“In any event, I doubt the law suit would survive a motion to dismiss anyway.”
The restaurant owner would have to show a written release of all rights to Chelsea’s image, signed by her.
You can’t simply use someone’s photo in an environment like that as an implied endorsement. To push the point in a legal proceeding, the restaurant owner would lose, and he know’s it, but he’s milking this for more publicity.
Can’t blame him for that.
I don't think so. She doesn't make money off the use of her likeness, like a movie star would, and the lawyers themselves make the point that she is a "private person."
So it's not like he's infringing on the rights to her likeness, and costing her any money. So what damages does she have?
You mean to tell me that if the owner wanted to take a picture of a full dining room at his restaurant and put it on the wall, he would have to get a release from every person in the picture? I don't think so.
Moreover, she was in a public place when the photo was taken (restaurants are deemed to be public places, which is why the can't discriminate). So she cannot claim that she had an expectation of privacy.
Think about newspapers like the National Enquirer, which photograph movie stars at the beach and then publish close-ups of their cellulite on the front page. You think the paparazzi and the newspapers pay the stars royalties for those pictures? (They don't.)
I'm sure her lawyers would argue your position, but I think it would be a non-starter in court.