MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: sgoodwin4813 on January 06, 2017, 11:09

Title: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on January 06, 2017, 11:09
Here's a reason why the agencies might be over careful with releases:

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/woman-suing-chipotle-for-more-than-2-billion-over-use-of-photo (http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/woman-suing-chipotle-for-more-than-2-billion-over-use-of-photo)

That is scary - way over my business insurance!  Apparently the image was sold and used in advertising without a release - not very bright.  The amount of course is ridiculous but I assume some lawyers are seeing deep pockets and going for gold.  Fortunately nobody's ever been sued by an isolated tomato AFAIK ...
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 06, 2017, 22:30
This is why I won't sell a photo of a person without a release.  Its possible that the photog sold it as editorial.  In that case only Chipotle would be at fault.  That said, this woman is delusional if she thinks a jury will give her anywhere near that amount.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 06, 2017, 23:15
Only in America!
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: angelawaye on January 06, 2017, 23:22
Honestly, I'm afraid to hire any model because I'm so afraid they will sue me when their photo gets misused and it happens! Even opted out of "sensitive use", they (buyers) still do what they want.

But the photographer should have never submitted the photo as commercial without the release.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 07, 2017, 07:09
a few points:

- the photographer seems to have sold the photo directly to chipotle and not through a stock media agency

- the lawsuit amount ($2 billion) is for all chipotle profits during the time period even though the photo was only used 2x in 2 or 3 local markets

- it doesn't say how the photo was used (promotional materials could mean anything) so the article does not mention whether the use was legal or not

the case number is 1:16-cv-03175 Caldwell v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: memakephoto on January 07, 2017, 09:53
Honestly, I'm afraid to hire any model because I'm so afraid they will sue me when their photo gets misused and it happens! Even opted out of "sensitive use", they (buyers) still do what they want.

But the photographer should have never submitted the photo as commercial without the release.

Where does the article mention a stock photo agency? What the article says is that the photographer was inside the Chipotle's restaurant shooting photos of patrons, with or without their knowledge, and asking them to sign release forms on their way out. He would have had to have Chipotle's permission to shoot inside the restaurant (otherwise staff would have confronted him) so it suggests he was hired by the company.

My personal guess at the most plausible explanation is that the shot of this woman was accidentally included in a batch of shots vetted as safe for use by the company's legal department and sent to the design firm that handles their promotional material. For whatever reason they chose to use it thinking it was safe.

As for the amount of the suit, whenever anyone sues anyone else they always ask for more than is reasonable. The civil law process is more like haggling than law. Plaintiff asks for 2 billion, company counter offers 100 thousand and they go back and forth until they reach a sum they both find acceptable and they settle. That's what will happen here. The woman is after money and it will never see the inside of a courtroom.

That sad thing is the photog is probably the one that will take the blame and end up unemployed.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: angelawaye on January 07, 2017, 13:20
My apologies (above), I thought it was submitted to an agency ...
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: FlowerPower on January 07, 2017, 14:31
Honestly, I'm afraid to hire any model because I'm so afraid they will sue me when their photo gets misused and it happens! Even opted out of "sensitive use", they (buyers) still do what they want.

But the photographer should have never submitted the photo as commercial without the release.

Double agree + +

We can't control misuse, but we need to fear it. Photographer thought he could make a sale by cheating. Sounds like some microstock who will do anything for a quarter. We wonder why agencies have so many restrictions that don't make sense or aren't same as the law. This is why.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: etudiante_rapide on January 07, 2017, 19:58
before my point, i like to say it was both the mistake or negligence of photographer and chipotle.
but the amount the lady is suing is debatable. it would make sense if she were Angelina Jolie, etc..
and that she brought in big profits for Chipotle with her image of her as a customer.

but let's say chipotle produced proof that they never made a largest profit after her photo was used.. iow, the business never made more than it did last year, or maybe even last five years,etc..
i doubt if the judge would award her anything.

just my layman's opinion. but then again, in USA anything is possible, which is why they sue you even for a slipping on a banana peel, or had an accident because a snail walked in your way LOL
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 07, 2017, 19:59
How do you know they did submit it as commercial without a license? They may be employed directly by the company, they handed over all the shots and made it specifically clear there was no release for the lady in that shot. Maybe, maybe not... but it's impossible to say for certain if the photographer was at fault.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 02:42
before my point, i like to say it was both the mistake or negligence of photographer and chipotle.
but the amount the lady is suing is debatable. it would make sense if she were Angelina Jolie, etc..
and that she brought in big profits for Chipotle with her image of her as a customer.

but let's say chipotle produced proof that they never made a largest profit after her photo was used.. iow, the business never made more than it did last year, or maybe even last five years,etc..
i doubt if the judge would award her anything.

just my layman's opinion. but then again, in USA anything is possible, which is why they sue you even for a slipping on a banana peel, or had an accident because a snail walked in your way LOL
In a fair world I'd agree id award her model fees at best......its not because of her face in particular that people go there but I guess the company might just pay a few thousand for her to go away......
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: increasingdifficulty on January 08, 2017, 05:34
In a fair world I'd agree id award her model fees at best......

In what way is that fair? If the only punishment for doing stuff without permission would be to pay what it would cost to get permission no one in the entire world would pay for anything...

Anyway, of course she won't get $2 billion - you always aim incredibly high to get headlines and a nice settlement. She could get $1 million or so.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 08, 2017, 06:06
I'd take it to court, ask her if she truly believes that all profits were as a result of her photo... and when she says 'yes', I'd concede and give her 2.2bn. I would then immediately launch a counter-claim making it clear that if her image resulted in all profits, then surely it also resulted in all loses as well. I'd then get some creative accounting on the go for shrinkage, theft, depreciation of assets, increase in costs, amortization etc so that it comes to 2.3bn.

A bit risky, but hey... I don't own the place, so it's not like it would happen!

Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 06:58
In a fair world I'd agree id award her model fees at best......

In what way is that fair? If the only punishment for doing stuff without permission would be to pay what it would cost to get permission no one in the entire world would pay for anything...

Anyway, of course she won't get $2 billion - you always aim incredibly high to get headlines and a nice settlement. She could get $1 million or so.
Because I'd be taking account the ridiculous amount she's suing for and the waste of court time...should really be settled out of court if the company make a reasonable offer. The company are no doub't already racking up legal fees and risk being awarded costs. I think paying model fees at top end "supermodel" rates would be fair unless the picture is somehow demeaning and degrading.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 08, 2017, 07:10
I'd take it to court, ask her if she truly believes that all profits were as a result of her photo... and when she says 'yes', I'd concede and give her 2.2bn. I would then immediately launch a counter-claim making it clear that if her image resulted in all profits, then surely it also resulted in all loses as well. I'd then get some creative accounting on the go for shrinkage, theft, depreciation of assets, increase in costs, amortization etc so that it comes to 2.3bn.

A bit risky, but hey... I don't own the place, so it's not like it would happen!

Really. So in your mind it's OK not only to take people's pictures on the sly and use them without permission, but also to drag them through court for years to make sure they get no money and are made to suffer financial losses by having to hire attorneys to represent them.

Nice.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 08, 2017, 09:50
If she'd requested a reasonable amount of money, then no, that probably wouldn't be fair. But the excessive amount she's asking for is ridiculous and pretty much disgusting. It's so far from the reality of what she should be getting as compensation, that she just loses all credibility for me, and she's basically taking the p**s.

I was joking of course. In reality, I would pay to make her go away.

Permanently ;)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on January 08, 2017, 11:56
Chipotle and possibly the photographer are obviously in the wrong here, but the image apparently was not used in a defamatory way so I don't think she has grounds for much of a suit, other than to have them stop using the image.  How did using the image harm her?  Did she lose any money over it?  Lose her job?  Did her spouse find out she was clandestinely eating at Chipotles and divorce her?  Unless she can prove using the image somehow harmed her then I think she should be due normal modeling fees and some small additional amount for her trouble but that's it.  Apparently the lawyer representing her thinks they can get more so are going for big numbers, hoping Chipotles will settle to make it go away.  And they probably will, especially after another recent lawsuit against Chipotles because their supposedly 300-calorie meal made people feel too full (probably because they were really over 900 calories).  I think companies should be held responsible but the amounts are ridiculous - it's just a big racket for lawyers.  It will be interesting to see how this photography one plays out

BTW, the calorie lawsuit is a class action that they want to apply to anyone who has eaten at Chipotles during the past four years.  I don't think I've been to one the past four years so can't apply - I stopped going there after my first visit when I found out that one of the things they don't have is any chipotle in their salsas.  Talk about false advertising!  If I was a Millenial I would have filed a lawsuit over my great disappointment at finding out they don't actually sell anything containing their namesake spice.  Of course, being from a different generation I solved that problem the old-fashioned way by just not going there any more instead.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 12:05
Yep to me the clue is in the word "Damages" but there seem to be some big bucks to be made in the US on these type of cases
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 08, 2017, 12:40
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 12:44
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.
Yeah the alcohol slant was an interesting one........
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 08, 2017, 12:45
Chipotle and possibly the photographer are obviously in the wrong here, but the image apparently was not used in a defamatory way so I don't think she has grounds for much of a suit, other than to have them stop using the image. 


That's the entire point of using a release.  You're not allowed to just use any image you like of a non-released person for promotional usage until you get caught and then you just have to stop.  http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: increasingdifficulty on January 08, 2017, 14:01
Do you seriously think you have to lose your job, get kicked out of your apartment etc. for it to be considered damages?

She was made the face of Chipotle without consent - that's the damage! Just because she didn't lose her job it doesn't make it right. And regarding the enormous amount, sure it's ridiculous, but the only thing that these companies understand is money. You can only hurt them with money. It's the one and only way to prevent unethical behavior.

Some (most) people don't want to be models and seen in advertising. Saying they should just be given a model payment is just ridiculous and an insult...

---

Extreme example: A company has placed a GPS tag on you without you knowing and they are using the (anonymous) data to create an app to predict movements. 10 years later you find out and all they offer is 10 years worth standard salary for a voluntary test person... That is not how things work.

---

Here's another good example of using a picture in advertising without consent: http://petapixel.com/2010/04/10/greek-man-sues-swedish-company-over-turkish-yogurt/ (http://petapixel.com/2010/04/10/greek-man-sues-swedish-company-over-turkish-yogurt/)

Thankfully, the man was awarded more than a model fee...
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 15:27
"The face of Chipolata" as far as I can see she was on a couple of leaflets hardly the equivalent of Ronald McDonald anyway I guess that what courts are for. What was the outcome of the case you posted btw?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: increasingdifficulty on January 08, 2017, 17:18
They settled. He got around $190,000.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 08, 2017, 17:40
Thanks good result but his face was on the front of every one of their pots so upper end I guess
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: increasingdifficulty on January 08, 2017, 17:53
True, but Chipotle is also a much, much bigger company than Lindahls (70 times higher revenue).
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2017, 18:34
Thanks good result but his face was on the front of every one of their pots so upper end I guess
I guess it would depend on the model release used, for example, iS's specifically says, "I acknowledge and agree that I have consented to publication of my
ethnicity(ies) and gender as indicated below, but understand that other ethnicities or gender may be associated with  me by the Photographer / Filmmaker
and / or Assigns for descriptive purposes."

Not sure how the buyer is supposed to know which release is assigned to any image, given that some releases seem to be accepted by several agencies (from what I've read here).
Odd so many people are perfectly happy to sign that, but there you go.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: noodle on January 08, 2017, 19:38
They should give her free dinner for a year
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 09, 2017, 03:56
Extreme example: A company has placed a GPS tag on you without you knowing and they are using the (anonymous) data to create an app to predict movements. 10 years later you find out and all they offer is 10 years worth standard salary for a voluntary test person... That is not how things work.

All they offer is between $250,000 and $1,000,000? Where do I sign up?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Pauws99 on January 09, 2017, 04:55
Extreme example: A company has placed a GPS tag on you without you knowing and they are using the (anonymous) data to create an app to predict movements. 10 years later you find out and all they offer is 10 years worth standard salary for a voluntary test person... That is not how things work.

All they offer is between $250,000 and $1,000,000? Where do I sign up?
You will find plenty of people who believe THEY already do this yeah I'd do it for $250K. Although this presumably would be a criminal matter i.e assault.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on January 09, 2017, 10:12
Extreme example: A company has placed a GPS tag on you without you knowing and they are using the (anonymous) data to create an app to predict movements.

That's not an extreme example, it is here already!  Tons of people are doing that right now, probably without realizing it with their mobile phones.  That's exactly how those traffic apps work that can tell you which routes are slowed by jams - they are tracking everyone's cell phone movements along highways.  With an iPhone I think you are automatically logged into that unless you specifically opt out.  And of course they pay you nothing.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: etudiante_rapide on January 09, 2017, 14:11
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.

LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio (??? mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.

the only good out of this is that it teaches big companies like this to tell them,
"silly silly, you thought you can be cheap and not hire a regular model ..
like those newspapers that only use readers' freebies and wire photos".
cost far less to have just paid a model.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Fredex on January 09, 2017, 19:30
Ask for that amount and you know you'll get nothing. Keep it under six figures and a big company like that might just settle to keep it out of the press but all an insane amount like that does is give Chipotle some free publicity and make them look like the good guys.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 09, 2017, 19:46
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.

LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio (??? mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.

the only good out of this is that it teaches big companies like this to tell them,
"silly silly, you thought you can be cheap and not hire a regular model ..
like those newspapers that only use readers' freebies and wire photos".
cost far less to have just paid a model.

I thought the US was one of the most "religious countries" on the planet?! But still, I'm sure it would wash. The lawyer will spin all the angles and religious or not, there are few countries where people look on alcoholics with respect and admiration... so it would make sense to go down that route.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: ShadySue on January 09, 2017, 19:55
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.

LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio (??? mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.

the only good out of this is that it teaches big companies like this to tell them,
"silly silly, you thought you can be cheap and not hire a regular model ..
like those newspapers that only use readers' freebies and wire photos".
cost far less to have just paid a model.

I thought the US was one of the most "religious countries" on the planet?! But still, I'm sure it would wash. The lawyer will spin all the angles and religious or not, there are few countries where people look on alcoholics with respect and admiration... so it would make sense to go down that route.
Years ago, before micro, I was casually reading an article about releases and use of images (particularly relating to English law), and one specific example was a photo of a group of people outside a pub with glasses in their hands. They specifically said that even if the article was editorial, if there was a hint in the caption or article that they were all drinking alcohol, there would be grounds for a legal action, particularly if one or more of the people was known to be teetotal. (Presumably that would be the responsibility of the caption writer unless the photographer had described/keyworded the pic as such.)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Fredex on January 09, 2017, 20:09
LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio (??? mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.

Surely you mean Utah?

Ohio is relatively laid back (by American standards) but Utah limits alcohol to 3.2% unless bars have hugely expensive and difficult to obtain licenses and only one shop in a chain can sell proper beer, wine, spirits etc. So there's only one Walmart in the whole of Utah that can sell wine and I seem to recall there are only around 70 liquor stores state wide. Lots of bars also don't let you have more than one drink on the table at a time and will literally stand there and wait for you to finish the dregs of the last beer before putting the next one down. Basically: I hate that state. Nice canyons, awful beer.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 10, 2017, 01:51
How did using the image harm her? 

If I was a lawyer I'd go with the alcohol angle (apparently they comped in some alcohol in front of her that wasn't actually there). Seeing as it would be difficult to disprove, they could say stuff like... she's been invited to less events as people assume she's an alcoholic, she feels she's been overlooked for promotion as her employees think she has a drinking problem, her relationship has been tense since her husband found out she was drinking in the day etc etc.

LOL that would not wash in USA. it might work in a " religious country " where women are seen as harlot to be drinking. .. or maybe, just maybe in Ohio (??? mormon country,etc)..
but in a place like NY, etc.. where alcohol or drug are "household basics" it won't work.
in my opinion, that is.

the only good out of this is that it teaches big companies like this to tell them,
"silly silly, you thought you can be cheap and not hire a regular model ..
like those newspapers that only use readers' freebies and wire photos".
cost far less to have just paid a model.

I thought the US was one of the most "religious countries" on the planet?! But still, I'm sure it would wash. The lawyer will spin all the angles and religious or not, there are few countries where people look on alcoholics with respect and admiration... so it would make sense to go down that route.

Not to mention if the woman can claim to be a recovering addict in AA.  My brother's in Alcoholics Anymous and Narcotics Anonymous.  It would negatively affect his social life and maybe even his job to be photographed drinking.

I still think the suit is overblown, but the booze angle is the best shot they have.

Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 11, 2017, 15:58
this is what I learned about this suit:

- the woman is not upset about her photo being used, she is upset that her photo has alcoholic beverages photoshopped in

- the image of her was shown hanging on the wall of at least 2 or 3 restaurants

- she first noticed it about 5 or 6 years after the photo was taken

- she is suing for around 10 years of the company's profits

- you cannot assume chipotle is using the image illegally. we haven't seen it yet. if it says something like "ACTUAL CUSTOMER" under the photo, then it is going to be 100% legal for them to use it, similar to an editorial use.

- the suit hasn't really gone to trial yet, it is in the pre-stages of the lawsuit

- based on what I read, it sounds like a frivolous lawsuit. the articles are withholding any key evidence that shows a violation of any law, the requested damages are ridiculous, and the comment about how she is only mad because of the alcohol, suggests they plaintiff is hiding something (such as a lack of merit)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 11, 2017, 17:58
- you cannot assume chipotle is using the image illegally. we haven't seen it yet. if it says something like "ACTUAL CUSTOMER" under the photo, then it is going to be 100% legal for them to use it, similar to an editorial use.

Uh, no.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 11, 2017, 18:43
- you cannot assume chipotle is using the image illegally. we haven't seen it yet. if it says something like "ACTUAL CUSTOMER" under the photo, then it is going to be 100% legal for them to use it, similar to an editorial use

It's advertising. Marketing Materials. There's no 'editorial use' when it comes to that. Otherwise, any restaurant that has a celebrity pop in... they'd just take a picture of them, or film them, and stick that in their adverts. And that's definitely not allowed.

Unless you know the answer for certain, you should probably stick to threads on cameras that have the ability to generate clouds, or limit the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by stars.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 11, 2017, 19:10

- the woman is not upset about her photo being used, she is upset that her photo has alcoholic beverages photoshopped in

The articles I read said she was upset about having her picture taken; being asked to sign a release; the restaurants using her image anyway; having her hair modified; having other people photoshopped into the image; having alcoholic drinks photoshopped into the image.

- you cannot assume chipotle is using the image illegally. we haven't seen it yet. if it says something like "ACTUAL CUSTOMER" under the photo, then it is going to be 100% legal for them to use it, similar to an editorial use.

You can't use people's images in advertising without permission. In fact, this entire situation is mind-boggling to me: A large corporation apparently hiring a photographer to shoot people without their knowledge, then using images without a model release...it's just not done. Even if a company wants to use "real customers," they ask the customers if they'd like to be in their ads (or customers sign an agreement when they enter a sweepstakes, for example, that allows the company to use their images for marketing purposes) and then they set up a shoot with hair, makeup, proper lighting and food design so that the customer, the restaurant and the food look good.

The whole situation is just really weird.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Jafo2016 on January 13, 2017, 11:52

- the woman is not upset about her photo being used, she is upset that her photo has alcoholic beverages photoshopped in

The articles I read said she was upset about having her picture taken; being asked to sign a release; the restaurants using her image anyway; having her hair modified; having other people photoshopped into the image; having alcoholic drinks photoshopped into the image.

- you cannot assume chipotle is using the image illegally. we haven't seen it yet. if it says something like "ACTUAL CUSTOMER" under the photo, then it is going to be 100% legal for them to use it, similar to an editorial use.

You can't use people's images in advertising without permission. In fact, this entire situation is mind-boggling to me: A large corporation apparently hiring a photographer to shoot people without their knowledge, then using images without a model release...it's just not done. Even if a company wants to use "real customers," they ask the customers if they'd like to be in their ads (or customers sign an agreement when they enter a sweepstakes, for example, that allows the company to use their images for marketing purposes) and then they set up a shoot with hair, makeup, proper lighting and food design so that the customer, the restaurant and the food look good.

The whole situation is just really weird.

Weird, strange and a messy mistake. If it's true.

The photographer gave the photos to Chipotle mistake one. They used it without looking for the release, mistake two. One version says she was asked to sign a release another says she was never asked? Now it's a composite with her and others? This could get more interesting.

How can you tell a glass of beverage on a table is alcoholic? I'd assume that means a bottle of beer with a label? Unless someone can analyze the contents, the shape of a glass proves nothing. Legal works both ways.

She says she discovered the use a long time ago, years ago, but she did nothing until now? There are time limits from discovery to making a claim. She might be out of luck.

Allegedly this is her in the photo and all these claims keep changing. I hope we see the end instead of settled with NDA and sealed.

This sounds like a money grab frivolous lawsuit. The amount is a laugh. Is her lawyer one of those who advertises on TV personal injury, big numbers.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 16, 2017, 10:36
you said: "You can't use people's images in advertising without permission"

we do not yet know how the image was used, only that it was hanging on the wall, and there was some photoshopping done. that does not preclude legal uses.

there is something wrong with this case. if they had solid evidence of wrongdoing, it would have been in the new reports and press releases, no where does it say the photo was used in advertising.

I tried to read the deposition, to see if it stated how it was being used, but the deposition was not available for free so I did not read it.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 16, 2017, 10:37
A poster on the wall of a commercial business promoting various aspects of that business is advertising.   Pretty simple.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 10:44
you said: "You can't use people's images in advertising without permission"

we do not yet know how the image was used, only that it was hanging on the wall, and there was some photoshopping done. that does not preclude legal uses.

there is something wrong with this case. if they had solid evidence of wrongdoing, it would have been in the new reports and press releases, no where does it say the photo was used in advertising.

I tried to read the deposition, to see if it stated how it was being used, but the deposition was not available for free so I did not read it.

Thanks for explaining what advertising is to me. I've only been in the business for 35 years, so as you can imagine I was pretty unsure about it.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 16, 2017, 10:59
you said: "Thanks for explaining what advertising is to me."

all photography is not advertising. in addition, I have seen the photo and it does not look like advertising to me. in fact, the woman is not recognizable and she will probably lose the lawsuit.

in fact, she states in the lawsuit that she is looking at the camera, but that she did not know the camera was there, which makes no sense.

again,I have seen the photo and it is not advertising. it does not promote any product or service.

the photo has 3 people in it. 2 of them, you can only see from behind. the woman in question is not recognizable. being able to self-recognize yourself does not grant you any rights, regardless of what stock agencies lead you to believe.

the photo is not a photo of her, it is a photo of the restaurant and she happens to be in the photo. she will lose this case.

last of all, the photo was taken from outside the restaurant and she is seen sitting behind the window at a table, with her hand covering her face. she is a minor portion of the photo. the average person would never recognize her, and it might not even be her.

she does not even account for 5% of the photo, maybe she is even just 1% of the actual photo (her forehead and arms).

- the photo is clearly not an ad. it is a photo of the restaurant
- being in the photo does not grant her any rights
- being able to self identify herself in the photo does not grant her any rights under US law
- the majority of the face is covered by the woman's hand
- it might not even be her, and she will never be able to prove it was her
- based on her testimony, I do not believe she is the woman in the photo

she will lose this case.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 16, 2017, 11:21
"again,I have seen the photo and it is not advertising. it does not promote any product or service."

Lol, it wouldn't be on the wall or in the restaurant if it wasn't serving a purpose promoting the restaurant.

If you've seen it, let us in on it.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 11:30
you said: "Thanks for explaining what advertising is to me."

all photography is not advertising. in addition, I have seen the photo and it does not look like advertising to me. in fact, the woman is not recognizable and she will probably lose the lawsuit.

in fact, she states in the lawsuit that she is looking at the camera, but that she did not know the camera was there, which makes no sense.

again,I have seen the photo and it is not advertising. it does not promote any product or service.

the photo has 3 people in it. 2 of them, you can only see from behind. the woman in question is not recognizable. being able to self-recognize yourself does not grant you any rights, regardless of what stock agencies lead you to believe.

the photo is not a photo of her, it is a photo of the restaurant and she happens to be in the photo. she will lose this case.

last of all, the photo was taken from outside the restaurant and she is seen sitting behind the window at a table, with her hand covering her face. she is a minor portion of the photo. the average person would never recognize her, and it might not even be her.

she does not even account for 5% of the photo, maybe she is even just 1% of the actual photo (her forehead and arms).

- the photo is clearly not an ad. it is a photo of the restaurant
- being in the photo does not grant her any rights
- being able to self identify herself in the photo does not grant her any rights under US law
- the majority of the face is covered by the woman's hand
- it might not even be her, and she will never be able to prove it was her
- based on her testimony, I do not believe she is the woman in the photo

she will lose this case.

Thanks for re-explaining. 35 years of creating advertising for major international brands, working with top photographers, illustrators, editors and directors and I was so clueless!

All photographs are not advertising! Who knew?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 11:39
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4112394/Woman-sues-Chipotle-2-2billion-burrito-chain-used-picture-eating-promote-itself.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4112394/Woman-sues-Chipotle-2-2billion-burrito-chain-used-picture-eating-promote-itself.html)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 16, 2017, 11:42
You said: "I was so clueless"

I agree.

More info on this photo:

- you cannot tell the gender, race, age, skin color, etc of the person in the photo

- you cannot see any details such as eye color, wrinkles, strands of hair

- you can't see the mouth, nose, ears, or cheeks

- you can only see the shape of the hair, forehead, and eyes, without a single detail within.

- the eyes are just 2 oval dark spots. no pupil visible, no eye color, no white part

- the hair is a dark shape with no detail

- the forehead is overexposed and you just see the shape

- it is not an ad. it does not have any price, quality, call to action, product, or service

- it is hard to believe that the alcoholic beverages and other items were photoshopped into the image

it is a frivolous lawsuit
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 11:50
You have absolutely no idea what the original image and the poster look like. The image online is a small, grainy B&W image probably lifted from a photocopy of the legal document. Do you think an image being used for a poster is in reality this small, this grainy or in black and white?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 16, 2017, 12:28
you said: "You have absolutely no idea what the original image and the poster look like."

I do have an idea what it looks like, I saw it on page 9 of the initial court filing and examined it carefully.

the photo is clearly artwork and not advertising.

this is a frivolous lawsuit.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 16, 2017, 12:54
the photo is clearly artwork and not advertising.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Jafo2016 on January 16, 2017, 16:26
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/01/12/09/3C124F9100000578-4112394-image-m-3_1484214673006.jpg)

I'd like to see the full size version.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 16, 2017, 17:44
the full size version is irrelevant.

1. it is not advertising. it is artwork. it is a legal use. the artwork is not being sold for profit to the general public. based on this alone, she will lose.

2. the woman will never be able to prove that the general public would recognize her as the person in the photo, which would be required for her to win the suit. if chipotle could convince a jury that it could be another person, it would prove that her likeness is not being used.

3. she will never be able to prove that she is the person in the photo.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 16, 2017, 18:05
You know that bolding things doesn't make them any more correct, right?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Jafo2016 on January 16, 2017, 18:53
You know that bolding things doesn't make them any more correct, right?

REALLY?  :-*
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 16, 2017, 23:45
You know that bolding things doesn't make them any more correct, right?

Apparently not.  ::)
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: DaRkWeeDo on January 17, 2017, 07:42
the full size version is irrelevant.

1. it is not advertising. it is artwork. it is a legal use. the artwork is not being sold for profit to the general public. based on this alone, she will lose.

2. the woman will never be able to prove that the general public would recognize her as the person in the photo, which would be required for her to win the suit. if chipotle could convince a jury that it could be another person, it would prove that her likeness is not being used.

3. she will never be able to prove that she is the person in the photo.

Full size is relevant.
1. I consider each and every photo I take artwork. Many would say it is not but believe me when I tell you it is. That being said, I can do with them as I please since I do not need model releases nor property releases. Great
2. If she can prove its advertising she will win. Of course, this would mean that it gets to court and that the jury is not made out of several people like you that will say - nah this is artwork, she will lose
3. If you want to go CSI on this and proving this or that, pull her cell data, track it via GPS or triangulate it and you will find out if it is her or not. If it turns out its her.... great if not.. well she was using some other phone and she lost it by now.

P.S. THIS IS SPAAAAAAARTA
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 18, 2017, 00:53
you said: "If you want to go CSI on this and proving this or that, pull her cell data, track it via GPS or triangulate it and you will find out if it is her or not."

if she proves it is her in the photo, she has no rights whatsoever. rights are not determined by whether the person appears in the photo, it depends on whether the general public recognizes it to be her in the photo. stock agencies do not understand this aspect of privacy and likeness.

second, it is clearly *not advertising*. it is artwork. advertising has to promote a product or service. the product for chipotle is food and beverages. the photo does not make any mention of food or beverages. it does not mention any product or service. the logo on teh side of the building is not sufficient for the photo to be an ad. it is artwork, and decoration, and she will never prove it to be advertising because it isn't.

she will lose this case.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 18, 2017, 02:15
The photo does not make any mention of food or beverages.

It doesn't need to... it's very clear that the image consists of a bunch of people sat in a Chipotle restaurant, most likely enjoy food and drink which they purchased from that restaurant. You can't get much more 'food and drink' than that!
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: click_click on January 18, 2017, 03:09
... if she proves it is her in the photo, she has no rights whatsoever. rights are not determined by whether the person appears in the photo, it depends on whether the general public recognizes it to be her in the photo. stock agencies do not understand this aspect of privacy and likeness. ...[/b]

she will lose this case.
Uhm, Alamy reported about a lawsuit of a priest who "recognized" his leg (covered by his robe!!!) while doing a cermon outdoors and a dog lifted his hind leg to do a pee on him (priest noticed it). Image had been used without his consent (who would have thought he could recognize himself?). He apparently successfully won the case (as that situation was so unusual that it clearly could not have happened to any other priest) which also lead to Alamy's new rule (back then) to request a model release for ANY human in the image, regardless if it is just a limb or out of focus person.

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: DaRkWeeDo on January 18, 2017, 03:40
you said: "If you want to go CSI on this and proving this or that, pull her cell data, track it via GPS or triangulate it and you will find out if it is her or not."

if she proves it is her in the photo, she has no rights whatsoever. rights are not determined by whether the person appears in the photo, it depends on whether the general public recognizes it to be her in the photo. stock agencies do not understand this aspect of privacy and likeness.

second, it is clearly *not advertising*. it is artwork. advertising has to promote a product or service. the product for chipotle is food and beverages. the photo does not make any mention of food or beverages. it does not mention any product or service. the logo on teh side of the building is not sufficient for the photo to be an ad. it is artwork, and decoration, and she will never prove it to be advertising because it isn't.

she will lose this case.

Looking at your post this is what I read: EVERYONE IS WRONG AND ONLY WHAT I SAY IS CORRECT?
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 18, 2017, 04:01
Which, to be fair, would be fine if he was correct... but I'm pretty sure he's not! At best, there are fine lines and grey areas, but unless he's some kind of expert copyright lawyer, then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain. And if you don't know for certain, it's usually best not to present your opinions as facts!
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: DaRkWeeDo on January 18, 2017, 04:30
I agree. It is the "tone". He might be a lawyer for Chipotle for all I know and he might know all of the facts and he even might be 100% correct. But still, the presentation style could be much better.
We will find out in the future was it artwork or not.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: unnonimus on January 20, 2017, 01:02
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 20, 2017, 01:53
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.

You are anonymous.   How the he11 is anyone supposed to know how educated you are?

  Good for you for reading up on copyright law.  Useful thing to do in our business.  But what you have presented here is opinion, not proof, and if you can't tell the difference,  maybe you aren't as smart as you think.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: DaRkWeeDo on January 20, 2017, 02:31
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.

You are anonymous.   How the he11 is anyone supposed to know how educated you are?

  Good for you for reading up on copyright law.  Useful thing to do in our business.  But what you have presented here is opinion, not proof, and if you can't tell the difference,  maybe you aren't as smart as you think.

Pixel, you need to have some words in bold, otherwise you will not be seen as someone serious.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 20, 2017, 05:19
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.

I don't know how educated you are. You don't know how educated I am. I never mock people simply for being more, or less, educated than myself... I usually only mock them (in instances like this) for stating things as fact, when they are usually nothing more than opinions!

The thing you seem to be missing is that the decisions made by the court on whether this is a breach of copyright, are very subjective. The outcome of a court case is based on decisions. Decisions made by humans. Usually different humans in each case... so there's a lot of room for variance in the outcome.

Yes, there are rules, and guidelines, and certain cases that will have set a legal precedent, but it's still very subjective. I mean, the main question is going to be... is this artwork or is it marketing? You may feel that it's artwork, but others might not, as demonstrated in this thread. It's not always black and white. And if those that do believe it's marketing, are involved in the outcome of the case, then that's going to make a big difference!

As such, you can't say for certain whether it's definitely artwork or whether she will definitely lose. To insist otherwise, and to surmise that I'm completely wrong, is wrong in itself.

I studied law at college by the way, just in case you're interested. I also study degree level astrophysics courses in my spare time, and I have a pretty high IQ... just so you know! That may still mean I'm less educated than you, but I'd say it means I'm not exactly stupid.

Oh and I'm single, a decent cook, and a proficient lover... if anybody's looking for a gentleman caller. Ladies preferably, but hey... times are hard.   
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: YadaYadaYada on January 20, 2017, 15:21
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.

You are anonymous.   How the he11 is anyone supposed to know how educated you are?

  Good for you for reading up on copyright law.  Useful thing to do in our business.  But what you have presented here is opinion, not proof, and if you can't tell the difference,  maybe you aren't as smart as you think.

Pixel, you need to have some words in bold, otherwise you will not be seen as someone serious.

Well stated.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 21, 2017, 00:44
you said: "then I'm pretty sure he doesn't know for certain."

You are completely wrong.

I read the US copyright laws, and I read the documents filed in court cases, and I read case law. I have filed over 100 trademarks and copyrights for my own work. I know the laws.

This woman will lose this case. However, ultimately, it is up to a jury to decide, and jurys can make stupid decisions (such as the Marvin Gaye copyright case which was clearly not infringement).

If you want to be educated about copyright laws, go to copyright.gov. Stock media agencies are completely clueless about copyright laws and their beliefs and understandings of copyright law are mostly incorrect.

And last of all, stop mocking people who are better educated than you are.

I don't know how educated you are. You don't know how educated I am. I never mock people simply for being more, or less, educated than myself... I usually only mock them (in instances like this) for stating things as fact, when they are usually nothing more than opinions!

The thing you seem to be missing is that the decisions made by the court on whether this is a breach of copyright, are very subjective. The outcome of a court case is based on decisions. Decisions made by humans. Usually different humans in each case... so there's a lot of room for variance in the outcome.

Yes, there are rules, and guidelines, and certain cases that will have set a legal precedent, but it's still very subjective. I mean, the main question is going to be... is this artwork or is it marketing? You may feel that it's artwork, but others might not, as demonstrated in this thread. It's not always black and white. And if those that do believe it's marketing, are involved in the outcome of the case, then that's going to make a big difference!

As such, you can't say for certain whether it's definitely artwork or whether she will definitely lose. To insist otherwise, and to surmise that I'm completely wrong, is wrong in itself.

I studied law at college by the way, just in case you're interested. I also study degree level astrophysics courses in my spare time, and I have a pretty high IQ... just so you know! That may still mean I'm less educated than you, but I'd say it means I'm not exactly stupid.

Oh and I'm single, a decent cook, and a proficient lover... if anybody's looking for a gentleman caller. Ladies preferably, but hey... times are hard.   


Great dating profile!  Will definitely forward this to the single ladies I know.  But everyone thinks they're a proficient lover.  This might require some references.   LOL.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on January 21, 2017, 01:54
Yeah, I put 'exceptional', then decided to downgrade it to 'proficient'. Under-promise and over-deliver... and all that jazz!
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: noodle on January 21, 2017, 14:12
Quote
Will definitely forward this to the single ladies I know.  But everyone thinks they're a proficient lover.  This might require some references.   LOL.

Ask the hand  ;D
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: PixelBytes on January 21, 2017, 15:59
Yeah, I put 'exceptional', then decided to downgrade it to 'proficient'. Under-promise and over-deliver... and all that jazz!

LOL!  Admirable modesty.   ;D

Glad my wife had sampled the goods and found them to her liking before we got married.  Those were the days before online dating, skyping, etc.  You had to rely on trial and error.
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: ShadySue on January 21, 2017, 16:02
Yeah, I put 'exceptional', then decided to downgrade it to 'proficient'. Under-promise and over-deliver... and all that jazz!

LOL!  Admirable modesty.   ;D

Glad my wife had sampled the goods and found them to her liking before we got married.  Those were the days before online dating, skyping, etc.  You had to rely on trial and error.
Same applies, but more so, to online dating, (I'd imagine).
Title: Re: Woman suing Chipotle and photographer $2 billion over use of photo
Post by: Bad Company on June 30, 2017, 10:24
OLD THREAD ALERT...