Woman Claims Yahoo Owes Her $20 Million For Using Her Photo
from the say-what-now? dept
Late last year, New England Patriots star quarterback Tom Brady sued Yahoo after he found out that Yahoo was using his photograph in an advertisement for their fantasy sports service. Whether or not you think Yahoo can make an argument for using the photograph, you can sort of see where Brady is coming from. As a superstar sports player, he commands a ton of money for endorsing products, and people could interpret his image as endorsing Yahoo's service. However, it's hard to make much sense of some random woman in Ohio deciding to sue Yahoo for $20 million over a similar infraction. Apparently, the woman discovered a photo of herself being used in the sign-up confirmation email for Yahoo's email system. She's retained 3 separate law firms to push the case forward, claiming her right of publicity was violated. Of course, a right of publicity usually is to protect famous people who's likeness actually has commercial value (such as, say, Tom Brady). It's not clear what sort of commercial advantage Yahoo took from this woman. If they didn't use her photo, they could have used one of a million other generic photos of random people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
feel they deserve to get free.
Sure, Yahoo could've used any of a number of other photos, but *WHY* do you believe that they can use them for free? If it's clearly the woman's likeness, and Yahoo is conducting buessiness by using it, then she should be compensated.
TANSTAAFL, doncha know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excessive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excessive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excessive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excessive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excessive
Geez -- you can sue anybody for anything and claim any amount. If it actually gets a judge, he will likely tell them to settle. If it goes to a jury -- she could get anything from ten bucks to a half of Yahoo.
Likely this is just posturing to get Yahoo to settle quicker, and for a few more bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how much
The question is for how much and the answer is for the average compensation an unknown would recieve for such use, plus a small punative award if Yahoo had no reason to believe it owned the right to use her likeness. If Yahoo purchased the rights to the photo from a photographer then her claim is against the photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how much
I doubt Yahoo just went and searched for random photos of people to use for free in their marketing campaign. No big company is that dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how much
Who is Yahoo to decide that this particular woman's picture should have a particular value? Perhaps she's been stalked before, and doesn't want her image out in public? Perhaps she's in the witness protection program? There's all kinds of reasons that someone would put a high value on their privacy, and for Yahoo to ignore it is just stupid. There's probabaly 1000 people on Yahoo's payroll who would have done it for free..
Granted, I think 20m is crazy, perhaps companies will do things on the up-and-up if they know there are repercussions to this sort of crap.
-Steve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
c'mon, this is yahoo we are talking about.
Yahoo should have to pay her something, i may be crazy but I'm guessing the 20m will come down a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define Famous
There's plenty of people these days on my telly who seem to consider themselves famous celebrities (although I think once you're past the H list you're pushing it)
If anything people who go out of the way to shove themselves in front of cameras every 5min have less of a claim to breach of privacy than this lady rather than more
Sue for 20million, settle for 1 - seems pretty standard US court strategy to me
Post 4 may have a point though if Yahoo did not realise they were using an 'unreleased' photo
Go girl ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULA???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just has to be said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think about it this way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flickr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
high time
"It's high time that these people start paying for things that they
feel they deserve to get free."
Oh, wait, he said "corporations" not "people." Makes a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should slap this woman!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should slap this woman!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone should slap this woman!! - Or not
Some people say she should sue the photographer as the person who holds the right to the photo, but I didn't see any mention that a photographer owned the right to the photo and not her. I would assume that she owns the right to her own image in this case, and any use of it by Yahoo is Yahoo's fault.
Some people may not like the amount, but it probably is a high market to make sure she actually makes something out of this. Also, one person mentions that you can buy similar photos for a buck, but that's actually false. Even at stock photo sites like istockphoto, if the picture is used or shown (or expected to be shown) more than 100,000 times, then you need to get an exclusion extended right to you.
I think most people's awe at this is more a lack of ignorance in how professional photography and modeling work, and just because someone is famous or not has little impact. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean they have rights everyone else doesn't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should slap this woman!!
This is just another example of how litigous the greedy people of the world have become. This woman needs to loose the lawsuit and Yahoo needs to sue her for the lawyers fees!! I am so sick and tired of people in this country suing everyone and anyone with the sole purpose of getting rich and not having to work for it. This woman suffered in absolutely no way what so ever!! The courts need to start making examples of people who bring frivolous lawsuits and they should start here. It is sad that so many of you posting agree that this woman should sue and get money, you guys are just as much of the problem as she is, you are condoning frivolous lawsuits that backlog our courts. All I hope is she looses and they make her cover the court costs!!! I mean have the people of this world gotten so lazy that they are all just looking for ways to make a quick buck instead of working hard for what they have?!?!
=========================
You took the words right out of my mouth. You want to sue someone? You better be able to show you suffered significantly. No blood...no broken bones...no lawsuit. Now go back to work...or get a job and quick trying to figure out how to get rich quick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I do not think 20 million is a reasonable amount, I do not blame the woman for the suit at all assuming she never signed a release form with the photographer allowing commercial use of the photo.
There are zillions of stock photos which can be used for a buck or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, then she should sue the photographer for selling her image without her consent. You can not sue a company that obtained an image in legal ways (i.e. pay the photographer for the picture) when the fault lies with the seller (i.e. the photographer).
I guess it is pretty unclear how Yahoo obtained this image. If anyone can dig up some dirt on how Yahoo got the image in the first place, post a link on the forum. I'd be interested in reading it.
How Yahoo obtained the photo is what will determine if this woman is entitled to any money at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using Constructs instead of real people
An example is the Ivory Soap box cover in the 1970s had a picture of Marilyn Chambers before she starred in the pornographic movie "Behind the Green Door" which made her infamous.
After that Ivory used an artist's portrait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should Have Asked For More
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember the lady who got 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts from McDonalds coffee spilling in her lap? Her initial award, while huge as a single figure, amounted to the profits MickeyDee makes from coffee in a single day. Unfortunately the corporate giant was able to have that reduced significantly on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
things the lady doesn't "deserve" $20 million.... it's not a matter of what
anyone deserves, it's what the market will bear.
Think of it this way: Do you think Bose deserves several hundred dollars for their Wave Radio? No, they don't, but that's what the market will bear.
In this case, look at it from another perspective: How much money
does Yahoo earn? How much did they earn from the use of her picture?
She should, at the very least be entitled to a portion of the money that
Yahoo earned by using her picture, and then she should get further damages
for unauthorized use of her image -- something punitive enough to cause
corporations to pause in the future before they think they can get away
with using whatever they want for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. "it's what the market will bear" - There is no "market for law suites. This is a punitive issue to be settled by the courts and there are legal precedents for amounts of money to be paid out should she win her case.
2. It doesn't matter how much $ Yahoo earns. There are legal standards that have to be met for her to win her case. one of which is that she has to prove that her likeness has commercial value.
3. It has not yet been proven that Yahoo earned anything because of the use of her picture. If she can prove that they did, then more power to her. But, my assumption would be that this would be a tough case for her to win.
Giving someone $20 million because their picture was taken is a terrible precedent to have set.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky Lotto Ticket to fame and riches
Logic dictates that Yahoo's Marketing Department (internal or outsourced) was probably using a royalty-free service to procure "Product-Modeling"-photographs. Additionally, (but unlikely) there may be the possibility that Yahoo sanctioned a yahoo-specific shoot.
Either way, I'm skeptical that the talent did not know the intent of using the photography, with the talent's intent of getting into the lucrative business of product modeling. So someone decided to use your photo. That's great, and the talent could have used this to catapult their career.
So yes, it would need to be established how yahoo fits in the chain of custody for the photograph.
$20M for a picture, or series of pictures, regardless of procurement method, is quite outrageous... Even if the talent is a no-talent hack who could not break into the modeling industry. But the ask of $20M is very self rightous, and a mirror on the person's character.
It's probably this level of self-absorbtion that other companies never decided to work with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lucky Lotto Ticket to fame and riches
Shannon is a self-absorbed trainwreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo using a photo of a non-Yahoo employee in public correspondence without asking permission - wrong
Woman demanding the ridiculous amount of $20 million in compensation - also wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a company gambles and uses someone's image without authorization (giving them ammunition to demand an inflated price) and they get caught it's their own damn fault.
Companies need to be sent a message that they cannot use someone's image without authorization. If they do they should face the consequences. In this case, it's an expensive lesson. Either way, Yahoo knows better and I have zero sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Basically, there is fault on both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo DID NOT uses one of a million other individuals, they used HER photo and they, just like with Tom Brady, need to secure the right to do so. Period.
If companies could use anyone's photo for commercial gain without authorization what would stop someone from using your face for a jock-itch ad. I'd be pissed if it was me. This is blatant infringement on individual rights and has NOTHING to do with how famous someone is – especially since fame is a relative thing (she might be famous for something; so because YOU haven't heard of her means her argument is moot? That's 100% bullshit there Mike).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There has arisen a very bad practice with on-line advertisers and such just using random image grabs off the web for their promotional images. Yahoo shouldn't do it in the same way AdultFriendFinder should not be able to get away with using none released images like they do.
The web is getting mature now and it's time for some of the wild wild west stuff to go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cry a river, build a bridge and get over it.
First off, these things should be on a case by case basis. It's not jock-itch we're talking about, it's a simple welcome email from yahoo. Our legal system isn't a get-rich-quick game show and it shouldn't be used as such. She needs to show damages equalling 20 *million* dollars _plus_ part of what they made from the picture _plus_ her court costs. Also, she shares her name with an unfortunate young girl who was killed on a car crash, and that young girl has more hits on google than this litigation whore.
As far as I know, no one decided on yahoo because of a picture they wouldn't even see until *after* they signed up, so the picture itself didn't actually make ANY money. As for the 20 million, well, seeing as the only claim to fame this woman has is this lawsuit, using her image certainly didn't hurt her career and the arguement could be made that it could have helped it.
I think she should get slapped down and told to get a job-- and maybe call her a hippie for good measure. :)
An interesting side note, it seems the picture in question has another person in it, should we be expecting another childish lawsuit again soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Solution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, her being a non celebrity should actually improve her case. It won't improve the $ amount but for the ability to prove she should not have been thrust into the limelight without an agreement with yahoo. Not to mention that she could be suing for emotional distress for the thrust this limelight has caused. While you or I may not understand that it does not invalidate what it could have done to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least there is some intelligent people here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then, they should have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legal precedent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah
For example, when you go to a theme park such as Six Flags there is some fine print on the back of the ticket you purchase which says something along the lines of "By entering the park you acknowledge the fact that your image or likeness may be used in advertisement"
Hooray for ignorant people trying to get their free lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Royalty Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
double standards... alive and well!
=====================
I don't understand why everyone
things the lady doesn't "deserve" $20 million.... it's not a matter of what
anyone deserves, it's what the market will bear.
=====================
However... when the judiciary gets involved, it's no longer just a question of "what the market will bear", I think. Using the courts brings "coercion" into the game.
Still, I think it's funny that when corps use coercion to get their way, it's called "cut-throat business"... when individuals do it, they're called all sorts of nasty things. LOL!
Either way, I think we need a lot more details to know what to think about this particular case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: double standards... alive and well!
And what the hell is this all about? "Still, I think it's funny that when corps use coercion to get their way, it's called "cut-throat business"... when individuals do it, they're called all sorts of nasty things. LOL!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
was it really her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who owns the photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Who owns the photo
Since I highly doubt she and her friend photographed themselves (the don't look smart enough to get the lighting and set the auto-timer) then a photographer was involved and the photo is their property. Then can do whatever they want with THEIR photo and the subjects can try all they want, but they do not own the property.
There is the other issue of is she robbed of $20 million since her photo was used on Yahoo? No way, IF there was no photographer involved (again, highly unlikely) then she can only sue for what the picture would be worth, regardless of who uses her photo (think, if some unknown website used her photo would she sue for $20 million?) A celebrity photo can sell for thousands of dollars, but I've never heard of a photo selling for $20 million dollars since that's not its worth.
Finally, I agree she's a gold digger. If she was a true model, she sure wouldn't care Yahoo used her picture since its great publicity. She's just some dumb woman who thinks she can weasel money out of Yahoo. She's not even worth the paper it would cost to print that photo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Who owns the photo
While the photographer owns the rights to the image, without a release, the photo is commercially useless. Yes, the subject has no copyright... but the photographer has no release. A stalemate, of sorts.
I don't think this woman's suit has anything to do with the photo's copyright. It's her own image that was improperly used.
We don't know if the woman forgot about signing a release... I'm sure many photographer-model relationships involve blanket releases. It would be tedious to have to release every single photo one at a time.
Maybe the photographer uploaded the photo to a stock agency and mistakenly (or otherwise) checked off the box that says "release available" (etc). Maybe the release is forged.
Maybe Yahoo just grabbed the photo from some online gallery without any regard for copyright or release.
Lots of maybes. One thing for sure... an image such as this one must have a model release to be used in this kind of advertising.
Who's liable? I think that depends on how Yahoo got the image. IANAL, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo email gal
20mil seems excessive compared to how much advertising revenue Yahoo has generated during the time it allegedly exploited the woman's image? I couldn't say...
I signed up for yahoo mail and all I got was a bunch of spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yahoo email gal
I think that is up to debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yahoo email gal
Don't post if your not going to bother reading the issue at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I kinda agree with her...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the fuck ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 cents
...was it a centerfold spread?
...a full blown multi-page nudie layout?
...this is gonna put 'poor Hef' outta business.
(Quick, someone take a picture of her when the judge bitch-slaps her; then, post it here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sk8r is right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yahoo! is a commercial organization, and they have NO right to use the likeness or image of someone without their permission, even if it's your non-famous next-door neighbor.
She most certainly won't get $20M, but considering that the photo is used on all of Yahoo's mail logins and considering the wide popularity and the revenue Yahoo! generates from advertising on its mail service, why should Yahoo! not share at least a portion of that with her? Yahoo! isn't a charity or a non-profit organization. They rake in billions in revenue for the sake of their shareholders and also spend billions to legally license software and other intellectual property for their commercial purposes.
Most of all, this isn't some idiot who blames an automobile manufacturer for their injuries when they didn't do up their own seatbelt. It's her likeness, it has commercial value to a commercial organization because they used it, and now it's time to pay up. Not $20M, but it will be something far less that is not immaterial and I'm sure it'll be settled out of court long before it reaches even the discovery stage.
And one more point - it's LOSE, not LOOSE. At least if you're trying to make an intelligent argument, know how to spell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She probably isn't as cute as Brady, and wears less makeup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question the source
My stock agency (the really big one) requires a specific model release for every image that is clear on what rights are granted and the compensation of the "talent."
It looks like some people have jumped to the conclusion that this photographer submitted the image to an agency without a release. If she was paid (even it was a nominal fee plus royalties from the image sales) and signed a release - a large law firm may think they can overturn the release stating - using an argument that she did not understand, etc, etc.
If she signed a release - than the photographer is in good standing. If she did not - well, then he/she is in trouble.
I would not rush to judgement on this issue. Maybe she thinks she will be awarded a decent sum of money because she never expected the image to be used this way - or that it was used in manner that she did not expect.
I've had an image used by Yahoo on for a story on balding. They chose the image from my collection at the agency. (which was fully released and the photograph is of my assistant - who happens to be bald.) For two days my assistant received a bunch of calls from friends who saw it on Yahoo, and he made some extra money from the image being in the collection. But we are not talking huge money by any stretch. For the photographer or talent.
Just trying to give another site to this story/issue. If a professional photographer is submitting to the big agencies and is under contract, they are required to submit a model release with the image. (The three stock agencies I am with require them - two with submission - the other - a statement that the release is available if needed.)
If this was a professional shoot - (she was/is a model) - I would say most likely, that a release was signed - either the modeling agency release or the photographers release.) If this was a "test/portfolio shoot" and a release was not signed and the image submitted to an agency like the smaller Royalty Free/Microstock agency - then their may not be a release.
The key is - people have concluded that she is in the right, the photographer should be sued, etc, etc. Without knowing the facts behind the case, these comments are pure speculation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question the source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She is now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BETA SIGNUP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yahoo photo
point: there exist here a double standard wherein it is wrong for individuals to sue corporations, but okay for corporations to sue. i know you ask what i mean, and i'm glad you asked.
what is the reason a persons image is not valued like their intellectual property? why can you use my photo, but i cannot share software/music/movies/tv reception that i legally purchase (pray hard the oil companies do not try this dance!)? is 20mil. excessive? doesn't matter, the question is really will this case open the door of corporate exploitation wider, or will we have enough (left ambiguous intentionally)?
either way, unless we've actually met this woman, could we at least keep our descriptions civil? bitch and whore are probably not on her resume, nor yours nor mine.
try really hard to have a day that doesn't suck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAN NOT GET THE NEW YAHOO PHOTO
i have written any month to YAHOO PHOTO that i would like to get the new yahoo photo 3 Beta. NO ONE can help.. I GIVE UP... Kisses, Mario
[ link to this | view in chronology ]