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?

the photo is clearly artwork and not advertising.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

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.

You know that bolding things doesn't make them any more correct, right?

REALLY? 

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.   

Quote from: 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.

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.

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 

Quote from: 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!

LOL!  Admirable modesty.   

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).