Replies

Almost all courts have historically ruled for compensation when a person's likeness has been used without permission. In this case, its not meerly her likeness, its her picture, which she was not payed for. The company will settle if they are smart.

Interesting. The San Francisco Chronicle photographer was snapping pictures of a warehouse fire once. Happened to catch me in the middle of the shot crossing the street. Printed in on the first page of the Bay Area section, IIRC.

Hmmm, I'm starting to think that the paper is sold for money... they never approached me for a release or permission... they printed my picture without compensation... Hey, I've been screwed. At least I kept my clothes on, which is good for everyone involved.

If your picture were used for commercial gain ... you should have a case to sue. As you happened to be present during a news-breaking story, your picture is part of the story.

Now, if "Firehouse BBQ" were to use that picture to adverise their ribs, and presented you as a customer rushing to get a plate... your likeness would be used as a model, or spokesperson (without your consent). Then, you would have compensation due to you.