Ok, so what if the photographer copied the front of the letter except for the recipients mailing address and posted it on a big billboard: would that be advertising? I would think you would have to agree that is but why is it?
what if the billboard was in some nearly abandoned town where nobody ever goes but there is one lonely resident so nobody sees the billboard but that one guy: would that be advertising. It would be poorly placed advertisement for the money involved but I think you would still have to agree it is advertising.
if not, why would it be different than if a thousand people a day saw it. Read the law and understand what it says is prohibited activity.
.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. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the
uses another’s photograph... in any Manner for the purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting
why you can’t see the picture is there for the purposes of advertising is beyond me. Your argument of “who is going to see it” fails. The law doesn’t state some arbitrary number of people have to see it. In fact, the law doesn’t require anybody actually see it. The prohibited act is using the image with intent to advertise; nothing more.
The letter has a duality to it. It is a solicitation sent to the girl or her family and it is an advertisement for anybody that may happen to see it, even if thst is only the one postman that delivers it. Why a couple of you continue to argue about the solicitation aspect is also odd. I’ve never argued The solicitation issue. It’s always been the advertising that is the problem.
Then, pg1067 and his argument thst if the image was used along with an advertisement for some product, such as hair coloring ignores the fact the item advertised is the photographer. . It’s saying: hey check out this photograph of this good looking girl. Then, not far from the image is the photographers address and you realize that is an actual photo of the girl. That photographer did a good job. I’ll have to keep him in mind if I need a photographer.
if you don’t agree, then you would have to agree the photographer is a fool for spending extra money for an envelope with a window in it. There are other ways to adequately alert a recipient of the enclosed photo without spending the extra money a windowed envelope costs. The photo is also better protected in a windowless envelope so there is a better chance of it not being damaged.
But anyway, the op appears to be satisfied with registering a complaint with the company so that’s it as far as I’m concerned.