large sum (which might be say $100k at the time, certainly cheaper tahn $15.6 million now).
5% of profits isn't unreasonable for a punitive damage case. If you don't do this, then the next thing the company will do is to take photographs from photographers without paying him (i.e. taking it from the web). How would you feel about that? eh? :)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 02:47:19 PM · #19 |
Bod, that wouldn't work either.
The thing isn't about using copyrighted photos -- i am sure the model release was signed for teh photo, but they're using HIM as their representative. It's different than a simple copyright infringement.
Originally posted by bod:
They shoulda gone to shutterstock : ) |
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 03:33:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by paganini:
Bod, that wouldn't work either.
The thing isn't about using copyrighted photos -- i am sure the model release was signed for teh photo, but they're using HIM as their representative. It's different than a simple copyright infringement.
Originally posted by bod:
They shoulda gone to shutterstock : ) |
|
I was just joking, but if that is the case what can you use a photo from Shutterstock for (assuming they sell images of people)? Could you use one on a company website? On a flyer/in a brochure? How far can you go before the model begins to represent a company?
And who would all this land on if it came to a $15 million lawsuit? Just the company, or would Shutterstock and the photographer get dragged into it?
(Excuse me if I'm way off the mark - I know nothing about how Shutterstock et al operate, or the terms under which they sell stock.)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 04:13:27 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bod:
I was just joking, but if that is the case what can you use a photo from Shutterstock for (assuming they sell images of people)? Could you use one on a company website? On a flyer/in a brochure? How far can you go before the model begins to represent a company?
And who would all this land on if it came to a $15 million lawsuit? Just the company, or would Shutterstock and the photographer get dragged into it? |
From the FAQ:
Where can I use ShutterStock photos?
[According to] our Licensing Terms you may use the photos on
web sites
multimedia presentations
broadcast video
on business letterhead
brochures
business cards
office decoration
decoration for restaurants
public areas
decoration in stores |
|
|
|
02/02/2005 05:34:16 PM · #22 |
Photographer can only claim on whether the photograph was used for certain things, but not the person's claim of use of "likeness". In other words, you can sue them for using it for print advertisements, etc. but not representation purposes.
That is, a photograph of a tree taken by you, have no "representation" value, but has copyright/usage issues.
A model, though, because he is a person, can claim that they didn't have permission for using HIM as their spokesmodel. For example, he probably signed the release for use of the photograph for some advertising campaign, but not to the extend of using it to promote taster's choice. In other words, Taster's Choice used HIM, the person, as representative for Taster's Choice because they put him on every thing they sell :)
It's not some mistake someone made up -- if they're going to put someone to the product, the lawyers have to get involved and somehow they missed the fact that there was NO contract with the model for this? doubtful..
Originally posted by bod:
Originally posted by paganini:
Bod, that wouldn't work either.
The thing isn't about using copyrighted photos -- i am sure the model release was signed for teh photo, but they're using HIM as their representative. It's different than a simple copyright infringement.
Originally posted by bod:
They shoulda gone to shutterstock : ) |
|
I was just joking, but if that is the case what can you use a photo from Shutterstock for (assuming they sell images of people)? Could you use one on a company website? On a flyer/in a brochure? How far can you go before the model begins to represent a company?
And who would all this land on if it came to a $15 million lawsuit? Just the company, or would Shutterstock and the photographer get dragged into it?
(Excuse me if I'm way off the mark - I know nothing about how Shutterstock et al operate, or the terms under which they sell stock.) |
|
|
