Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News
Thread started 08 Jan 2017 (Sunday) 11:10
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Woman sues Chipotle for $2 billion over photo

 
PeterAlex7
Member
156 posts
Joined Dec 2015
Post has been edited 11 months ago by PeterAlex7.
Jan 12, 2017 22:35 |  #16

If it was me, i will start from $20 million




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,553 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Jan 19, 2017 15:22 |  #17

"The suit states that Chipotle bought the photo from Adams without checking to see if the photographer had obtained rights from the subject. "

Unless Chipotle has in hand a signed release from the photographer, which is all the "checking" they are legally bound to do...I certainly hope the court does not set a precedent that a client needs to "check" any deeper than having the release in hand.

If Chipotle went to press without a release, then it sucks to be them...they'd better settle right quick.

Companies have been playing fast and loose with property rights lately, such as stealing images from Flickr without being licensed by the photographer. I have no sympathies for them in such cases.




LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2008
Jan 20, 2017 00:51 |  #18

Another ridiculous lawsuit. Sorry but this needs to be thrown out.
If this really was a problem then it should have been addressed 10 years ago. There should be a statute of limitations on this nonsense. For ten years not a peap. So she essentially consented for ten years before deciding that she disagreed.
Sorry but its just too late

Secondly she should be suing the photographer. He is the one who took the picture and sold the picture (as im sure he got paid for his work).

Lets see her get 2 billion from the photog


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Jan 20, 2017 08:46 |  #19

Chipotle ad image. (external link)

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk ...ating-promote-itself.html (external link)

I didn't see the image posted so I found the link above and the article it comes from. Caldwell says her hair was photoshopped differently, beer bottles added, etc.,. To me the woman in the image somewhat looks like she's wearing an apron...makes me wonder if she wasn't an employee sitting at a table they used for staging table bussing from or maybe a "break" table. But, what do I know...


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
filmuser
Member
Joined Jul 2016
Jan 20, 2017 08:53 |  #20

There should be a sign in all buildings saying if you enter you give the us the right to use your image in advertising. Fixes problem.




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,553 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Jan 20, 2017 09:07 |  #21

filmuser wrote in post #18250225 (external link)
There should be a sign in all buildings saying if you enter you give the us the right to use your image in advertising. Fixes problem.

Too much law and too many court precedents against such one-sided "contracts."

Such verbiage on venue tickets has no legal power, either, which most people don't realize.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Intheswamp
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2013
South Alabama
Jan 20, 2017 09:11 |  #22

filmuser wrote in post #18250225 (external link)
There should be a sign in all buildings saying if you enter you give the us the right to use your image in advertising. Fixes problem.

I bet that lots of people would turn around and walk away if they saw such a sign so I don't see businesses doing that. BUT...many, many places are already videoing their customers via security cameras and the customers pay little attention to that...it has become a way of life. Now if the businesses started using those videos as promotional material I bet the roof would come down.

Ed


www.beeweather.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
jecottrell
Senior Member
325 posts
Joined Nov 2012
Tucson, AZ
Mar 01, 2017 21:45 |  #23

Unrecognizable.

She's going to lose.




LOG IN TO REPLY
05Xrunner
Goldmember, Flipflopper.
05Xrunner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
Pittsburgh PA
Mar 02, 2017 09:38 |  #24

when I first read the title. i thought they took a photo she took and used it. not a half ass grainy photo with her sitting inside that you can barely see anything. This is just another typical american thing lets sue for money we dont deserve to try and get a free ticket. I hope this is thrown out faster then it is brought in.


My gear
Canon 7D Mark II, Canon 35 f2 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 EX, Canon 100mm f2, Sigma 17-50 2.8OS, Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, Sigma 150-600 C, Shanny SN600C flash, Tascam DR-05 v2
Fuji X-T1, Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 OIS, Minolta 50mm 1.7 MD, Vivitar 28mm 2.8 MC, 135mm 2.8 MD

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,553 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Mar 02, 2017 10:26 |  #25

Intheswamp wrote in post #18250222 (external link)
Chipotle ad image. (external link)

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk ...ating-promote-itself.html (external link)

I didn't see the image posted so I found the link above and the article it comes from. Caldwell says her hair was photoshopped differently, beer bottles added, etc.,. To me the woman in the image somewhat looks like she's wearing an apron...makes me wonder if she wasn't an employee sitting at a table they used for staging table bussing from or maybe a "break" table. But, what do I know...

Seeing that picture, if that's actually the picture--I think she fails the "reasonable person" test, which by previous US precedent has required a "reasonable person" to say, "Yep, I can see that's definitely a picture of the woman sitting in the courtroom."




LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
PineBomb's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Psych Ward, East Wing, USA
Mar 02, 2017 11:07 |  #26

Mmm, burrito.

Unintended consequence or intended? ;-)a


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Mar 07, 2017 21:04 |  #27

.

elitejp wrote in post #18250027 (external link)
Secondly she should be suing the photographer. He is the one who took the picture and sold the picture (as im sure he got paid for his work).

This statement is completely wrong. Do you not understand the law?

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
tacphotog
Senior Member
tacphotog's Avatar
575 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Tacoma, WA
Jun 13, 2017 18:42 |  #28

Looking at that picture I would say that she is not recognizable so a release is not needed. If I was on a jury and shown that picture I would have to find against her. I don't see the foul.


Canon 5D Mark II, 60D,
24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 75-300, Tamron 17-50 f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,553 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Jun 13, 2017 20:40 |  #29

elitejp wrote in post #18250027 (external link)
Another ridiculous lawsuit. Sorry but this needs to be thrown out.
If this really was a problem then it should have been addressed 10 years ago. There should be a statute of limitations on this nonsense. For ten years not a peap. So she essentially consented for ten years before deciding that she disagreed.
Sorry but its just too late

Secondly she should be suing the photographer. He is the one who took the picture and sold the picture (as im sure he got paid for his work).

Lets see her get 2 billion from the photog

In US states, the legal onus is on how a photograph is used, not who took it. The photographer my have sold the copyright and not by law have any control over its subsequent use.




LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
Joined Mar 2008
Jun 14, 2017 07:24 |  #30

Cant say i understand the law but its still a guarantee that she is just following the money. If the bank accounts of the photog and chipotle were reversed im sure the lawyer would find a way to put the responsibilty on the photographer


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

9,539 views & 13 likes for this thread
Woman sues Chipotle for $2 billion over photo
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00141 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.11s
Latest registered member is FluffyHotcakes
1012 guests, 495 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017