Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    3,143

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Actually it makes it precisely about the kids right of publicity. In California one has the right to control their image when it is being used for publicity purposes. In this issue the photographer has usurped the girls rights and has used her image for his purposes of publicity without the girls permission.
    I don't buy it. While it may be the letter of the law I just don't see it happening. I've got to believe the law was intended to not allow the use of one's image, name, etc. without permission to not sell to others not the person in question.

    I get advertising all the time that has my name printed on it like t-shirts and coffee mugs. There are also hundreds of companies out there that take photos at things like little league cames and then try to sell them to parents by showing them the pics.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,044

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    While it is possible and very likely that the student signed some agreement for graduation, and for cap and gown, and diploma (they do have to pay to graduate) that would have agreed to graduation pictures, it is the schools that contracts with these photography companies. It is big business and the schools get commissions on all the sales (kickbacks).

    https://www.nbcwashington.com/invest...369744951.html



    What people could have seen the image? The people that had the image (the photography company), the postal workers, or the addressee? Who else? This is a graduation picture presumably a graduate in a cap and gown receiving a diploma not some explicit photo.



    That would be a real stretch of the statute. There is no third-party publication. Only her picture went to her and to nobody else.
    Sadly, there are a,lot of sick people in the world. The man that killed Jayme Closs's parents and held her captive. Saw her waiting for her school bus. That is when he decided to do what he did. This man had no information about Jayme the first time he saw her. A person cannot be too careful.

    This company would lose,a lot of business. If a student was,targeted due to information the company allow anyone to see. Sometime mail is delivered to the wrong address. Occasionally mail falls on the ground without the postman realizing it. I think the parent calling the company and talking with the owner or manager. Might protect a child from harm.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,330

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    I can appreciate your analysis. But the USPS is a quasi governmental agency with bonded employees. What was sent was not disseminated to anyone other than the addressee.

    We could say the same for any mail that we send or get delivered. How is this different?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,718

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    Except for the fact that the only one that was solicited was the subject of the photo. There was no third publication of the girl's image to solicit anyone else.
    '
    who said anything about a solicitation? I said it was an advertisement. Two different things.

    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.




    here something you can use to understand the difference

    youre driving the road and a hooker lifts her shirt to show you her plentiful chest with the hope youíll stop


    so,you stop and she comes to your car and says: bud, I want to rock your world. Iíve got a special deal for you; Iíll take you around the world for $100.



    so, the first one is advertising the second is soliciting. Your should understand the difference.

    So anyway, the advertisement was there for anybody to see but it was almost assuredly seen by the postman

    snd the law does not specify how many people must see an advertisement for it to be an advertisement.





    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I can appreciate your analysis. But the USPS is a quasi governmental agency with bonded employees. What was sent was not disseminated to anyone other than the addressee.

    We could say the same for any mail that we send or get delivered. How is this different?
    what a load of hooey. So you don’t think the mailman sees various mailings and when one piques his interest he looks at it? So when bob the postman saw the flyer for a hot rod show at the local drive in and read it, that would not be considered advertising. You think the promoters use all those colors and snazzy cars on that sheet of paper to not entice somebody to look at it? That’s exactly why they make it so it can be seen by a casual observer.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,540

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    Actually it makes it precisely about the kids right of publicity. In California one has the right to control their image when it is being used for publicity purposes. In this issue the photographer has usurped the girls rights and has used her image for his purposes of publicity without the girls permission.
    As I explained previously, that's incorrect (or, at best, it's based on a very strained interpretation of the statute). However, as I also already wrote, if the student wants to try and find a lawyer to send the photographer a nastygram and demand money, she probably can find a sufficiently desperate lawyer. I doubt it will get her anywhere.

    Our of curiosity, "jk," how much time have you spent with Professor McCarthy's treatise on the right of publicity?


    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I don't buy it. While it may be the letter of the law I just don't see it happening. I've got to believe the law was intended to not allow the use of one's image, name, etc. without permission to not sell to others not the person in question.

    I get advertising all the time that has my name printed on it like t-shirts and coffee mugs. There are also hundreds of companies out there that take photos at things like little league cames and then try to sell them to parents by showing them the pics.
    The first paragraph is absolutely correct, and the second paragraph is an excellent example.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,718

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I don't buy it. While it may be the letter of the law I just don't see it happening. I've got to believe the law was intended to not allow the use of one's image, name, etc. without permission to not sell to others not the person in question.

    I get advertising all the time that has my name printed on it like t-shirts and coffee mugs. There are also hundreds of companies out there that take photos at things like little league cames and then try to sell them to parents by showing them the pics.
    you to, like bud, are confusing advertising with solicitation. The intent of the advertisement is to entice whomever may see the pretty picture and the photographers name to contact the photographer for their photography needs. They aren’t soliciting anybody but the girl. The girl and why the photographer was contacting her has nothing to do with the violation of the law.

    Quote Quoting pg1067
    View Post
    As I explained previously, that's incorrect (or, at best, it's based on a very strained interpretation of the statute). However, as I also already wrote, if the student wants to try and find a lawyer to send the photographer a nastygram and demand money, she probably can find a sufficiently desperate lawyer. I doubt it will get her anywhere.

    Our of curiosity, "jk," how much time have you spent with Professor McCarthy's treatise on the right of publicity?

    .
    why you believe there must be some other product involved, such as hair coloring, is beyond me. The product being advertised is the photographer and he has used the image of the girl to do it.


    I suppose when a photography studio puts their business name down in the corner of the portraits they produce wouldn’t be advertising either.

    Or displays portraits on their website.


    Its all advertising.

    Oh, and copyright ownership does not supersede one’s rights of publicity such as you alluded to in a previous post. Just because one owns the copyrights doesn’t mean they can do anything they wish with the image.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    I have no intention to sue the company (which is also based in FL anyway), I was just interested in the applicable laws, especially in particular if I could report it to a government agency. But since it's a civil code issue, all I did was call the company, ask to speak to a supervisor and tell them I thought it was very bad practice if you're sensitive to the personal safety of young attractive girls (I personally know of 1 mail man who lost his job for sexually harrassing a young girl on the spur of the moment), and also potentially illegal under CA code 3344.

    I think it would be up to the interpretation of the judge or jury, whether a lawsuit would prevail or not. And the fact that it was addressed to the "family of [student]" plays against the company even more than if it were addressed to the student, because it was targeted advertisement to a 3rd party. The code does not make a distinction between mass ads and very narrowly targeted ads, probably because when it was written it was not feasible to mass produce narrowly targeted ads, but now it's possible - the photographer probably has a macro that automates the process, personalizing each mail with the student's photo.

    Just another issue where perhaps the law is behind the technological advancements.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15,506

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting PayrolGuy
    View Post
    I don't buy it. While it may be the letter of the law I just don't see it happening. I've got to believe the law was intended to not allow the use of one's image, name, etc. without permission to not sell to others not the person in question.

    I get advertising all the time that has my name printed on it like t-shirts and coffee mugs. There are also hundreds of companies out there that take photos at things like little league cames and then try to sell them to parents by showing them the pics.
    I don't think anyone has a problem with things like t-shirts and coffee mugs, pens or other commercial trinkets that are sent to people and businesses in hopes of drumming up business from them. I don't think that anyone has a problem with photographers showing proofs to parents to hopefully get them to order copies of the photos.

    The whole problem seems to be over proofs, sent in such a way that strangers can see the name, address, AND a picture of the girl in question.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,540

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting RidinginCali
    View Post
    I was just interested in the applicable laws, especially in particular if I could report it to a government agency.
    You are free to report anything to anyone you like.


    Quote Quoting RidinginCali
    View Post
    Just another issue where perhaps the law is behind the technological advancements.
    How is a photo showing through a window envelope any sort of technological advancement?

    As for the rest of this, I've already explained that CC 3344 doesn't apply. You can believe that or not, but if no one's suing, then it's a moot point.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,330

    Default Re: Photographer Sent Unsolicited Visible Portrait by Mail

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post

    The whole problem seems to be over proofs, sent in such a way that strangers can see the name, address, AND a picture of the girl in question.
    What strangers? You probably get mail every day that identifies you along with the company that is sending it to you.

    The mail is to you. If it contains information about you (or in this case a picture of the addressee) who else gets to see it that shouldn't?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Online Services: Unsolicited Link Exchange Requests
    By ronen11 in forum Consumer Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 06:47 PM
  2. Legal Malpractice: Lawyer Charging for Unsolicited Work
    By idunno7 in forum Malpractice Law
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-30-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Copyright Law: Personal Nude Self Portrait Turns Up in Internet Advertisement
    By jm_ggage in forum Intellectual Property
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-26-2008, 03:06 PM
  4. Online Services: Legality of Mass Unsolicited Email
    By MrCurious in forum Consumer Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2005, 03:35 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources