After all the “not guilty” pronouncements, perhaps some consideration of the issue at hand is in order.
Does she have a case here? My impression has been that mug shot photos are public domain, thus free to be used by any party for any purpose without compensation owed to the one photographed. Otherwise, for example, all celebrity mug shots could be a stream of revenue for them.
So I don’t see where or how she has much of a case. Maybe she’ll think of this again before she has a few drinks before driving (assuming she was guilty of that charge, reading here though apparently she wouldn’t be guilty of torturing a puppy even if caught doing so).
In a case that is general in nature, maybe. However, in many cases where one’s zip code is tagged, IP address are tagged, or visit to a local 7-11 and sees the “who’s been arrested” rag, HER picture is nearly always there.
IMO, it is not fair and open public use. It is pandering because of her looks. Were I on a jury for a suit she filed, she’d prevail.
The pic may be public domain, but I still think a company has to get a release to use the picture for advertising. I have seen that pic alot over the past few months and wondered if it was a real ‘mug’ shot or an actress. I think there is a line between reporting the news and using a mug shot, and using a photo of someone without permission to advertise a product. I am not a fan of the rampant ‘suing’ society that we have become, but in this case, I would sue their pants off. And, of course, she is not guilty.
Yes, she has a case: it's not copying the photo, it's the use of the photo that counts.