Skip to comments.Woman sues Getty after photo appears in HIV ad
Posted on 09/19/2013 11:54:56 PM PDT by Arthurio
A Brooklyn woman is suing a major stock photo company after she found her image splashed across ads in city newspapers about the rights of HIV-positive people.
A perfectly healthy Avril Nolan, 25, was alerted by Facebook and her pilates instructor after a quarter-page color ad ran in the free newspaper am New York on April 3, 2012.
Next to her face were the words I am positive (+) and I have rights.
The message, paid for by the New York State Division of Human Rights, continued that people who are HIV positive are protected by the New York State Human Rights Law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I thought having AIDS was nothing to be ashamed of?
The honorable thing to do would be to apologize and pay her the money...in fact, double the amount.
Just goes to show images that we see are not always what they seem. I am sure her photo is at an Obama event somewhere.
Just the same, I’m not taking any chances with her.
You do NOT have a right to spread your disease to unwary “partners”.
I think that is a felony.
Sue them till they beg for mercy
and then sue them some more.
They were being PC, of course
By the way, what is a “pilates instructor”?
Please don’t tell me she flies planes.
It's not the AIDS she's ashamed of, it's the inference that she hops into bed with homosexuals.
I mean, it's not as if there wouldn't be exabytes of images out there without them.
Management really needs to get us a LIKE button.
Couldn’t happen to nicer bunch of copyright trolls. (Getty, I mean.)
Assuming that everyone is being honest here, the victim should be asking for FAR more in damages. I suspect that the only reason that her attorney chose a lower amount is to avoid the appearance of being politically incorrect.
This is really awful. She is young, and now that her “name” is attached to the image it will follow her throughout her life. She will be presumed HIV positive, or a lawsuit threat...just great for her future endeavors.
She had no choice but to go public, as the article mentions that some of her clients advertise in the publication. Although it was brought to her attention by people who were close to her, one can assume that her clients & business acquaintances saw it as well.
If I were on a jury in a case like this, presuming the facts in the article are correct, I would award lottery-like damages.
Photographers take photos of models.
Models sign release forms.
Photographers sell total rights to photo to Getty.
Getty sells/”rents” rights to photo to other people.
She may have no legal recourse if she signed away her rights of use when modeling for the photographer.
Hopefully, the paper trail is in place, and Getty takes a hit!
If she signed away her rights to her image, she’s out of luck.
Whereas for valuable consideration hereby acknowledged as received, the Model granted the Photographer permission to photograph and/or film and sound record the Model and furthermore grant permission to use the resulting work (”the Work”) according to the terms stated hereunder:
1. Any permission granted to the Photographer shall extend to his/her successors, legal representatives, licensees and assigns and shall be irrevocable and perpetual without any further or additional claim for compensation by the Model.
2. Use of the Work shall be unrestricted as to location, quantity or frequency, may be for any purpose and in any medium whatsoever, whether foreseen or unforeseen at this time, except where such use is in contravention of the law.
3. Permission is specifically granted for the Work to be edited, altered, distorted, used in whole or in part, in conjunction with other images, graphics, text and sound in any way whatsoever and without restrictions.
4. Permission herein granted is absolute and final and shall not be subject to further inspection or approval by the Model at any stage in the use of the Work.
However, the fact remains, she's been screwed, and she can and should throw that in Getty's face with abandon.
There's court. And there's the court of public opinion.
Well, clearly her lawyer maintains that Nolan never signed a release authorizing tbe photographer to sell her likeness to a third party and that Getty breaks state law requiring signed releases for commercial images. It shouldn’t be difficult to determine the basic facts in this case.
If you didn't say it, I was going to. I hope she beats the snot out of them.
That’s true and I do feel for her but you have to read a contract before you sign.
I’d be mortified if it were me and in the past, I’ve gotten my images pulled from sites that used them without permission.
Once, a person refused to remove them and their web host zotted their site to avoid further legal action.
You have to know your digital rights.
I hope she retained a copy of the original release.
Usually, the release includes exclusions and exceptions where desired/required by either party.
If she can produce that release or the photog *can’t*, she’s golden.
Depends on whether she sold the rights to her image to the stock photo company. I’ll bet you they have a piece of paper with her signature on it.
“Since over 80% of HIV infected persons in the USA are male, it is a little strange that they would choose a woman for the ad, isnt it?”
They are pretending it is not primarily a disease of gay men.
“They were being PC, of course”
That’s right; it is primarily a disease of homosexual men and drug users, and usually much darker than her.
It is an effort to get the average white person to feel some connection to AIDS (because they never have felt it).
It is an effort to get the average white person to feel some connection to AIDS (because they never have felt it).Yeah, they have been trying to create that impression since the 1980s. Political Correctness is a brain disease.
“Yeah, they have been trying to create that impression since the 1980s. Political Correctness is a brain disease.”
It was a little easier in the 80s when innocent people were infected via blood transfusions; sadly those people have passed on, and we are left with the people that are actively spreading it.
"If any Licensed Material featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or controversial to a reasonable person (except for Editorial Material used in an editorial manner), Licensee must accompany each such use with a statement that indicates that: (i) the Licensed Material is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Licensed Material, if any, is a model."
I would say that this was pretty unflattering and controversial and there apparently was no statement indicating "illustrative purposes".
Pilates is an exercise system that focuses on body tone. The method results in long, lean muscles rather than bulk. It improves posture and balance, and is very good for your back. If you are in an urban area, there are no doubt several studios and instructors where you live.
Only one in five HIV positive people in the United States are women, but women seem to make up about 100% of the people you see in mainstream HIV public service ads. I wonder why that is?
“If she signed away her rights to her image, shes out of luck.”
Didn’t Facebook recently claim all rights to photos pasted on their pages? I’m sure they are busy selling them to sources such as the one that used the chicks’ photo.
Just Mexican planes.
According to the story, she never signed away her rights to the photographer or to Getty Images. If you believe the article, Getty Images found the photograph in the photographer’s work and stole it without ever notifying the photographer.
I’m so tired of trying to debunk this homo scam. God, how many years now. Ok, let’s just try to simplify it. Magic Johnson is still alive and well (although had he taken AZT he’d be dead now); and the HIV test is an ANTIBODY test, not an antigen test. No one is going to die from HIV unless you have insulted your immune system with massive amounts of illegal drugs, antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals. (homosexuals). This so incredibly stupid one can only assume the ignorant masses all flunked introductory biology.............Good grief!
Nolan, who works in p.r., says a New York photographer, Jena Cumbo, snapped the shot years ago but had no written release or authorization to use or sell it....
...The suit maintains Getty never requested proof that [Nolan] had executed a legally enforceable and binding written model release.
The Getty is screwed and rightfully so.
I hope she hammers them good.