Married Woman Sues Match.com For Using Her Photo In Ads
from the false-endorsement dept
The internet sure makes things tricky sometimes. A married woman named Anne Read Lattimore is suing a photographer and two websites concerning a photograph. Apparently a salon hired a photographer named Roger Kirby to help create a website. As part of this, Kirby photographed Lattimore after she got a haircut from the salon. No documents were signed, but Lattimore apparently gave permission to use the photo on the salon's website. Kirby went further and uploaded the image to Stock.xchng, the free stock photo site owned by Getty Images. From there a few others downloaded and used it -- including Match.com, who used her image in ads on Facebook, implying she was a member. As you might guess, this became problematic when people who knew Lattimore -- who, once again, is married -- saw her picture and were confused about her use of Match.com. In addition, she's suing another site, HealthCentral, which used her photo in a story about coming out as a homosexual. Lattimore notes that she is neither a homosexual, nor has she come out, as the article and photo imply.It seems like her real complaint is with the photographer who uploaded the images, and suggested they were free and available for a variety of uses. While the license on the stock photo site did say the image could not be used to endorse a product, it's difficult to see how Match.com or HealthCentral could have reasonably known that the photo was of someone who didn't want it used at all. It seems like attaching liability to those sites would open up huge potential liability for third parties using stock images. Of course, you could argue that such sites shouldn't use stock images in the first place, but that's a separate issue beyond the legal questions. In this case, though, she's alleging both defamation and misappropriation of likeness. The law may be on her side concerning the defamation claim (that may depend on the specific state law), but I do worry about the implications if that's the case.
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
Filed Under: anne read lattimore, false advertising
Companies: match.com
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You answered your own question
They used a photo from a site whose license says the photo can't be used to endorse a product. That is how they could reasonably know that it was a photo of someone who didn't want it used to endorse a product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if match.com is smart
That makes match.com look good, satisfies the woman as shes then basically a paid artist and everyone (except the lawyers) wins!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are making a claim that this woman is a member of their site, when she isn't. Regardless of whether the image was "free to use" or not - they should be sued anyway; just for different reasons.
Surely it cannot be legal to just trawl the internet for pictures of people and claim they are members of your dating site, enticing others to join!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel
Somewhere along the chain, someone misrepresented what this photo could be used for. According to TFA, it appears to be the photographer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libel
When they attempt to sue the stock photo site, wouldn't they just reply - hey, your not allowed to use the photos to endorse a product.....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Libel
Besides, the sites actively used the content in question so they would not be protected. The stock photo site would be protected by DMCA, but not Match.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Libel
The DMCA doesn't include any safe harbor from right of publicity claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel
Wrong website. That's Ashley Madison.
Nothing about Match.com implies cheating on your spouse. The only way you would think "cheating on her husband" is if you knew a-priori that she was married, which you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faux Pas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faux Pas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The photographer did not have permission to upload her photograph to ANY site and thus could NOT place a license on that photograph which allowed it to be used for ANY purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The details are too boring to get into, which I did once, but I'm not a photographer so I didn't bother to remember all of them. But the gist above is correct. The photo can be used almost willy nilly, but a model release form is needed for certain narrow situations (this being one).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just rewards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what? I agree with the person suing
In my world, stock photography is one of those little white lies that everybody uses to get the job done quickly. No signed model release gets the photographer in trouble real quick. Match.com violated the liscense of the stock photography site (which is usually a contract with the photographer) by imply endorsement and could be subjected to false advertising. The medical site does have a decent chance of being slammed for defimation.
The defendents all did dumb things - specifically, whoever is responsible for the imagery in the medical company and match.com did lazy, stupid things; the photographer releasing a photo to a stock site without having the model release was a really stupid thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know the terms of the two licenses quite well, and it is clear that both the uploader and the "downloader user" have paid short shrift to the respective licenses. What saddens me is that I have used the site as an uploader for many years, and have repeatedly commented to its principals that the licenses are very poorly crafted and leave the site vulnerable. On several occasions I even offered to draft pro bono new versions of each license, precisely to help keep the site out of hot water.
The licenses do at least contain an indemnification provision, giving it causes of action against both the uploader and downloaders in this case, but that is largely window dressing since photo uploads originate from all over the globe.
The fact it is a free stock site, not "royalty free" in the sense of not having to pay continuing royalties, might suggest to some that the inventory of photos are of questionable quality, but a perusal of what is available fairly demonstrates that this is hardly the case. Many of the photos easily rival (and exceed) what can be found on sites like Getty.
My familiarity with the site is because I have been an uploader for many years (never a downloader, and have enjoyed the experience because so many of my photos have been used for national and international ad campaigns. I still get a kick out of finding my photos appearing on ads and displays in the stores of major retailers that I frequent. Of course, I do not upload as a general rule photos of the type that are suitable for the types of uses alleged in the complaint.
The present matter notwithstanding, it is an excellent source for stock photos, many of which are hi-res that can easily be used in very large projects, up to and including poster size prints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of it seems straightforward to me
Photographer broke the model release with her. Pretty clear cut case with him
Match.com just got caught doing false advertising, breaking licensing agreements and depending on were/how photo was used her lawsuit for defamation and misappropriation of likeness could be appropriate (if they used it on one of their fake ad’s then they best settle fast)
As for Health Central, Using an unknown persons photo in an article about coming out as homosexual….they need to be just taken outside and shot for stupidly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#cite_note-12
- http://www.econsumer.gov/english/about/overview.shtm
This may help the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do we want? Context!
Can't find the match.com ad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The analogy would be more like WalMart making copies of software that was included in a patent lawsuit. Maybe they had no idea that the product they were getting was not properly procured, but they still knew that what they were doing was wildly inappropriate.
Even if they OWN the copyright, a company should not be able to pull up a photo of a random private citizen and attach it to their product. Or put it in an article that has nothing to do with them. It is both a violation of the person photographed and misleading to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case dropped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Match has been creating fake profiles for years.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]