A picture worth millions...

This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

A part of the generous verdict might be that some operatives
at Nestle tried to deny who was on the image, and that the
juries usually tend to be 'generous' against corporations!

Thomas

In article , says...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

A part of the generous verdict might be that some operatives
at Nestle tried to deny who was on the image, and that the
juries usually tend to be 'generous' against corporations!

Thomas

In either case, Nestle will look foolish if the award is upheld, or
exceeds $8.5 million.

"At one point, Nestle tried to settle the case for $100,000. Christoff
declined. His side, in turn, offered to settle for $8.5 million. Nestle
rejected the offer."

I'd say in general, courts tend to award big amounts for copyright
violations and the such - this is really a branch of that. What price
could you put on usage of your likeness?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

In article , says...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

A part of the generous verdict might be that some operatives
at Nestle tried to deny who was on the image, and that the
juries usually tend to be 'generous' against corporations!

Thomas

In either case, Nestle will look foolish if the award is upheld, or
exceeds $8.5 million.

"At one point, Nestle tried to settle the case for $100,000. Christoff
declined. His side, in turn, offered to settle for $8.5 million. Nestle
rejected the offer."

I'd say in general, courts tend to award big amounts for copyright
violations and the such - this is really a branch of that. What price
could you put on usage of your likeness?

Untold millions :-)
Aren't we all in love with ourselves? Most of us anyway! I am
just kidding! The issue here is a bit different, I suppose:

He as a model could not have demanded such money from Nestle or
from any other company on the day of the shoot! He was promised
one payment of $2000 *if* any of the images would be used
commercially. Otherwise they would be using any other model.

So let's assume that he indeed never received such payment, we
speak of a 7 years late payment of $2000 + interest. Of course,
if he was able to prove that at some time Nestle tried to deny
that this was his image on the coffee jar, a big part of the
verdict might have been in fact a punitive fee against Nestle.

My friend, who is a PR specialist, told me that one more significant
aspect was to consider: If he would have been notified 1997 by
Nestle that his image is being used on label of a mass product,
this would be a very attractive entry in his resume and portfolio.
His career as a model and/or maybe even his acting career might
have been different and not ended up in a kindergarten outside of
the Bay Area proper in a, let call it by name, comparatively low
income area. He told me that such consideration might have been
also taken into account.

This is a very interesting legal and moral issue in many aspects.

Thomas


--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

In my opinion, no. He should get the $2000, plus the back interest on the
$2000, plus his court costs. (lawyers, fees, & etc.) any more than that is
just what Bush was talking about when he spoke out against, "frivolous law
suits". The modern tendency to sock it to anyone just because they have a
lot of money has grown out of the people's lack of knowledge about
capitalism and how it works. Most people don't even understand their own
economic system.....

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
"Brian C. Baird" wrote:

In article , says...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

A part of the generous verdict might be that some operatives
at Nestle tried to deny who was on the image, and that the
juries usually tend to be 'generous' against corporations!

Thomas

In either case, Nestle will look foolish if the award is upheld, or
exceeds $8.5 million.

"At one point, Nestle tried to settle the case for $100,000. Christoff
declined. His side, in turn, offered to settle for $8.5 million. Nestle
rejected the offer."

I'd say in general, courts tend to award big amounts for copyright
violations and the such - this is really a branch of that. What price
could you put on usage of your likeness?

Untold millions :-)
Aren't we all in love with ourselves? Most of us anyway! I am
just kidding! The issue here is a bit different, I suppose:

He as a model could not have demanded such money from Nestle or
from any other company on the day of the shoot! He was promised
one payment of $2000 *if* any of the images would be used
commercially. Otherwise they would be using any other model.

So let's assume that he indeed never received such payment, we
speak of a 7 years late payment of $2000 + interest. Of course,
if he was able to prove that at some time Nestle tried to deny
that this was his image on the coffee jar, a big part of the
verdict might have been in fact a punitive fee against Nestle.

My friend, who is a PR specialist, told me that one more significant
aspect was to consider: If he would have been notified 1997 by
Nestle that his image is being used on label of a mass product,
this would be a very attractive entry in his resume and portfolio.
His career as a model and/or maybe even his acting career might
have been different and not ended up in a kindergarten outside of
the Bay Area proper in a, let call it by name, comparatively low
income area. He told me that such consideration might have been
also taken into account.

This is a very interesting legal and moral issue in many aspects.

Thomas

Yes....After I made my comment above, I too thought of this. If he could
prove that he left the modeling field partly because of the failure of
Nestlé's to use his image, then he would definitely have a case for more
money. But if Nestlé's could prove that he would have left modeling for
teaching anyway, then he does not.

On 5-Feb-2005, "William Graham" wrote:

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

In my opinion, no. He should get the $2000, plus the back interest on the
$2000, plus his court costs. (lawyers, fees, & etc.) any more than that is

just what Bush was talking about when he spoke out against, "frivolous law

suits". The modern tendency to sock it to anyone just because they have a
lot of money has grown out of the people's lack of knowledge about
capitalism and how it works. Most people don't even understand their own
economic system.....

First, the payout for a multi-year international ad and product use would
probably be more like $200,000.

Second, this is NOT what Bush or most people call a frivolous lawsuit, there
are real and significant damages to an individual.

Third, the point of punitive damages is to discourage defendants from doing
the illegal behavior. If the plaintiff in this case were to only receive his
actual damages, the company would have no incentive to pay anyone. They
could use any image without payment and only pay if caught.

15 million may be excessive, but significant punitive damages are certainly
justified.

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)

In article , says...
This is a very interesting legal and moral issue in many aspects.

Not really. The moment Nestle failed to pay him the $2,000 promised, it
was in breach of contract. Everything is renegotiable after that point,
if I remember correctly.

But yes, his career could have led him somewhere other than the label -
TV commercials, etc.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , Tom
Thackrey wrote:

First, the payout for a multi-year international ad and product use would
probably be more like $200,000.

Perhaps... but not if he'd agreed to accept $2000. I somehow doubt this
individual was enough of a "name" to be paid proportionate to the
usage.

I've done (years back) a bit of photography for large corporations. The
details of this case MAY be different, but companies like Nestle just
don't go out of their way to screw people out of $2000. It's not even
worth the effort for them. In fact, it's pretty likely Nestle never
heard of or dealt with this guy before the lawsuit - he was probably a
couple of layers removed through agencies and such.

I'm 99% sure the problem was the equivalent of lost paperwork, or some
flunky who replied "Uh...sure!" when asked if this particular image was
cleared for use.

In my opinion, $100K was a handsome offer, and $8.5M was just
extortion, taking advantage of fear of our out of control jury awards.

Awarding an individual more than he'd likely have earned for a fifetime
of work, because of what was most likely a paperwork error. is a
PERFECT example of what's wrong in this country.

"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

A part of the generous verdict might be that some operatives
at Nestle tried to deny who was on the image, and that the
juries usually tend to be 'generous' against corporations!

Thomas

See my post in this NG on 2/1/05, titled: "Commercial photo use w/o
release???"
Sign,
me

"Tom Thackrey" wrote in message
t...
On 5-Feb-2005, "William Graham" wrote:
"ThomasH" wrote in message
...
This is a strange story...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,5401527.story

What do you think, does he deserves that much for (seemingly)
an unpaid bill of $2000?

In my opinion, no. He should get the $2000, plus the back interest on
the
$2000, plus his court costs. (lawyers, fees, & etc.) any more than that
is

just what Bush was talking about when he spoke out against, "frivolous
law

suits". The modern tendency to sock it to anyone just because they have
a
lot of money has grown out of the people's lack of knowledge about
capitalism and how it works. Most people don't even understand their own
economic system.....

First, the payout for a multi-year international ad and product use would
probably be more like $200,000.

Second, this is NOT what Bush or most people call a frivolous lawsuit,
there
are real and significant damages to an individual.

Third, the point of punitive damages is to discourage defendants from
doing
the illegal behavior. If the plaintiff in this case were to only receive
his
actual damages, the company would have no incentive to pay anyone. They
could use any image without payment and only pay if caught.

15 million may be excessive, but significant punitive damages are
certainly
justified.

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com
tom (at) creative (dash) light (dot) com
do NOT send email to (it's reserved for spammers)

Tom your excellent observations are totally correct. The size of the
judgement *must at least* in part be based on the capacity of the business
to pay such damages. If not then businesses especially large corporations
with millions to spend on legal skullduggery will consider it a green light
to steal (injure? maim? kill? etc) individuals.
Sign,
me