|
Post by GirlyGhoul on Apr 10, 2014 13:00:53 GMT -4
I don't know if she can prove it was damaging to her career- but I don't know that she has to. They used her likeness without her consent and without compensation, so I think she can nail them on that alone. They basically used her as an unpaid and unwilling spokesperson for their product so now she's gonna sue their butts. They should have approached her for an endorsement deal and maybe could have worked something out. Such a thing might have still cost them several $mil, but would have left less egg on their faces.
p.s. jinx famvir! Race ya to Law School!
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Apr 10, 2014 13:10:56 GMT -4
Okay, legal minds, here's my question: How is this different from me saying I saw so and so at Target? And Target subsequently retweeting this same information. They aren't saying she's endorsing them. Just that she was at their store.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 23:07:34 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 13:22:43 GMT -4
The way the tweet was worded implied that KH "can't resist" going to their store. For all anyone knows, she had to go there because it was convenient at the time. If someone said they saw her at the store and she was actually there, that's fine. It's the implied endorsement that's a problem.
|
|
mementomori
Landed Gentry
Leaning Into Impermanence
Posts: 926
Feb 3, 2013 0:34:44 GMT -4
|
Post by mementomori on Apr 10, 2014 13:24:04 GMT -4
Hey, that's my Duane Reade! Other than that I got nothing. Good luck Heigl.
|
|
|
Post by GirlyGhoul on Apr 10, 2014 13:34:06 GMT -4
Yeah, I've seen other tweets where a celeb might mention a product they are using or place where they went and then will see a follow up tweet by that company stating 'Thank you for using our product' to the celeb and leaving it at that.
These folks were essentially saying 'Hey everybody! Why don't you shop at our store just like KH does!' They're trying to use her image holding one of their bags to draw in customers and bring in more business for themselves. For all anyone knows, she might have just snatched up their bag in order to collect dog poo.
|
|
|
Post by famvir on Apr 10, 2014 13:42:41 GMT -4
I finally went to the site, the tweet (from what I can see) included the pap pic of her with the bag with their drugstore name. So not a retweeting of someone else's tweet, it's a freakin commercial.
She also said all monies from the suit will go to her charity.
|
|
roseland
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,039
Mar 7, 2005 17:11:37 GMT -4
|
Post by roseland on Apr 10, 2014 13:45:50 GMT -4
Of course she has a leg to stand on. First off, we don't know what the behind the scenes machinations were like. Heigl had to meet with her attorney, decide on a plan, letters were probably exchanged between Heigl's attorney and the drug store's attorney. The drug store attorney probably didn't like the settlement Heigl was offering and so a lawsuit was filed. This takes time. Just because we didn't see an immediate response doesn't mean that things weren't happening.
Because you're not a multi-million dollar corporation using one of that corporation's publicity tools. If they had just tweeted that Katherine Heigl was spotted at one of their stores, they'd probably have been fine. But to use her picture and then use language that suggests Heigl is endorsing their brand is the same as taking an ad out in a paper.
As for the $6M figure, damages are assessed to try and act as a punishment severe enough to make a company unlikely to repeat their behavior. The point is to make it too expensive for the company to continue to use celebrity's images without their permission. If the amount was lower, the company could just factor in the cost of similar lawsuits as the cost of doing business. The point is to make it too expensive for the company to continue to use celebrity's images without their permission.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Apr 10, 2014 13:46:26 GMT -4
Okay, legal minds, here's my question: How is this different from me saying I saw so and so at Target? And Target subsequently retweeting this same information. They aren't saying she's endorsing them. Just that she was at their store. That's what I'm wondering too. It might be an interesting case in terms of Twitter and what constitutes an ad. I'm pretty sure if Duane Reade put an ad in a magazine, they wouldn't be allowed to use that picture of Heigl. But is a tweet containing factual information really an ad? What about if I'm an Etsy vendor and on my website I put up photos of celebrities who have been seen wearing the crocheted owl hats I sell? Can I be sued for $6 million too?
|
|
|
Post by famvir on Apr 10, 2014 13:55:48 GMT -4
Okay, legal minds, here's my question: How is this different from me saying I saw so and so at Target? And Target subsequently retweeting this same information. They aren't saying she's endorsing them. Just that she was at their store. That's what I'm wondering too. It might be an interesting case in terms of Twitter and what constitutes an ad. I'm pretty sure if Duane Reade put an ad in a magazine, they wouldn't be allowed to use that picture of Heigl. But is a tweet containing factual information really an ad? What about if I'm an Etsy vendor and on my website I put up photos of celebrities who have been seen wearing the crocheted owl hats I sell? Can I be sued for $6 million too? Actually, yes you can (be sued), if you don't have their express permission (I'd get it in writing). I deal with high end products for major corporations. I am not allowed to use my images of their officials in my product. I actually have a waver that gives me permission to use their image for advertisement purposes. One corp (who everyone here would recognize) had given me an unofficial C&D (unofficial because I didn't even bother to put the image up on my website. I'm not going THERE. I asked they said no... Firmly). I can say I worked with them, that they bought my product, but I can not put their picture up, and most definitely not make money off an ad because of our relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Neurochick on Apr 10, 2014 14:29:40 GMT -4
IMO, Heigl should thank Duane Reade because I'd forgotten the woman existed until I heard about this.
But I can get behind why she's suing. The issue is that the only thing an actor really owns is their image, so if someone uses their image without their permission (meaning without them getting paid), they're losing money.
|
|