Cycle dealer in trouble

[Harry Potter]

Yes Andrew could have asked her, and yes he could have told her the reason for the picture. I think he had good intentions no harm done, She is just spoild and need a quick buck, I stil ask why not 10 000, why go 750 000. They will settle outside court. This will come back and bite her, Die wiel draai.

[Underachiever]

now' date=' if it was Suzette Van der Merwe, the Lab would have made millions out of me alone...[/quote']

 

Mmm..why go for a Miss SA

 

Kerry

Roxy

Megan

Dominique

Lee-Ann

etc,etc

 

The opportunities are endless..........

[Joe Low]

Cycle Lab should have used a picture of Ali in the ad- she's better looking. Then at least if Ali sued it would have stayed in the family

 

AM is quoted as saying that he needed a picture of a 'woman of colour' so am guessing his Mrs didnt fit the bill.

 

[pastapouch]

Cycle Lab should have used a picture of Ali in the ad- she's better looking. Then at least if Ali sued it would have stayed in the family

 

AM is quoted as saying that he needed a picture of a 'woman of colour' so am guessing his Mrs didnt fit the bill.

 

well, thats why it failed. Cause black is a lack of colour. Also why the rainbow nation fails... the brightest colour isn't part of the nation. But thats another topic

[Gerhardc]

My opinion....she out to make a quick buck....please did you hear her story yesterday about how she fumed when she read about the connection to "pink" i.e. cyclelab's pink range for ladies....they all should have settled this out of court!! reads like a Holywood newspaper story!!

[dirtrider]

And I hope she gets nothing and gets slapped with a moerse legal bill .

[ErikV]

So does anyone have a copy of the picture to post here? Would be really interesting to see if she appears to be aware of the camera and the fact that a picture was taken.

 

If she knew a photo was taken, it would only have been pro-active and prudent to ask the photographer what he intended doing with the photo - if she's such a celeb, surely she could have taken prohibitive action.

 

 

 

Oh yes, but then she would not be able to claim 500 000 for work that she never did. Gravy train, graft, it's all the same.

[alanw]

Having read the comments on six pages of this I cant believe there are so many stupid, childish twits involved in cycling.

 

She does have a case and it doesn't matter whether it was Helen Z, Anneline K or Bambi Woods ..... you can't use anyone in an add just because you have their picture.

Exeptions are when it is a crowd shot at an event .....there are many laws governing all this.

[dirtrider]

Ja sure sherlock and she would have received R750000 for such a photo was she tasked to do it "legally" !!

[covie]

Alan, becuase people have opinions that makes them stupid childish twits? I suggest you climb back into the test tube you were hatched in.

 

And please if you can't appreciate other peoples thoughts opinion and feelings the only advice i can give you is remember to cut vertically all the way down.

covie2010-05-06 02:52:31

[timbrink]

Alan - well said. Opinions are fine, but they should be based on common sense!

 

 

 

Let's imagine this situation - I use Andrew as an example, but it would be the case for any sponsored rider:

 

 

 

Andrew is at a mate's house, and his mate has the new XXXX* in his garage. Andrew takes it for a whirl around the block, and somebody takes a pic of Andrew, on a bike that is in competition to the ones he is sponsored to ride, and he is riding without a helmet (it is just around the block!!!), but has a big smile because, obviously, this is a lekker bike and a treat compared to the usual nonsense he rides. They send it off to the folk at XXXX*, who use it in an advertisement.

 

 

 

Andrew sees the advertisement, and now has to explain to his sponsors why he is endorsing this brand, and to his clients why they should always wear helmets when he doesn't.

 

 

 

Rightly, he institutes legal proceedings... how many folks here would tell him he is being ridiculous/money-grabbing/attention-seeking?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Insert a brand here

[covie]

The general consensus is not that Cycle Lab is right and that Miss SA is wrong. The point being mostly focused on is.

1.  Her problem according to the articles is not the use of the photo for  advertising purposes. Its the fact that she feels "degraded" by the foto since she looked like an average joe.

 

2.  Is the amount of money that she is claiming for which is ridiculous since if its such a degrading photo how effective could it be in a campaing and how much money could cycle lab have made with apparently such a degrading sub standard photo.

 

3. Sure CL should not have gone to this type of advertising tactic, and yes they should pay an realistic amount of damages/penalties.

 

Tim to counter your statements if her photo gets published in heat magazine will she sue too? since each photo in those magazines are an advert for the sale of the magazine in itself.

 

Which brings me to the point that if she see's that pic as degrading then she should not be an ambasodor for any type of product in the market, simply becuase she deems her natural appearance to be sub standard.

[Gerhardc]

Having read the comments on six pages of this I cant believe there are so many stupid' date=' childish twits involved in cycling.

 

?

 

She does have a case and it doesn't matter whether it was Helen Z, Anneline K or Bambi Woods ..... you can't use anyone in an add just because you have their picture.

 

Exeptions are when it is a crowd shot at an event .....there are many laws governing all this.

[/quote']

 

-----

 

Welcome to The HUB Alanw...the w stands for tWit...

 

 

 

We never said she does not have a case....she's out for a quick buck and she will probably get a few thousand, but R750,000 ya sure!!! They both should have settled this out of court....

 

 

 

Keep your smart remarks comming.....

[Gregzilla]

Have to agree with Alan, dont just defend cycle lab as a knee jerk reaction, this is a legal case she has a very strong case and will most likely win why? because its illegal to use someone's picture for the purpose of advertising without there consent simple, cycle lab is guilty, do not think they did not know what they were doing when they chose that specific picture. Cmon they chose it to get free publicity based on the fact that she is a celebrity of sorts, they new what they were doing was illegal and now they are caught they must pay

[Myra]

Having read the comments on six pages of this I cant believe there are so many stupid' date=' childish twits involved in cycling.

 

She does have a case and it doesn't matter whether it was Helen Z, Anneline K or Bambi Woods ..... you can't use anyone in an add just because you have their picture.

Exeptions are when it is a crowd shot at an event .....there are many laws governing all this.

[/quote']
-----
Welcome to The HUB Alanw...the w stands for tWit...

We never said she does not have a case....she's out for a quick buck and she will probably get a few thousand, but R750,000 ya sure!!! They both should have settled this out of court....

Keep your smart remarks comming.....

 

Do you even know the background?

 

How is she out for a quick buck if she offered to settle on the basis of an apology and Cyclelab paying R100 000.00 to charity?  I think that was pretty big of her.  Cyclelab will easily end up paying that in legal fees.

[covie]

Nothingess thats news to me none of the articles i have seen and there have been many and all of them refer to she saying SHE has to be compensated sinc Cycle Lab made money at HER expense.

 

Do you have a link to the article that talks about the settlement?