[FreeTally]

This has been discussed before. The issue is that they are profiting from her likeness(her pictures actually) without permission/compensation. Most FR legal experts agreed she has a pretty good case on these grounds. She is an idiot, but she has a legal case. They owe her compensation.

[Hodar]

After thinking of this a bit ... I have to agree with you. Simply by being in public, does not mean you concent to having your picture circulated for public consumption, whether it's to promote a video, a hotdog or beer.

If you were photographed at a ball game, enjoying a beer and a hotdog ... and Budweiser chose to promote their product using your picture in their advertizement .... no one would question whether you were entiteled to compensation.

[Phantom Lord]

What say you? Does she have a case? I would think not being that she was in a public place at a public event, and apparantly it would seem she 'posed' for the camera. Unless she is claiming that she had no idea that the guy staring at her through a video camera actually had video tape in it.

[Phantom Lord]

I would think that being in a public place at a public event would lend her to not have a case. Isnt that the law that the paparatzi (sp?) use to take photos of celebrities and sell them for money?

And I wonder if when she exposed her puppies for the camera man if she thought that he didnt have any video tape in his camera.