Cycle dealer in trouble

[covie]

I personally agree with most of the sentiments in this article

 

http://hurricanevanessa.com/?p=14848

[ErikV]

Here is some perspective.

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222580214035638.html?mod=WSJ_hp_editorsPicks

[Racingsnail]

I don't think we, the general public will ever know what negotiations have taken place behind closed doors. There may well have been offers to reconcile financially and apologies offered...end of the day the money she is asking for in compensation is pathetic. If she is so concerned about her public image, she could have handled this episode better.

Her concern is that she looked unflattering, more than the fact that the image was used. I agree that celebs have to work at and survive on thier image...but this is more suited to the USA than RSA.

[IanC]

Well the foto were taken by one of the shop assistants. Which is a cyclist and not a model agent. He were told to take a foto of the next non white lady in the new section. Probably the first any of them knew that she is a celeb is when she started complaining about the ad. If the foto is of sub standard features probably no one will recognise her in the ad and that might be her actual problem.

[Danger Dassie]

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.

 

Articles only show some of the facts from the legal brief. And actually even in news reports her argument is against use of the image for advertising and use without her permission.

In any case this is a consideration that the courts have to consider.

 

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.

 

According to who?

It may well be that she is overstating her case' date=' this still has to be proven. Anyone who goes to court for a settlement generally claims a higher amount than required, as there is a good chance that if the judgement is in her favour, the amount awarded shall be substantially less than claimed.

The effectiveness of the photo is irrelavent to a large degree, it is the usage and depiction that is being challenged.

 

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

 

Again, what is realistic? That is for the courts to decide now, according to the facts. Like projected roi on ad revenue etc...

The fact also is, no release form is forthcoming.

The people who were commisioned to compile the ad should be made partly liable here as well, thats my opinion though. I don't believe Cycle Lab should be made the whipping post for this entire episode.

 

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.

 

It's editorial usage' date=' look it up. Editorial is the distribution of information in the public interest/consumption it's a completely different scenario altogether.

Loosely defined, editorial is tied into press freedom and the use of images taken in public spaces or scenarios.

 

Something in an ad campaign or suchlike is for capital gain and commercially promoting a product/entity/brand. This requires a model release, finish and klaar, the same goes for some locations.

Mandela Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty etc or a private property have give permission by way of a location release for commercial usage.

 

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.

 

Which personality or 'celeb' promotes a product in a natural appearance as you put it?

She never deemed her natural appearance to be sub standard, you came up with that all on your own.

[mallo]

Based on this statement she had gone the simple route first

 

 

 

"She contacted the store through her lawyers, demanding a retraction of the advert, an apology and R100,000 to be donated to charity.

 

 

 

?They treated my gesture with disdain and disregard,? she said."

 

We will never know how the Lab lawyers responded hence the action now

 

 

 

 

[Ghostface]

Found the Ad! 2007 Jan/Feb Bicycling.

Edit: dateGhostface2010-05-06 04:51:45

[kamikaze]

show us the ad!

 

let the people decide if it was unflattering.

 

 

 

just another thought - if the picture was unflattering and damaged her image to such an extent that she suffered a finacial loss of around R750 000, why then would she approach cycle lab and ask them to donate the money to charity?

 

 

 

if i suffer a fiancial loss i dont ask for the money to be given to someon else?

 

 

 

this chick is on a power trip, trying to force CL to suffer a financal blow just because SHE said so (by donating to charity), but her bluff didnt work.

 

 

 

now to save face she's claiming damages.kamikaze2010-05-06 05:08:10

[scotty]

Reading whats emerging,  if Cyclelab were stubborn and dismissed her initial complaint with comptempt then she has a point.

[Mr. G]

They should know better about a brand!

[Ghostface]

http://web14.twitpic.com/img/96537606-14446da473ffd0e9a9a0c811c7d517e5.4be2946c-scaled.jpg

[Ghostface]

http://web2.twitpic.com/img/96536975-1277d564eb010e8dc3ff9df0a1bc9d24.4be294a1-scaled.jpg

[SWM1]

Man! I'd also sue if I looked like that!

 

 

 

[kamikaze]

that person in the photo seems VERY aware of what is happening - looking directly at the camera and smiling.

 

had they not explained to her what it was to be used for, she should have immediately asked.

 

 

 

i say - dont act dumb and try and pretend like you didnt know they were taking a photo for publicity puprposes.

 

 

 

seems like her ego got the better of her in the moment, so she posed, and afterwards she realized how dumb she was to pose for a photo that she could have made a few rand off. things turned ugly and now she's suing.

 

 

 

Man! I'd also sue if I looked like that! ?

 

 

 

 

sue god for giving you a face like that.....kamikaze2010-05-06 05:18:30

[Racingsnail]

Is it seriously from 2007? Three years old...I know the legal process takes time, but why has it only been exposed now? Cash flow problems?

[Myra]

Is it seriously from 2007? Three years old...I know the legal process takes time' date=' but why has it only been exposed now? Cash flow problems?[/quote']

 

One can wait up to two years just to get a court date, and prior to applying for a date letters of demand and pleadings are exchanged.  Three years is not a long time.  It has not "only been exposed now" - it would have been instigated back in 2007.  There's absolutely not basis upon which you can infer that she may have had cash flow problems, especially in light of her offer to accept the contribution to the charity in lieu of damages.