Woman sues Chipotle for $2 billion over photo

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

"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.

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

Chipotle ad image.

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …ating-promote-itself.html

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...

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.

filmuser wrote in post #18250225
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.

filmuser wrote in post #18250225
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

Unrecognizable.

She's going to lose.

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.

Intheswamp wrote in post #18250222
Chipotle ad image.

http://www.dailymail.c​o.uk …ating-promote-itself.html

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."

Mmm, burrito.

Unintended consequence or intended?

.

elitejp wrote in post #18250027
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?

.

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.

elitejp wrote in post #18250027
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.

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