you’re ignoring the obvious. Why else would a sender use such ornate envelopes and lettering? Why else show the image through the cellophane area? The recipient is going to receive it ifmit was a plain white envelope and black block lettering. They would see all the pretty stuff inside. The sender wants everybody to see the pretty stuff the addressee is getting hoping anybody that sees the pretty stuff will want such pretty stuff for themselves.You are off the edge. If I send you a letter specifically to you, are you making the argument that I am advertising? Good luck with that.
If you really doubt me, ask a few business owners who use such elaborate packaging why they do it.
now you’re arguing just to argue. The contract between the photog and school cannot supersede the rights of the student.You are really reaching again. Again, the school contract to take photos of the graduates and send them a proof of the picture. They can buy it or not. Show me any law or case law that says that a one-on-one communication is considered an advertisement under the statute.
Your demand for some law is ridiculous. An advertisement has a definition. There is no need to define it with a quantity of the target audience. An advertisement is quite simple. It is a publication intended to influence an observer to think or act as the advertiser wants them to. A mailing, especially an ornate mailing, clearly falls within that definition. It is intending to influence any observer to notice it and see something the advertiser is intending to display. The displayed image in the question at hand clearly is intended to influence any observer. That makes it an advertisement.
But your argument of it being a one on one communication is both incorrect in your underlying intent and in the situation at hand.
i receive many mailings that have no no means of identifying the actual sender. Plain white envelopes, black block lettering. Guess what’s inside: ADVERTISEMENTS. That makes your argument incorrect. It is a one to one communication but it is an advertisement. Now, if you want to go further, if I lived in California and the communication inside used your image (and it was neither an incidental inclusion within an image of other items nor had you granted the sender permission), it would violate the law I cited. The fact here that the image is also ofmthe recipeint does not preclude the mailing from being an advertisement (which it clearly is if for no other target than the recipient). The fact the image and identity of the sender is exposed to the general public causes it to fall under the law I cited.
Show me a law that rewuires some publication to be exposed to some specific number of people before it qualifies as an advertisement. You can’t. This issue is quite similar to defamation laws, at least regarding publication. Any observance by a third party or the defamatory material is considered publication. In this issue, any observance by a third party would qualify it as advertising.
i did but you won’t accept even that.I simply disagree. But you have at. Just try to us the law to make your point and not just be bloviating.
(a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name,voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. .
i suppose a very technical reading of the statute would allow this to be an illegal use of the girls image even if it was not visible until the envelope was opened.
The photogrpaher has knowingly used the girls image in a manner (law allows for ANY manner) for the purpose of soliciting the purchase of products (attentions to sell photographs) without the persons prior consent. (As it stands it is presumed by the op there was no such permission given)
So, unless the girl requested the solicitation, by a strict application of the law, what the photographer did, even if the image was seen by nobody other than the girl, violates the law
If you disagree PROVE me wrong. No more of your challenges or bullshit. Prove me wrong.
Even without the super strict reading, , the mailing clearly falls under the definition of an advertisement.