|
Post by astheworldfallsdown on Dec 19, 2007 20:43:32 GMT -5
Due to a lot of stress I took a break from most of my internet interests including various support sites but something today left me a question I thought someone here could help me answer.
I saw an ad for a strip club today that I am wondering about. To start, let me explain that this club thinks they're cute with their slogan stating that they have thousands of beautiful girls and three ugly ones. Lately, their ads in the local free paper have been talking about the three ugly girls being missing, with some rather crude jokes to go along. The most recent one though I don't think is legal, atleast it shouldn't be.
A while back someone took a picture of a very obese woman waiting on a bus bench. The picture was then circulated around the internet as a joke. I know this because I've stumbled upon it myself on various joke sites. What a wonderful reminder of how cruel our world is, eh? Well, this strip club has taken the picture and used it in their most recent ad, with a report that one of the "ugly girls" was spotted waiting for a bus to take her to the gym. Now, free speech advocates can say what they want about circulating her pic around the net but using it to advertise a business and make a mockery of her as they do it? Is that legal? If not, what can be done?
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Dec 19, 2007 21:13:23 GMT -5
First off, Strip clubs will do whatever they can to get business. They don't need much help because there are many people out there, Me having been one of them< that willingly go there regardless.
Now I'm no legal expert here but my guess is that your probably right in that they are definitely on a very thin thread with this one. i do not know the laws of your area but I would imagine that if this woman finds out about this add and has not given them permission to use her image then they are probably looking at a big lawsuit. Just a guess here though.
|
|
facingit
Full Member
One day at a time
Posts: 111
|
Post by facingit on Dec 19, 2007 22:39:44 GMT -5
It's legal until they lose a court case saying it isn't. Beautiful thing about America. Strip clubs suck anyways, why are you worrying about them?
|
|
|
Post by astheworldfallsdown on Dec 20, 2007 9:05:55 GMT -5
..because the thought that they could get away with something like this bothers the hell out of me? Insulting some random woman for the sake of advertisement without her permission is a big deal and if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by mo4wo1 on Dec 20, 2007 9:14:54 GMT -5
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
* Edmund Burke
|
|
|
Post by 1dayatatime on Dec 20, 2007 12:34:25 GMT -5
..because the thought that they could get away with something like this bothers the hell out of me? Insulting some random woman for the sake of advertisement without her permission is a big deal and if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone. Aren't the very existence of strip clubs an insult to women in general? And to men too for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by amaninfull on Dec 20, 2007 14:09:56 GMT -5
To answer your question, no, it's not legal. Under US law, there are two property rights that accrue to a photograph of a woman: copyright, which belongs to the photographer, and something called "right of publicity", which accrues to the subject. This is why models must sign releases - they are explicitly relinquishing their right of publicity.
Unless this person signed a release, she has a property right in that image. She can - and should - sue. She'll win. And because it's unflattering, she can probably bring charges like defamation or libel, and win really major damages.
AMIF
|
|
forck
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by forck on Dec 20, 2007 14:47:41 GMT -5
To answer your question, no, it's not legal. Under US law, there are two property rights that accrue to a photograph of a woman: copyright, which belongs to the photographer, and something called "right of publicity", which accrues to the subject. This is why models must sign releases - they are explicitly relinquishing their right of publicity. Unless this person signed a release, she has a property right in that image. She can - and should - sue. She'll win. And because it's unflattering, she can probably bring charges like defamation or libel, and win really major damages. AMIF The woman has NO property rights over her image in a photo. It's called public domain. Just look at paparazzi shots. A photo of a drunk Lindsey Lohan can be plastered on the cover of US Weekly, and by doing so is as much used to promote the sales of that magazine as this woman is being used to promote the strip club. Any time you are on the street, you are in the public domain for photos. There are web sites dedicated to candid photos of women (I used to enjoy those in my previous life). There is nothing illegal about that. Taking photos through the window into someone's private residence is illegal, because they are not in the public domain. The photographer could potentially have copyright protection. But chances are he never copyrighted it, if it has circulated the internet that much. It would be illegal for these joke sites to post a copyrighted picture without authorization. The bottom line is that it is no less legal to use that image in an ad than it is for it to be on joke sites. And that is all assuming that the photo was not staged, like so many other supposedly "real" photographs and videos on the internet.
|
|
cammy
Full Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by cammy on Dec 20, 2007 14:56:03 GMT -5
I dunno about that Forck. The difference with Ms. Lohan or Mr. Pitt is a presumption of the relinquishment to their right of pbulicity. This is b/c they work in the public domain and indeed seek the attention of the public domain. For a private person doing no such thing the right to one's own image is not relinquished - is it not?
|
|
facingit
Full Member
One day at a time
Posts: 111
|
Post by facingit on Dec 20, 2007 15:32:06 GMT -5
..because the thought that they could get away with something like this bothers the hell out of me? Insulting some random woman for the sake of advertisement without her permission is a big deal and if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone. Aren't the very existence of strip clubs an insult to women in general? And to men too for that matter. Right, 1day, that's what I was getting at. I'm hardly going to get shocked and worked up about a strip club acting unethically. My guess is that if the girl got a good lawyer she'd probably be able to get the club to stop using the photo and might even get some $$, but the chances of her doing that are slim and the club probably knows this.
|
|
|
Post by amaninfull on Dec 20, 2007 19:55:25 GMT -5
Sorry, Forck, that just ain't so, man. Cammy's right: Lindsay Lohan is a public figure, and it's a different set of rules. Let me assure you, if you see your face somewhere you don't want it, you have every right to have it removed; if it's being used for somebody's profit, you've got a right to a slice of the pie. That's pretty well established IP law. It goes for joke sites, too.
|
|
|
Post by zerotolerance on Dec 22, 2007 18:34:41 GMT -5
why are you worrying about them?
Because they are sticking these ads in MY face, and MY kids face, because WE are being used as p, p ads, dogging women ads, blah blah and WE don't like it! We aren't p, nor p ad objects. I don't need a law to tell me the difference between, right and wrong. Legal or not legal, theres nothing right about it, unless she consented. And any law that says a person doesn't have a right to what they create, or how their image is used, is not worth the paper it's written on. Paparazzi, are STALKERS imo, glorified STALKERS, renamed as if it's not stalking to following people around trying to get shots. It's one thing if they are hanging out at the hot spots where everyone knows they will be. But following people around, that's stalking, and I don't care what our messed up legal system calls it. It won't ever be right in my book. That club doesn't have any right to use any image without that persons consent, nor does any website, nor any other media. It's no different than if I wanted to use a pic of one of ya'll wanking to p in order to advertise my anti p site. Any vounteers out here for that? Is there anyone who wouldn't be upset if I did that? Would you mind me getting a pic of you wanking without your consent and using YOU as the poster child for my anti p site, or not? Would you feel any different about being used even if you lost the lawsuit? NO! This aint about what the law says. The UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS LAW that applies is THE GOLDEN RULE. God's law overrides any man-made law, anyday, imo. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", makes PERFECT sense to me. NO EXCUSES imo.
I hear a lot of guys, in general, p2p users esp, acting as if morality isn't a factor in anything, anymore. As if they can just decide for that obsese woman, and me too, and every body else taboot. BS. Acting as if everything is "public domain", is ridiculous! And it's a very specific p-warped view of others as OBJECTS imo.
|
|
|
Post by megan11 on Dec 22, 2007 20:21:29 GMT -5
I know that if i was that woman sitting at the bus stop, i would be getting paid really well after i sued the berries off of anyone using my picture. My question is....Is she already getting paid by them to use her photo? Hmm..
And ZT, once again, i have to agree.
|
|
|
Post by astheworldfallsdown on Dec 23, 2007 10:39:00 GMT -5
Thank you ZT. Again you have put into words what was running through my head.
Unfortunately megan, I doubt it. I doubt she even knows this has happened to her. I wish there was a way to use a person's image to do an identity search or something on a personal computer so I could find her and let her know so she can fight back. This whole thing has put a lot of new fear into me because I'm a very unattractive woman and to think that someone could take my picture and use it like this makes me want to never leave my home.
|
|
|
Post by completelydone on Dec 27, 2007 17:52:12 GMT -5
She could probably prosecute under libel or slandar laws. I think there's a reason why mags don't usually show the faces of people's pictures they take on the streets for fashion no no's and such. I believe they have to have your permission just to put you on TV or they could be sued. Yeah, I think that's right. On the net? I don't know.
Take care, CD
|
|